Morality of Eating Meat

[Dtergent]

You are presupposing that
1. A moral argument must be universalizable across situations and
2. The valuation of non-human animal life requires moral equality of humans and other animals.

What he said

 

[ebola?]

>>How is it that one can simultaneously value animal life, but also be prepared to destroy it to ensure human survival? It's all or nothing. . .>>

Why the hell is it all or nothing? I would probably save a family member from a burning building before I would save a complete stranger. I would probably kill in self-defense. Does this make me a misanthrope?

>>Within one person, a set of morals should probably be consistent, or else what do they really mean?>>

But an adequate moral system will also take into account situational contingencies. It can still remain consistent, but will be more complex. As a side note, I don't think most moral formulations are internally consistent. Different principles will often conflict with one another. Of course, I don't think an adequate system of formal logic can be internally consistent either.

ebola

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

meat is just like fruit or vegitables... just harder to catch... it's all just energy... TIA

 

[Jabberwocky]

Wow. There is alot of polorization amongst the argumentators.... i cant spell. Any ways, I do not like being lumped together in categories, but i guess claiming im a vegan has done that to me. As for you argument about taking an animal life to save my own, it is against my spiritual morals to do so. So yes i would die before i took an animals life. I dont even use antibiotics becaus ei cannot find one that is either not cultured in animal proteans or has a delivery system in conjunction with refined sugar or lactose.

It is easy to claim the moral ground in the world we live in because we have access to many foods that vegans would choose to eat instead of meat. I like the idea of testing myself in the savanah. i most likely would die.

I really dont have any argument with what has been said because hte nature of the arguments being lobbied amongst you tells me about each and everyone of the arguers. You all have valid histories and social interactions on both sides of the debate that has brought you to your point of view. It isnt right to force your opinion on anyone who doesnt care for it. It cannot be a double standard though. The pro meat side cannot force there opinon on the herbivores either.

If it was a sharing of ideas why someone eats and doesnt eat meat we might get somewhere but in order for a discussion to take place both parties must be willing to discuss take into consideration of someones argument and evolve their own view accordingly.

This is an argument and at the end the only people who have won are the ones watching for entertainment.

Live well all and think of others before you think of yourselves it might teach you something.

Phil

 

[doesntmatter]

^^^

i completely agree. i hate organizations like PETA which force thier opinions on others and lie over and over about their profit situation.

ofcourse not everybody that is vegan or vegitarian is for PETA ( because PETA is run by money hungry predators of human nature.)

most people dont' want to hurt animals. however not everyone believs that animals are equal to humans.

we could easily shape up the way the meat is produced if we would consider it as a priority.

i don't think eating meat it wrong, but hurting an animal just because it saves money is.

 

[vegan]

Certain plants like grass for instance, we cannot eat because we can't digest it. But cows can eat them, thats what they evolved to eat. Grass grows quickly and abundantly, without draining the soil of nutrients. Why feel bad about "wasting" grass? Many people don't realize that eating herivores do not drain more resources than eating plants. Think of grass as a renewable food source that never runs out.

you proposed that plants could desire to live as much as animals
well, grass is as much a plant as tomato

the surface used for grass/etc. could be just used for other plants that humans could consume directly
(and in practice, animals are not just fed plants that humans can't digest)

All organisms "desire" to live, plants included. No need to see if they have senses or similar physiology to us. All you need to look at is the fact that they have evolved in such a way as to increase their ability to survive.

i sure see that they "evolve to live", but i see no proof that it is a conscious step
nor for humans. as far as we know, we don't consciously mutate, it happens without individual will

The lack of a central nervous system in plants only indicate that they don't feel what we understand as pain. Though someone indicated that plants do react to damage which might be analogous to pain.

that's what i have been saying :
we're not sure that plants feel pain as we know it
we're sure that animals feel pain as we know it
eating directly plants lower the consummation of both animals and plants anyway
so what justification is there in eating animals instead of plants?

It is possible to kill an animal without inflicting pain. If pain is the only criteria for not killing an animal, we can still kill them as long as they don't suffer pain.
I was arguing about the life issue, about the value of animal life itself, so pain is omitted.

and about the life issue, i mentioned the interest (shown by their behaviour) that animals have in not dying

but anyway, although the arguments relating to pain and life are different, none of those 2 themes can be overlooked, since breeding without suffering doesn't exist in this society where 90% of farming is intensive

and since your argument is that vegetative state = just reacting to negative stimuli = ok to hurt, you're saying it is ok to hurt/kill a retarded human

If A=B and B=C, therefore A=C only works in mathematics, not when you're applying ethics. By your method, this next statement must be true:

God is love. Love is blind. Therefore Ray Charles must be God, right? Doesn't work. It's a mere syllogism and ignores reason.

that's a lame example, as neither "god is love" nor "love is blind" are certain statements
but although i see what you mean, i'll remind you that i'm just using your own logic here to show you its limit.
(you said : " the argument that animals might not have the human-like consciousness we project them to have, making it universally moral to eat them?"
" But doesn't a creature need self-consciousness in order to realize what pain is? Otherwise you would just have a simple reaction to negative stimuli, no? ")
i don't personally believe in it

you're the one who applied this logic to animals
now explain to us why using exactly the same logic is not logical anymore when applied to humans in "vegetative states" (= non human-like consciousness)!?

Then how is it that we can be taught to reason, debate about other animals, and come to realize self-awareness, yet we cannot teach the same thing to an animal? You can't teach an animal to reason therefore you can't compare an infant to an animal.

the very thing i was explaining was the various degrees of (self)-consciousness
showing that infants share a similar degree of consciousness with many animals
although their keeps evolving much faster
so, since for you "Consciousness is absolute, you either have to have it or not" , what do you make of infants?
do you deny that they are partly conscious?
why could they be but not animls?

Chinese (or any other race or culture you wish to use) are human. We know what it's like to be human because we experience it. When it comes to animals, we use contemporary phenomenology to at least grasp what we are trying to understand

cows are mammals and we know what it's like to be mammals because we experience it
you shouldn't stop empathy where it suits you but where it applies
if you're trying to understand if animals feels pain, you have to look if they share the same traits of metabolism that allow you to feel pain
bad news, they do

What it's like to be Chinese and what it's like to be a fruit bat are totally opposite concepts and that's why we debate on the areas of consciousness, self-awareness, and pain.

don't stray too far, we're going to lose you

You only say that because what he theorizes goes against your own personal beliefs. He is considered one of the most influential thinkers of modern philosophy. This thread wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the notions he intoduced and you can't just dismiss it because it goes against your argument.

he may have been an influential thinker, he was a selfish motherfucker none the less
just as newton was a pure genius but was, it seems, an obnoxious person
but don't worry that this thread would exist without descartes
there's not just one path through history
it wouldn't have been descartes, it would have been someone else
and maybe this someone else would even have avoided us some errors of descartes

You can't draw a line in terms of a specific time but there is a line somewhere. If there wasn't a line, we wouldn't be having this discussion, no?

you're avoiding to answer
if you can't show me where consciousness appeared between human and pre-homo sapiens human, you'll have to admit than and pre-homo sapiens humans (= ape) were (partly conscious. just as infants and animals

before being able to have this specific discussion, humans were only able to have more limited discussions
yet they were already conscious
consciousness exists at very different stages in different animals and throughout evolution

that we're having this discussion doesn't show any line in evolution, but on the other hand shows the results of a long and continuous evolution

Actually you shouldn't be on the computer considering it most likely contains animal-derived adhesives

what animal-derived adhesives does it contain?
so i can try to avoid them in the future

Of course we have to stop. If we don't, then you would agree that bacteria have consciousness and would not require chemotaxis, yet they do which indicates they lack consciousness/self-awareness.

i said "consciousness just decreases asymptotically in all living organisms as those are more simple"
no one expects a living organism with a consciousness existing but virtually nil to have any kind of intelligent behaviour
yes, i believe bacteria may very well hold the slightest form of consciousness possible
and no, i don't see why the fact that they move according to their chemical environment would prove otherwise
don't forget too fast how much we humans are also totally slaves of the chemical reactions happening in our brains

Actually, it's not that far fetched. These are from that same web site.

all it say is "if you don't get your intake from X, you'll have to get it from something else"

trying to dramatize it is the same as telling a meat eater "if you stop eating oranges, you're risking vitamin deficiencies. you'll absolutely have to replace it with kiwi"
the question is not about meat/no meat diets but about any change of diet

Sounds quite tough to be this vigilent though.

from the 1st quote : "may...partially true"
from the 2nd quote : " may ... occasionally "
from the 3rd quote : " Recommended "
from the 4th quote : " is believed to ... some"
from the 5th quote : "may"

no, don't worry, it's not tough at all
their job is just not to leave any risk possible because of negligence

without checking, i can tell you to look at the rest of the web site and be sure that you'll find thousands of those recommendations, applying to meat based diets
yet you never think about it or consider it tough to be vigilant of your neat based diet
they give advice for optimised diets
that doesn't mean that not following these advices will get you sick

I'd like to see what the vegetarians come up with in response to the fact that killing a cow does not mean it felt any pain. An electric shock is instantaneous and the animal would be dead before the pain signal was ever consciously perceived.

well, we didn't wait for you to mention that pain is not the only problem. since if it were, you yourself wouldn't have a problem with me killing you painlessly

but by the way, for those who have been living on their fluffy cloud, i'll have the regret to inform you that painless killing is only theory
the electric shock is not supposed to kill the animal but to stunt it before the killing
however, when too many time the animal is still very conscious after the shock, what do you think they do? shock it again? in your dreams. they're only animals, why waste time on them when you can cut them open alive

Why not eat free range cows?

when you go to the restaurant or buy meat at the store, do you ask if it's free range?
well, then it's not
90% of all farming is intensive
and be assured that when it's free range it's written on the package. so whenever you buy "just meat", it's not free range

but yes, i encourage you strongly to buy free range meat

And as payment, we merely ask that they serve as our food when they are mature!

in a contract, both parties have to agree

I think someone else posed this question already, but I didn't see an answer to it... Would it be wrong to eat meat if it was humanely raised and destroyed, in a pain free process?

" in their behaviour, animals show that they don't want to die
they try to prevent you from hurting them
so they show they have an interest in not dying and that it gives value to its life
so by killing it, you would infringe its freedom"

would it be "wrong" to kill you in a pain free process?

I don't think we can compare the value of an animal to that of a human.

why not?
there are even people who love their pets more than any other human
for them, their pet's life has more value than that of a human
that's their preference
yet if you yourself have your own preferences, for instance for members of your family rather than strangers, you can't possibly deny others their right to have preferences

i don't value animals' lives over humans, nor the other way around
i see no need for a hierarchy, all lives should be cared for
the "but if you had to save a human or an animal" question is as meaningless to me as "but if you had to save your dad or your mom"
yes you'll have to chose one depending on the case and on your preferences, but that doesn't mean you value one less than the other

i don't see why being part of a group by birth should make your life more important than that of others non belonging to this group
and i don't find any more justified to limit our group to our species rather than our race, family, or any other subjective limit. thus i try to not give any limits to "my group" and to empathize with the wider range of living beings possible

(also, to an animal, you can bet its life is more valuable than the life of a human)

Everyone has a right to eat whatever they want

someone's freedom stops where starts the one of others
you have the right to eat whatever you want... as long as you don't infringe someone else's freedom in the process
unfortunately, putting in a cage during all its life and killing at the end qualifies for "infringing someone's freedom"

Any vegan, if dropped off in the middle of the African savannah

next time you get dropped in the african savannah, you call me and we have lunch, ok?

putting forward examples that have nothing to do with the actual situation doesn't justify anything at all

let's see : you're on top of a building holding by one hand. both your mom and dad fall at the same time, you can only catch one, which one?
your mom?
ah! dad killer! yeah yeah, you said it, you'd kill your dad! ah ah! dad killer!
come one! give us a rest!

Any vegetarian would, if necessary, kill an animal in order to survive

i'll have to introduce you to a few vegetarians who don't fit what you'd like them to be
oh, let me introduce myself first

So there is no "moral" argument

hey!
that was the biggest shortcut so far in the thread
because a vegetarian may kill an animal to survive if given no other choice, there's no moral argument??!
so because you'd kill someone to save your life if attacked means there's no moral argument in not killing when you don't have to???

And because of this, the pain argument is irrelevant! If you would kill another animal to survive in the wild....then you would be subjecting the animal to pain. Period.

that's the new biggest shortcut (use the same example as above, it's still good)

you'll also notice that when talking about pain, our main concern was not the killing, but the conditions of exploitation, which are a constant torture

Further, I believe that no herbivore would knowingly allow an animal to kill another human...proving that it is human life in general that is more valued (and not just their "own" human life).

that's just a special case of not letting anything kill anything. that has nothing to do with a scale a value

But it is certainly swifter than being taken down by a predator in the wild.

except for the waiting in line while seeing the other animals having their throats cut open and hearing their screams as it happens

wouldn't you have to keep killing animals as long as you wanted to survive? How many animals, exactly, would you kill before you let yourself die?

either in this thread or the closed one, that's what i've referred to as a senseless way of surviving
killing many lives to maintain one is senseless to me

I'm beginning to think that it's quite frivolous to debate on "how" the animals are killed or even "if" they feel pain. From my understanding, even if pain and inhumane treatment was totally taken from the equation, vegans would still not eat animal products

we see a huge difference between eating meat from free range of battery, long transport and no transport, painless killing and painful killing, eating a lot of meat and eating little meat, etc.
like for consciousness, there's not only black and white, there's many greys in between
and some of them are much prettier than others

It's all or nothing, you either value human life more than buffalo life or vice-versa.

you forgot the third option (already developed in this post) : not establishing any hierarchy between them and caring about both equally

And why shouldn't moral arguments be universal, because you say they shouldn't be?

Within one person, a set of morals should probably be consistent, or else what do they really mean?

because exceptions in extreme situations don't change anything to the arguments in normal cases
(example given before of you killing to save your life doesn't justify killing when you don't have to)

i hate organizations like PETA which force thier opinions on others

do you consider that amnesty international forces its opinions on others?
no?
then PETA doesn't either

PETA informs of a situation
you don't like to hear it because as a meat eater, their information puts you in the group that by changing their behaviour would improve the situation
which you probably consider as being labelled as the "bad group"
but instead of seeing this as an "attack", you should see this as an opportunity
we have the luck to have access to such information and to make our behaviour count

if i see a campaign telling me that the shoes i've been wearing are made by 10 years old kids, i don't see it as an attack against myself, i see it as a chance to improve the situation by boycotting this brand
if i see a campaign telling me that this product i'm eating is causing suffering, i don't see it as an attack against myself, i see it as a chance to improve the situation by boycotting this product

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

cows are mammals and we know what it's like to be mammals because we experience it
you shouldn't stop empathy where it suits you but where it applies
if you're trying to understand if animals feels pain, you have to look if they share the same traits of metabolism that allow you to feel pain
bad news, they do

and then you said..

don't stray too far, we're going to lose you

...in response to the fruit bat comparison.

So you can relate to a cow more than you can a fruit bat? If you view all animals equally, then how can you be less egocentric of one than another? It seems you're stopping where it "suits" YOUR argument.

that's a lame example, as neither "god is love" nor "love is blind" are certain statements
but although i see what you mean, i'll remind you that i'm just using your own logic here to show you its limit.
(you said : " the argument that animals might not have the human-like consciousness we project them to have, making it universally moral to eat them?"
" But doesn't a creature need self-consciousness in order to realize what pain is? Otherwise you would just have a simple reaction to negative stimuli, no? ")
i don't personally believe in it

you're the one who applied this logic to animals
now explain to us why using exactly the same logic is not logical anymore when applied to humans in "vegetative states" (= non human-like consciousness)!?

Whether the statements are certain or not isn't the point. It's funny how my examples are always lame and meaningless. LOL You can't use a universal example and equally appply it to the history of human/human relations and human/animal relations. In the US, we simply do not eat each other. And if that were the case, I would simply opt to not partake in eating a fellow human, much like you opt to not eat animals. That's just a my personal "belief". Just as you don't believe my non-humanilike consciouness statement to be true.

he may have been an influential thinker, he was a selfish motherfucker none the less
just as newton was a pure genius but was, it seems, an obnoxious person
but don't worry that this thread would exist without descartes
there's not just one path through history
it wouldn't have been descartes, it would have been someone else
and maybe this someone else would even have avoided us some errors of descartes

Selfish and obnoxious are purely subjective observations on your part. I appreciate what he has contributed to science and epistomology. I could care less about how people perceived his personality or that he believed in God - which I'm sure is a large reason why you dislike him.

PETA informs of a situation
you don't like to hear it because as a meat eater, their information puts you in the group that by changing their behaviour would improve the situation
which you probably consider as being labelled as the "bad group"
but instead of seeing this as an "attack", you should see this as an opportunity
we have the luck to have access to such information and to make our behaviour count

I'm sure I speak for the majority of people who eat animal products that consuming animal products has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with why we hate PETA. PETA's propaganda on animals rivals that of the governments propaganda on connecting drug use with terrorism. PETA is an organization that carries out irreverent campaigns under the guise of an organization acting upon their self-proclaimed, ultimate morals. It's not WHAT they're protesting against, it's HOW they go about it. And the vice president of PETA is diabetic and uses insulin, a drug that wouldn't be around if it wasn't for studies on animals. It's this type of hypocrisy that makes people scorn PETA.

 

[turnandburn]

so by killing it, you would infringe its freedom

This theme seems to keep coming up here. So, really, vegetarians/vegans shouldn't own pets at all, since your infringing upon it's freedom. Why do you get to dictate that animal's life? Whether it's a housecat or a dog that has a fenced backyard, tropical aquariums, etc, you are taking away it's freedom. Is horsebackriding cruel? If so, I must be a terrible, terrible person.

And I'm curious of your answer to this question: "Is it wrong for overcrowded, underfunded animal humane societies to euthanize a sick animal, when the thousands of dollars that might have saved that 1 sick animal's life could instead go, perhaps, to save 20 other, healthier animals' lives?"

 

[ebola?]

>>So, really, vegetarians/vegans shouldn't own pets at all, since your infringing upon it's freedom. >>

Some vegans would indeed argue this. I personally don't base my ethical orientation towards animals in terms of freedom.

>>"Is it wrong for overcrowded, underfunded animal humane societies to euthanize a sick animal, when the thousands of dollars that might have saved that 1 sick animal's life could instead go, perhaps, to save 20 other, healthier animals' lives?">>

Ummm...no. but thousands of dollars? And we could also point towards underfunding of animal shelters and careless attitude towards pets and breeding that overcrowds them in the first place.


ebola

 

[ebola?]

>>it wouldn't have been descartes, it would have been someone else
and maybe this someone else would even have avoided us some errors of descartes>>

This is off topic, but I think Descartes sent philosophy in a disappointing direction for a good couple hundred years. Complex numbers and cartesian coordinates are coo' though.

ebola

 

[turnandburn]

Ummm...no. but thousands of dollars? And we could also point towards underfunding of animal shelters and careless attitude towards pets and breeding that overcrowds them in the first place.


ebola

I work in a vet clinic, and yep, thousands of dollars. You'd better fucking believe it. It can get expensive real fast.

I guess I was more directing that at vegan though...

I am going to a lecture tomorrow by Peter Singer, should be interesting...

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

I work in a vet clinic, and yep, thousands of dollars. You'd better fucking believe it. It can get expensive real fast.

My girlfriend is a vet tech for a clinic in north suburban Chicago that provides the health care services for two animal shelters, Red Door and PAWS Chicago. Their overhead is astronomical. I had adopted a rabbit from Red Door (they're a no-kill animal shelter) and when all was said and done, it cost me nearly $100.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Quote:
i hate organizations like PETA which force thier opinions on others

do you consider that amnesty international forces its opinions on others?
no?
then PETA doesn't either

PETA informs of a situation
you don't like to hear it because as a meat eater, their information puts you in the group that by changing their behaviour would improve the situation
which you probably consider as being labelled as the "bad group"
but instead of seeing this as an "attack", you should see this as an opportunity
we have the luck to have access to such information and to make our behaviour count

if i see a campaign telling me that the shoes i've been wearing are made by 10 years old kids, i don't see it as an attack against myself, i see it as a chance to improve the situation by boycotting this brand
if i see a campaign telling me that this product i'm eating is causing suffering, i don't see it as an attack against myself, i see it as a chance to improve the situation by boycotting this product

Vegan i usually support your views. you are a passionate animal lobbyist who knows where he stands on issues. But i agress with the sentiment that peta is not what it once was. They have taken to scare shock tactics to change the edics of a nation. They have hired spokes people who are vegetarians who sometimes eat chicken or fish. They promote whole companies that pay them for listings while not support more mom and pop opperations. In there i cant belive its vegan section they list candies with refined sugar in them with only a small fine print statement that says this candy is not 100 percents vegan. I dont understand how a company who can do so many hardcore vegan militistic things can be so soft in other areas. They practice wide spread euthanasia on street animals as well. Which if you do a quick google search you will find, instead of offering them homes. I agree peta has done some great things and has spread a message worth spreading, but i thought someone with your morals especially towrds animal rights and companion issues would definetly be against peta.

Animals as pets: A lot of vegans dont like this idea because they consider animals to be there equals. So that having an animal is tantimount to imprisionment, and having an outdoors animal in a city life is certain suicide. I have 2 cats one was a rescue cat that was going to be put down and another is a gift from someone who was going to put down the kittens if not distibuted. Animal domestication is a long and at times horrendous trade. I cannot see myself turning away from owning companions because it would be like pulling out of iraq after we fucked up there country. oops sorry we domesticated you took away a large part of your natural instincts neutured you but i cant take you in its against my ethics. But then again this is one part of my opinion i can see clearly both sides.

grrr

Phillipe

 

[kittyinthedark]

dont even use antibiotics becaus ei cannot find one that is either not cultured in animal proteans or has a delivery system in conjunction with refined sugar or lactose.

Um, have you looked into penicillin?

 

[knight_marshall]

holy crap, dont you hate when you miss a week on bluelight and you miss the best discussion in months? i was gonna quote and reply, but there's too much. protovack pretty much summed up my feelings. however, there are one or two points that i still care about.

-> Although brain acuity increased from other functional activities, the elements required for the physical growth were originally only available to humanity in the form of scavenged animals. We couldn't even hunt them at first.
-> It is wrong to abuse anything. Drugs, people, animals, trust, history... animals can be consumed without any form of abuse. They can be farmed free range on million acre properties, killed painlessly only to avoid painful death, and eaten, all without abuse or moral implications. Why/how can you deny this... please... no one has defined exactly whats wrong with eating meat yet. Only liquidphil has given me something i can sympathise with/understand.
-> Ray Charles IS god.

aghh... there's just too much, maybe tomrrow when it's not 5:00am I'll actually write out my opinion for once.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

Because animals do it, it justifies us doing it?

Monkeys will occasionally throw feces at each other, would it be OK if I hurled feces at you?

<moving to SLR>

 

[vegan]

So you can relate to a cow more than you can a fruit bat? If you view all animals equally, then how can you be less egocentric of one than another?

oops! my bad!
i didn't read the "bat"
so i was thinking "where does this comparison between chinese and fruits come from?"

but then, guessing a fruit bat is more or less a regular bat, being a human and being a bat are in no way "totally opposite concepts"
they're very distant situations on the same scale of mamals

You can't use a universal example and equally appply it to the history of human/human relations and human/animal relations.

i'm sorry, but you're not explaining in any way why your logic should apply to animals but not humans

i'll repeat. you said :
" the argument that animals might not have the human-like consciousness we project them to have, making it universally moral to eat them?"
" But doesn't a creature need self-consciousness in order to realize what pain is? Otherwise you would just have a simple reaction to negative stimuli, no? "

and then

"Look at the case of Terri Schiavo, people thought she was an emotionally reacting human being when in fact the autopsy showed she was a vegetable reacting to stimuli."

so you're putting Terri Schiavo exactly in the category (non-human like consciousness; simply reacting to stimuli) that qualifies according to you as "universally moral to eat"

Selfish and obnoxious are purely subjective observations on your part

i agree that my opinion of descartes is subjective
but i don't think it's subjective to call selfish a person or religion that considers man above all the rest
that's pretty much the definition of selfishness : to care only about yourself and exploit the rest

And the vice president of PETA is diabetic and uses insulin, a drug that wouldn't be around if it wasn't for studies on animals. It's this type of hypocrisy that makes people scorn PETA

i plead guilty about PETA, because since i don't live in the US, i may have a wrong image of them

but the example of the insulin is not valid
should you not stay where you live because native americans were killed so your ancestors could move there?

the harm done is done
if something good came out of it, there's no reason not to use it

if someone has a leather jacket and decides to stop buying leather for ethical reasons, no one would gain anything if he also stopped to wear the jacket he already has
so why not keep wearing it?

So, really, vegetarians/vegans shouldn't own pets at all, since your infringing upon it's freedom

yep. i've had to tell my flatmates several times that it was out of question to have a cat or dog in our small apartment

Is horsebackriding cruel? If so, I must be a terrible, terrible person.

the question is not to blame the horse-rider/meat-eater but to show him the point of view of the animal

no, i don't think any horse like to come out of its box just when its owner wants to ride it; to run just when told to; not being able to stop when it wants; have to turn right when the bit tears on the right side; jump when told to; etc.
would you want someone else to decide of most acts of your life for you?
neither would a horse

And I'm curious of your answer to this question: "Is it wrong for overcrowded, underfunded animal humane societies to euthanize a sick animal, when the thousands of dollars that might have saved that 1 sick animal's life could instead go, perhaps, to save 20 other, healthier animals' lives?"

from what you say, the 20 other animals are going to die (not to be saved). so i suppose that means they would suffer in the process. (since their lives have to be saved, it's that the deaths are predicable and thus not short and painless. do i get it?)

so the question comes down to "better to have 1, or 20 animals that suffer?"
so my answer is easily "save the 20 animals and do a free home-made euthanasia on the other on"
thousands of dollars? it must sure die in nice conditions with its favourite music in the background

and having an outdoors animal in a city life is certain suicide

not if we change our behaviour towards these animals
if you go to greece (i give the example i know), there are groups of free dogs everywhere in the streets. they just live there; they are happy; people let them live in peace; they don't bother anyone

i know a bunch of vegetarians who are always preoccupied about "abandoned animals"
when they see a free cat, they say "oh the poor one, let's give it a home"
fuck no! "oh the lucky one, it's free, let it be free"

protovack pretty much summed up my feelings

then your answers to my replies to his posts are welcome

It is wrong to abuse anything. Drugs, people, animals, trust, history

it depends if you involve someone else against its will in the process

no one has defined exactly whats wrong with eating meat yet.

because there's nothing wrong with eating meat
there's something wrong with killing (and torturing) to eat meat
we all agree that free range is thousand times better than battery
but would you let someone kill you because he wouldn't have imprisoned you in a warehouse all your life?
no. not being imprisoned all your life is your right, and it shouldn't be repaid by anything, especially not your life

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

i'm sorry, but you're not explaining in any way why your logic should apply to animals but not humans

i'll repeat. you said :
" the argument that animals might not have the human-like consciousness we project them to have, making it universally moral to eat them?"
" But doesn't a creature need self-consciousness in order to realize what pain is? Otherwise you would just have a simple reaction to negative stimuli, no? "

and then

"Look at the case of Terri Schiavo, people thought she was an emotionally reacting human being when in fact the autopsy showed she was a vegetable reacting to stimuli."

so you're putting Terri Schiavo exactly in the category (non-human like consciousness; simply reacting to stimuli) that qualifies according to you as "universally moral to eat"

If you're looking at it from that perspective, then I can use the argument that you have. Just because a fellow human being slips into that state, does that automatically mean I have to eat that human being? Well, the answer lies in the word "human", which that person was originally. It wasn't Terri Shciavo's original place in nature to live such an existence, therefore my original intent isn't going to be slappin' some BBQ sauce on her and sticking her on the grill. It's the same reasons why I do not eat dolphins or primates because I agree that they do show signs of total consciousness, as self-recognition tests have given strong evidence of. Now a cow on the other hand doesn't exhibit such self-awareness or consciousness so I'm morally confortable eating it.

but the example of the insulin is not valid
should you not stay where you live because native americans were killed so your ancestors could move there?

the harm done is done
if something good came out of it, there's no reason not to use it

if someone has a leather jacket and decides to stop buying leather for ethical reasons, no one would gain anything if he also stopped to wear the jacket he already has
so why not keep wearing it?

By your reasoning, me living in North America isn't a valid argument either. I did not come to live here by choice. I was born and raised here. I did not make the decisions to kill native Indians and should not be held responsible for others before me. Like you said, what's done is done. However, PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland is making 2 conscious choices on her own free will. One, she is taking animal-derived insulin (only a portion is synthetic) and two, she is remaining the VP of PETA. In this case, the harm is not ony done, but continues to be done as long as she keeps taking the insulin and actively remains the VP. If I'm going to be called hypocritical for eating meat while supporting the decrease in animal abuse, then she is absolutely no different.

not if we change our behaviour towards these animals
if you go to greece (i give the example i know), there are groups of free dogs everywhere in the streets. they just live there; they are happy; people let them live in peace; they don't bother anyone

So you're saying free-roaming dogs in Greece (or in any other human urbanization) are better off than if someone gave them a home? How can behavior simply be the answer? Unless we technologically digress, an urban, downtown Athens is hardly the correct ecosystem for wild dogs, let alone domesticated ones. They don't have the proper food web below them (prey, or sufficient vegetation) to sustain life in an inner city (other than subsiding on human garbage) so how is taking them into your home and giving them certain food and shelter any worse? If you agree that animals are as sentient as we are, wouldn't they desire our companionship?

 

[vegan]

It wasn't Terri Shciavo's original place in nature to live such an existence, therefore my original intent isn't going to be slappin' some BBQ sauce on her and sticking her on the grill

then you're now saying that the criteria for "ok to eat" are not the ones explained before, but the "nature" of the victim

now, don't forget that you resorted to these criteria in the first place to justify how animals were in "nature" different from humans
if these criteria are not enough anymore for you, then the "nature" that they were supposed to imply doesn't hold

and it's too easy to say that 'Terri Shciavo's was not predestined by nature to fill these criteria'
so if someone who was not predestined to be a murderer changes and kills someone, should he not be judged because he was not a murderer by nature?

It's the same reasons why I do not eat dolphins or primates because I agree that they do show signs of total consciousness

now your speech is evolving (which i encourage)
2 posts ago you were still saying that pre-homo sapiens humans (= primates) were on the other line of the conscious/not-conscious line
("Consciousness is absolute, you either have to have it or not"
"You can't draw a line in terms of a specific time but there is a line somewhere")(about humans/pre-homo sapiens humans)

she is taking animal-derived insulin (only a portion is synthetic)

from my understanding, human insulin is made in labs (and a search in google for "human insulin" confirms it)
so i thought you were only referring to the discovery of insulin, not its use

By your reasoning, me living in North America isn't a valid argument either. I did not come to live here by choice. I was born and raised here. I did not make the decisions to kill native Indians and should not be held responsible for others before me

the vice president of PETA did not make the decisions to test on animals to find insulin either (and if i'm not missing anything about the availability of non-animal derived insulin, she must use this kind)

as for you being born in the us; if the vice president of PETA was raised vegetarian, that doesn't change anything. and if she chose to become vegetarian later in her life, instead of your case, the argument just fits the case of anyone who chose to move in the US during his life (ex: mine at some point. should i not have gone to the us because someone else killed native americans there before?)

So you're saying free-roaming dogs in Greece (or in any other human urbanization) are better off than if someone gave them a home?

a short and simple "yes"

downtown Athens is hardly the correct ecosystem for wild dogs, let alone domesticated ones

and you think a 50m2 apartment during all its life is a better ecosystem?

They don't have the proper food web below them (prey, or sufficient vegetation) to sustain life in an inner city (other than subsiding on human garbage)

well, they do survive, so!?
i prefer them to be free and live on human garbage than live on caviar in an apartment

how is taking them into your home and giving them certain food and shelter any worse?

if the door is open and they can live whenever they want, sure
but that's not the case

If you agree that animals are as sentient as we are, wouldn't they desire our companionship?

they'll desire the companionship of other dogs much more than our
would you appreciate being separated from humans all your life. without possibility of any social or love life?

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

and it's too easy to say that 'Terri Shciavo's was not predestined by nature to fill these criteria'
so if someone who was not predestined to be a murderer changes and kills someone, should he not be judged because he was not a murderer by nature?

Well from that perspective, aren't we all predestined to be murderers? Aside from most vegetation (not like the venus fly trap), doesn't the vast majority of life on earth benefit (sustain it's life) from the life of others? You say just because we can eat meat, does that mean we should continue to. Well, just because we can reason not to eat meat, does that mean we are supposed to stop? Maybe we simply overthink the situation.

from my understanding, human insulin is made in labs (and a search in google for "human insulin" confirms it)
so i thought you were only referring to the discovery of insulin, not its use

Semi-synthetic insulin (the kind she is taking) is made from pork insulin.

and you think a 50m2 apartment during all its life is a better ecosystem?

I never said it was better. I just said it must not be looked upon as any worse, therefore a futile argument either way.