Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing

@farmerman,

Quote:

This is about the 4th such thread where some wag dofs a toga , stands up on the pedestal and begins the tired old chestnut of how superior you veggiephagiacs are and how animals are our partners on the planet. Thats just rubbish.
I would never think of starting some topic that assumes "moral standing" is at issue with what you eat for lunch.

Ad hominens arn't exactly good arguments. Further, this isn't about being self righteous, or better than any one. I have many friends who eat meat, including my parents, and I respect and get along with them just fine. I don't preach at all to them, and generally keep to myself.\

However, many agree that the moral considerability of animals is an ethical issue, and if animals obviously obtain moral standing, then how our actions affect them should be taken into account. That is the point of a normative argument.

Your comments so far have been nothing but silly dribble, but if that floats your boat, go for it.

2 Replies

@bigstew,

You misspelled drivel . . .

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

I'd like to know what a poor justification means. In words alone, it summons in my brain the idea that you believe my reasons are somehow lacking foundation. My views include animals having moral standing, but you seem to take issue with the fact that moral standing alone was not what drove my lifestyle change. In my mind, a strong justification is built robustly on many pillars.

If you agree that animals obtain direct moral standing then you have no argument here. My point was that indirect arguments for the moral standing of animals simply don't suffice. In the end, they just don't address the issue at hand. What your doing is great, but thread concerns the normative justification for the moral considerability of animals, and when push comes to shove, I was just challenging the rationale of some of your arguments. But it seems I may have missed some of what you were saying, so no harm meant.

0 Replies

@bigstew,

How do you measure that chickens, pigs and cows have any more interests than, say, the field mice, voles, reptiles, that lose thier lives, families, homes, every time a farmer plows the field to plant the wheat for the bread you eat.

How do you plan to ascribe these morals? Are animals to have funerals, cemetaries? Do you plan to continue eating products containing gelatin?

Humans have moral standing as a species, we give as well as get.
I doubt that a bear really cares about your moral arguments when he's preparing to eat you.
Animals deserve decent treatment, from a human perspective, they most likely don't expect it.
The slope shows up when you begin to justify those field mice.

1 Reply

@bigstew,

No, this is a classic example of begging the question. You assume at the outset the set of conditions which will support your argument from "morality." That first sentence in your second reply is nonsensical. But if you are making allegations about "common sense" scientific knowledge, then you have a burden to support your claim. So far, i see no evidence that you have supported your claims. And i merely provided an example from someone with expertise which greatly complicates your bland and simplistic contention with regard to a significant distinction between plants and animals. In any case in this discussion, you have the burden of proving that the distinctions exist, and are a valid basis for makig a moral distinction. Unless and until you do so, i have nothing to convince anyone about--you have the burden of proof. You have not met it.

Common sense and science have no realistic correlations. Common sense would tell you that cold water freezes faster than hot water--it doesn't. Common sense is a piss poor guide to the realities of the world, and is routinely contradicted by science. Appeals to common sense such as yours reek of argumentum ad populum.

2 Replies

@bigstew,

Quote:

I have many friends who eat meat, including my parents, and I respect and get along with them just fine. I don't preach at all to them, and generally keep to myself.\

However, many agree that the moral considerability of animals is an ethical issue, and if animals obviously obtain moral standing, then how our actions affect them should be taken into account. That is the point of a normative argument.

As I said in my first statements, you have but to read the title of this thread to see its sermonizing.

2. Your second statement above seems to contradict your first one.

3.Your use of "normative" is incorrect in this case. We dont even agree on whether this thread is another of the veggiephagiacs seeking their places in heaven or not (I say they are). Theres nothing normative about these and other positions so far.

4. I love your logic.I am guilty of ad hominem, whereas you are only guilty of stupid insults. I think you may provide several hours of delight.

1 Reply

Um... do you really think the average city dweller could catch a cow? or a pig? or even a chicken? Even if the animals were raised on a farm? Some might be able to shoot at one, mabey kill it on the first go, but many wouldn't. The poor animal would end up with buckshot from head to tail. But is that more humane than a sharp knife across the throat and a quick bleed? I doubt it.
Again, many people can't keep a house plant alive. By your reckoning... People who couldn't raise they're own food would die of starvation. Do you know how to plant a field of wheat, chaff it, grind it? How about making soya products? Or planting potatoes, could everyone handle the work load? or find the space to do so?
Sure most of us could figure out how to pick an apple but the diet requires more than that.
I don't hunt. I buy my meat and other products from the farmer. But not all, it's too cost prohibative. I'm lucky I live in an area that I am able to do so. If I lived in NYC and didn't have a car, for example, those options would be lost to me as well. There are reasons for our food networks and yes, some practices could be done better and hopefully people will demand it. Most people are struggling day to day to pay the rent and put food on the table and I'm not about to judge them for their prefrences. Life is hard enough.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I don't deny anyone anything in this culture or another.

Yet you make a broad statement as this

Quote:
tribal existence is over and that our food practices today are in the grocery store or restaurant.

Your point? how is any of this denying anyone something? If people live outside of that, they do. Most people do not. They acquire meat not by hunting, but by gathering. Do you disagree?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I don't doubt at all that it's dribble.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Not wanting to kill my own food is personal issues, not really relating to the central theme.

I'm not sure how personal issues are relevant to a normative argument. The point here is to provide reasons for why certain cases of eating meat should be, or should not be considered wrong. That is the central theme, and I argue that if animals are indeed morally considerable, that is they obtain direct moral standing, then actions such as eating meat must take into account the interests animals. I don't understand how then eating meat could fall outside the scope of morality, which is what you seem to claim. If that is still the case, then you have to provide justification for that position.

1 Reply

@wayne,

Quote:

How do you measure that chickens, pigs and cows have any more interests than, say, the field mice, voles, reptiles, that lose thier lives, families, homes, every time a farmer plows the field to plant the wheat for the bread you eat.

How do you plan to ascribe these morals? Are animals to have funerals, cemetaries? Do you plan to continue eating products containing gelatin?

I agree it is an interesting problem you point out. It would seem we have conflicting duties to not harm animals without good reason, and we also need to feed human beings. It's a hard case, but I don't think how such a case is decided refutes the conclusion that factory farming ought to be stopped. The standard of perfection that you seem to imply, is unreasonable. Animals killed by plowing fields is an unfortunate and unintentional result, but perhaps necessary. When you drive your car and a deer is hit, is that considered wrong, even though you know deers live in the area? I highly doubt most would, and I think the same goes for the farming example.

Quote:

Humans have moral standing as a species, we give as well as get.
I doubt that a bear really cares about your moral arguments when he's preparing to eat you.
Animals deserve decent treatment, from a human perspective, they most likely don't expect it.
The slope shows up when you begin to justify those field mice.

Species is not a morally relevant characteristic. All it amounts to is a bit of luck, and is no different from arbitrarily choosing race or gender as a basis for discrimination. The arguments are structurally identical.

It doesn't matter that a bear is not rational. What about babies, the severely retarded or cognitively impaired? None of them are rational, and perhaps even less so then some animals, and yet we treat them as having rights. Again, species isn't sufficient justification. If you would like your argument to be cogent, you would have to in effect deny these marginal cases the same consideration you deny animals, on the grounds of lacking rationality.

And what slope? What is wrong with giving mice proper moral consideration? I do not see that as slippery at all.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Burden of proof? Funny how you demand such a burden when you make the positive claim that plants have sentient characteristics necessary for moral consideration. Your one example does not establish anything close to the interests which I deem necessary for moral consideration. The burden of proof is on you, not me. It's too bad you couldn't comprehend that early on. Good luck with supporting your position.

By common sense I simply refer to scientific consensus. Unless substantive disagreement exists, you have persuaded no one.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

2. Your second statement above seems to contradict your first one.

How so? I was merely letting people that I can get along with friends and family just fine who eat meat, that I am not a vegetarian zealot as you make non meat eaters out to be. But if the point of this thread is a normative argument, and the way animals should be treated, then rationale and justification do the work here. No contradiction there.

Quote:

3.Your use of "normative" is incorrect in this case. We dont even agree on whether this thread is another of the veggiephagiacs seeking their places in heaven or not (I say they are). Theres nothing normative about these and other positions so far.

Places in heaven? What are you even talking about. The point of the thread is the moral considerability of animals, in relation to practices like meat eating. How that is argued definitely is normative. Get it straight.

It is obvious you are here just to rant and whine, rather than offer anything substantive. The quotes above illustrate that to a T.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Industrial agriculture is more than capable of producing more than enough food, without meat, that people wouldn't have to resort to growing it themselves. I think that is fairly obvious.

As for people's preferences, you do what you can, and I'm not going to harp on people either, but even so, that doesn't make it right. Would we take half measures about slavery? I hardly doubt it. The point is, meat isn't necessary for survival, and the big reason why animals are even subject to cruel and grimacing conditions is to make it cheap enough for people to enjoy. How is taste and profit fair to the welfare of animals?

0 Replies

@bigstew,

Quote:

It doesn't matter that a bear is not rational. What about babies, the severely retarded or cognitively impaired? None of them are rational, and perhaps even less so then some animals, and yet we treat them as having rights. Again, species isn't sufficient justification. If you would like your argument to be cogent, you would have to in effect deny these marginal cases the same consideration you deny animals, on the grounds of lacking rationality.

Species isn't sufficient justification?! Are you serious? You really have some question in your mind - or maybe even the full-blown belief- that animals, of any sort, deserve the same consideration and rights as human beings?

So, if you happened to give birth to a baby who was born with a cognitive, developmental disability or delay you would look at that baby as deserving the same level of care and consideration as a disabled animal?

Where does an idea like that come from? I'm sincerely curious.

Because I DO and always HAVE put the human species as being on a higher level and deserving of more consideration than an animal.
You know - no one in the whole world could love their dog more than I do, but if I had the choice of saving my dog or a stranger's disabled child - the dog would have to suffer.

Jesus - this is just scary to me. Maybe that's why people can treat other people the way they do - they equate them with animals?! That's a new one to me.

And I do think that eating loads of meat is probably not really morally defensible (if you are able to supplement your diet in other ways) mostly because of the effects it has on the environment and other people.

And I do not like to see animals (or any living thing) treated cruelly.
But yeah - I'd let a kitten starve before I'd let a child starve. No question.
To the point that though I love dogs and have had them all my life - when this one goes, I probably can't really defend having another one.

Quote:

And what slope? What is wrong with giving mice proper moral consideration? I do not see that as slippery at all.

What is proper moral consideration for a mouse?
Do you not agree we should strive to achieve proper moral consideration for people before we worry about mice?

0 Replies

@bigstew,

No, i made no such claim--i just pointed out that your claim that plants are not sentient, have no social life could be disputed, all of which was in aid of pointing out that you have failed the burden of proof. I don't give a rat's ass what you deem necessary for moral consideration--your opinion on "moral" issues is a matter of indifference to me.

I have no burden of proof because i'm simply disputing a claim you made, and made in responding to my post which had not been addressed to you. Since i have only disputed your position, and not advanced a claim that plants are sentient, you have not managed to weasel out of your burden. It's too bad you couldn't comprehend that early on. Good luck with supporting your position.

Common sense and scientific consensus cannot reasonably be considered to be the same thing. You have not demonstrated that any scientific consensus supports your claim. So you have persuaded no one. I was disputing your claim, so i needn't persuade anyone.

Finally, i didn't demand anything. Your failure to meet a burden of proof is simply an observation on my part, i have no demands to make of you. Your failure to meet a burden of proof for your claims just points up your lack of credibility.

1 Reply

@bigstew,

With this entire premise of pan species ethics I may have to break my contract with the exterminating service. Ive been paying them big bucks to essentially keep my farm rodent free .
The burden of control of vermin gone into hyper fecundity (which is a scientifically evidenced phenom) will go where in your world?

Respoect of animals lives is selective in y mind, as is the value of certain animals as nourishment for humans and other animals. (My digs get chicken every so often and ham fat during winter)
Im glad that the world doesnt have to pause and consider these fringie concerns that some wag feels hes just dicovered .

I make money selling my lambs to Muslim customers who use male lambs for all ceremonial and observational communal meals. I also buy chinese foods prepared in aszichaun deli wherein meats are flavorings in most of these traditional dishes.
The neat thing about our cultire here is how we taste, embrace and adopt all these cooking styles and ingredients from all over. In most cultures , meat is a foundational ingredient and thats good enough for me.
This soul searching is born of too much free time from a well fed veggiephagiac minority. I say eat all the veggies you wish, I will eat mine too , but as a component of a more well balanced diet.I like many of them. I am particularly fond of cole crops, beets, asparagus artichokes and sweet potatoes. Salads add interest and some zippy flavorings in a meal. This , to me is the way eating was meant to be, tasty, balanced, and nutritious. I wouldnt eat only meat like a polar bear, my system is not metabolically equipped, but neither would I reccomend the other extreme, especially since most of us do not have a 3 compartment- stomach digestive system like the ruminants do, so, Im sure the way that veggies are presented has to emulate some degree of compromise that parallels our own omnivorous evolution.

I cant really take this thread too seriously , with the noted exception that this version seems to be a last stand effort by one individual who is trying to ustilize science as a baseboard but its not coming through very convincingly.

Im gonna make some scrapple and eggs for breakfass, Mrs F has been up most of the night in the barn (its lambing season again)

4 Replies

@ragnel,

ragnel wrote:

Quote:
So, do you think meat eating is ethical?

Yes, I think meat eating is ethical.
To deny that would be to deny what I am.
I have binocular vision, like other predators.
I also have canine and pre-molar teeth along with the incisors and molars. (This of course, makes me an omnivore.)

You cannot go from an 'is' to an 'ought'. If what is the case about my anatomy determines what it is permissible for me to do, then I am allowed to strangle people because I have opposable thumbs.

I'm not a vegetarian, by the way, just playing devil's advocate.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You gonna scramble them eggses? How 'bout stirring the scrapple right in with the eggses?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Stewies concern about factory farming doesnt go far enough. OUR VEGGIES ARE BEING RAISED IN HUGE PLANET DESTROYING MONOCULTURES where large amounts of waterway fouling crop chemicals and poor ag practices have fouked several millions of square miles of our inland and estuarine waterways.
Did ya ever see how they raise onions on thousands of acres of muck soils? Factoy farming is a label that goews all the way around. It should modify ag practices that are resource intensive and rely heavily on passing through unused nutrients to downstream receptors. The fouling of the Chesapeake is the result of a two fold ag insult
1Hog farming near the estuary

2Grain farming in the uppwer Bay watersheds where toxic amounts of surfactants and herbicides have leached into the shallow grass environments of the uppwer bay (the areas where the crab and the oyster nurseries have collpased). Hog farming has killed certain fish species from hypoxia. Grain (and tomato) farming in the bay headwaters has killed the bays grasses and indirectly killed the fish and seafood industry(not to mention the indigenous species that define a healthy ecosystem)

NOPE, I dont buy any implied utilitarian moral code that you wish to establish as your "norm" (I still say youre misusing the word). Both systems of ag are busted and need to be fixed by severe nutrient and runoff controls. The burden of the problem does, however, seem to lie with the crop farmers because of the large acreages they consume and by the way that farmers in the upper Chesapeake bay have begun beter pasture management to effect very simple yet long range effective practices (like excluding cows from walking in streams and turning stream banks into sediment slews)

0 Replies

Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know