The argument here is that we know through evolution that humans do not occupy a special place in the universe. Therefore simply saying we can kill anything non-human for consumption is a biased position. You are arguing that eating meat is part of our evolution and therefore should continue to be so. Philosophers call this the naturalistic phallacy, that what is ought to be and it has been pointed out by others in this discussion to not be a sound basis for any system of ethics.
Singer argues that, yes humans have always eaten meat BUT we have sufficient knowledge today to understand that animals have interests and should not be deprived of their lives simply for our consumption. Singer is not arguing that we should never have started eating meat but he is arguing that we can and should now stop this practice.
The argument here is that we know through evolution that humans do not occupy a special place in the universe. Therefore simply saying we can kill anything non-human for consumption is a biased position. You are arguing that eating meat is part of our evolution and therefore should continue to be so. Philosophers call this the naturalistic phallacy, that what is ought to be and it has been pointed out by others in this discussion to not be a sound basis for any system of ethics.
Singer argues that, yes humans have always eaten meat BUT we have sufficient knowledge today to understand that animals have interests and should not be deprived of their lives simply for our consumption. Singer is not arguing that we should never have started eating meat but he is arguing that we can and should now stop this practice.
Jerbreck,then kindly explain to me how,through a system of ethics we can introduce this newfound realization of animal rights.
Also,as I have said before,this is no longer an argument about animals,this is an argument about who has the best argumentative skills.Which I do not.I am still waiting on a reversal of my “Patronizer"comment.
If you’re asking how to make people follow this ethics, your guess is as good as mine. But even if there is no way of making people follow this ethics, which I don’t agree with, that is not an argument against it.
Also,as I have said before,this is no longer an argument about animals,this is an argument about who has the best argumentative skills.Which I do not.I am still waiting on a reversal of my “Patronizer"comment.
Hopefully this remains a discussion, where the truth is favoured, rather than a debate, where debating skills are favoured.
Also,as I have said before,this is no longer an argument about animals,this is an argument about who has the best argumentative skills.Which I do not.I am still waiting on a reversal of my “Patronizer"comment.
Hopefully this remains a discussion, where the truth is favoured, rather than a debate, where debating skills are favoured.
Wise words Jerbeck,there is no truth here though.Only peoples interpretations of ethics.Nonetheless,good points of wisdom.Discussion is the Keystone.This is one of many instances where people on this forum all have a common ground,essentially,but get lost in splitting the hairs of semantics.
I don’t think ethics can be interpreted/defined universally, esp when it comes to the food one eats, for we all relate to the world around us differently and as individuals. Even the words we use to explain the why and wherefore can have different meanings and/or connotations for different people. Thus no consenses can be reached very easily, esp when one or more people in the discussion can’t agree on even one thing.
You can’t just say that you base your position on evolution and nature, ignore my explanations why this isn’t a good reason to make a decision about eating meat, and then claim that we’re spliting hairs or that it’s all about debating skills rather than substance. The substance of my point is simple, and you’re still ignoring it: We evolved to rape one another and to kill one another but we have used our brains to decide that these are bad things and we shouldn’t do them despite being predisposed to. We evolved to eat meat, but there’s no reason why this means we have to do it forever and not think about it or decide to change our behavior. That’s what our brains are for.
Instead of responding to what others are saying, you keep challenging them to provide a complete system of ethics to justify vegatarianism. I would say there’s a lot of that already out there, and Singer is a good place to start if you’re interested, but asking us to do that, in loud all caps, is just avoiding dealing with the things we’ve already said. Still, it seems like we’re talking in circles here, so I’ll try and make a few points that maybe will move the discussion forward.
You seem to accept the idea that causing animals to suffer unecessarily is wrong. I wonder why, since animals hurt each other all the time, and we evolved to hurt other creatures, but anyway it’s a start. Many vegetarians choose not to eat meat because doing so supports an industrial agricultural system that causes pain just for the sake of economic efficiency even when it is avoidable, and it sounds like that makes sense to you, though I imagine you’d howl if anyone tried to tell you you should do the same.
The further question, then is “is there any reason not to kill and eat an animal if you could do so in a way that doesn’t cause any pain?” Singer would probably say that, as far as the animal is concerned, they have an “interest” in staying alive just as much in avoiding pain, and it doesn’t make any sense to say causing pain is wrong but causing death is ok. If the interests of animals matter at all, then we have to take all of them seriously. Again, the fact that animals kill and eat each other is irrelevant. They don’t have the ability to think about it, so there isn’t any moral issue. We do have the ability to look at them and think, “Hmm, they seem to try really hard to stay alive, so maybe they have an interest in living and maybe killing them isn’t such a good thing.” No reason we shouldn’t use our brains to think about this one and try and figure it out.
As for alternatives, lots of people don’t eat meat and their lives go on just fine, so there’s really no argument that we have to do so. We do it because we’re used to it and we enjoy it. Fair enough, but pretty weak reasons set against the nasty things we do to make meat.
Anyway, as I said there are long books written about the ethics of eating meat, and I’m not going to try and reproduce them here. If you really are interested in why people think it’s not right to do so, then we can look at specific arguments and see what we think. I sort of get the feeling you just think that vegetarianism is stupid and aren’t really interested in why people would choose it, in which case we’re wasting our time here, but maybe I’m wrong.
You know I doubt Brennen, as a vet, can deny that animals feel pain and even cry in their own way they are hurting. I know he is against anthropomorphazing animals, but the truth is, they do feel pain. IF they don’t, why do we have sedatives and pain killers for our pets? I don’t think a day goes by in which he looks into a sick animals eyes and feels for them as he takes note of their discomfort. There is something there that can’t be put into human words, except that we know they are ill and don’t feel like themselves.
Now place that into slaughter houses and alike or even those seals they frightfully kill for sport. I don’t believe for a minute those animals who go to the slaughter houses don’t sense something is wrong and something bad is about to happen, though they can’t put it in those words, just that their lives are in danger and they can’t do anything about it. Those seals who are unmercifully killed do feel something physical in the process of the barbaric killing and have no comprehension why it is happening. What about the wolves that are shot from aerial planes? Do they not feel the pain of the bullet that is lodged in their rear? If not, why do they fight it?
Yes, that is emotion… empathy to be exact, but it seems, IMO, to be illogical not take on their feelings of pain and discomfort into consideration in order to do something for them. I would question any vet who did not take concern about the physical discomfort of his/her patient could be feeling, humanizingly perceived or not. Add to that, animals do have a desire to stay alive, for if they did not, why would they fight back against a perceived threat? That is one instinct that cannot be denied about any animal- four-legged or two-legged.
IF you, VYAZMA, saw and knew exactly what animals went through before they landed on your plate, would you be so apt to question why many vegetarians and vegans don’t like meat? I lived on a farm for a few years of my childhood. I know what happens to them and I think the funniest thing that happened was when my mother chopped a head off a chicken and it ran headless into the woods. She didn’t get any chicken that night. The second funny thing was that we had three black angus bull calves- two nursed and one didn’t. She got one to nurse off of Old Bossy, but the other of the two who were left, she could not get him to nurse. At the time I knew their names and who was who, for I had not only bottled fed them, but I also got into the pen and played with them often. I laughed and told her she had the wrong calf. I got to know them well even though all three looked alike to the untrained eye. Sadly, they were turned into veal and Old Bossy became jello. :( BTW, I also played with the chickens and can honestly say, not too many people can hold chickens like they were pets, but I did and I also had a runt pig that I named Wilber (yes from Charlotte’s Web and no, he wasn’t slaughtered, the dog that was 1/2 wolf that we had killed him and my mother shot him because he tasted pig etc etc)
My grandfather and his brother would take me out in the woods for walks and on occassion I got to look everything from a deer to a wolf in the eyes until they went on their way. It was truly numinous (see Webster’s definition #3) and since they seemed to deduce that we were of no threat to them, they did us no harm. The trick was to stand very still and just watch with our eyes or at least that was what I was told to do and it worked. My grandfather nor his brother carried any weapons on these jaunts and we were safe. I can’t think of anything more awe inspiring than that and there was something about all the animals we saw on these walks that was far better than any church service my grandparents or my mother would make me attend. My grandfather’s brother was an atheist and felt close to nature on these walks also.
It seems few people have any form of intimate relationship with animals, that they take little empathy with them or if they do raise animals they make them so devoid of emotions concerning those animals, that they have no compassion for them. So, yes, the reasons are both rational and emotional. I don’t think the two can be separated when it comes to life, no matter the species, but one has to be willing to see other species as life in order to comprehend the other person and sometimes their use of words too. No, it is not religious, but could sound religious because life of any sort can be very inspiring and trigger the very same chemical reactions in the brain, esp if the other doesn’t understand the person who is trying to explain their reasons for being a vegetarian or vegan. Sometimes there aren’t words to explain either, but it doesn’t mean it is any less or more rational than the reasons people do eat meat. It’s just part of being human and part being human also includes seeing life as being precious, not matter the species (for me it does at least). It’s what makes life worth living, even if it is nothing more than an appeal to the aesthetic senses.
Brennen is probably right, though, until one is ready to at least understand the other, it is a waste of time to explain. Which means I am just wasting internet space trying to explain anything more than just saying, “I don’t like meat”.
Anyway, as I said there are long books written about the ethics of eating meat, and I’m not going to try and reproduce them here. If you really are interested in why people think it’s not right to do so, then we can look at specific arguments and see what we think. I sort of get the feeling you just think that vegetarianism is stupid and aren’t really interested in why people would choose it, in which case we’re wasting our time here, but maybe I’m wrong.
This only shows me that you don’t read posts thoroughly,if at all.That’s OK,your busy,and I wouldn’t want to read through all this either.I’ve already made all my points,seeing as how you haven’t read them,I’m not going to carry on with this.
I also requested that you reconsider your editing of my “patronizer"comment.I consider this unfounded.I gave supporting evidence as to my descriptive comment,and “patronizer"isn’t anything offensive.
Again,please I don’t want to carry-on with this argument.It deals with possible defects in the “natural fallacy”.This is an argument that is only open to subjective semantics.
I’ve read every post of yours in this thread. Every single word. You might at least try to believe that I could disagree with you, or even misunderstand what you’re saying, without just assuming I haven’t been paying attention. You made some points, I suggested they were wrong, and you haven’t answered any of my objections except with very emotional-sounding outbursts and irrelevancies. I agree that pursing the discussion is pointless, but I’m really sorry that we couldn’t find a way to have a better, more purposeful discussion.
In official mode, I have reviewed the posts you suggested, and I don’t see anything that appears to violate the rules of the forum. I consider your addressing another member as “patronizer” a personal remark that isn’t conducive to polite, civil debate. If you feel in the future another member has addressed you in a way that violates the forum guidelines, a better reaction would be to privately call the attention of the moderators to this rather than responding to the other member publically
[ Edited: 16 November 2008 06:54 PM by mckenzievmd ]
