Veganism, Vegeterianism, Omnivorism

[The Noble Savage]

Prophecy,

I'm pretty certain from what you've said, and the equivalences you want to draw between people and other animals, that you hold that the pain other animals experience provides them equal moral footing with human beings. One problem (there are others) in granting the same basic rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) to all creatures capable of feeling pain--let's call this Peter Singer's position--is that it leads to unsupportable and often perverse conclusions. For instance, if we accept that human beings and squirrels both experience pain, consider the following scenario.

You're driving your car on a road near a school. Walking down the sidewalk, you see a human child. Suddenly, a squirrel runs out in front of your car, and to avoid it, you must run your vehicle up on the sidewalk, striking the child.

If we hold these two beings as moral equals, either choice--squirrel or human child--is acceptable. If not, if we have strong intuitions that the child's life is more important than the squirrel's, and if we hold that killing the child to save the squirrel would be morally unacceptable, it exposes a flaw in Peter Singer's position.

A similar point was made by Richard Posner in response to Singer. I take this quote from their correspondence, which you can find at:

https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/200106--.htm

"Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog—more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. You [Singer] would have to say, let the dog bite (for "if an animal feels pain, the pain matters as much as it does when a human feels pain," provided the pain is as great). But any normal person (and not merely the infant's parents!), including a philosopher when he is not self-consciously engaged in philosophizing, would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would minimize the sum of pain in the world."

Now, if you accept that you should respect the pain caused to other animals, including squirrels, but that human life is ultimately more valuable, you'd need to say why you hold this view. The end result will be lowering the standard of concern for the suffering of non-human animals. if you hold them as fundamental equals, then the lives of squirrels and chimpanzees and dogs should be of just as much concern for us morally, and we should be (as Singer is) willing to kill x number of humans if it saves/improves the lives of x+1 other animals.

 

[Prophecy]

That most professional ethicists, and most people, draw a distinction between human beings and other animals. Indeed, they draw a line between deer or rabbits and dogs and cats. One can generally be hunted; the other can't. That many serious, thoughtful professional ethicists disagree with you should suggest that there are a variety of possible ethical systems, starting points, and conclusions.

But as I've taken pains to explain, asserting that your ethical position is the only viable one isn't going to change anyone's mind. I provided three reasonable justifications.

Here's a fourth.

I have a friend, Dan. He's an indigenous person, and as part of his culture, participates in hunting, fishing, and trapping with his family and network of kin. For him, this is a way to preserve his heritage and culture, to strengthen the bonds of his community, and to actively engage in his unique way of life. While he recognises that these practices cause pain to animals, that is of less concern to him than these other concerns.

Simply put, there are a variety of consistent, moral positions that do not begin with 'I must minimise all voluntary pain to animals'.

But which person is the vast majority of people in the modern world? Which person holds no particular belief when it comes to animals other than they are following the traditional of their parents and their parents' parents and because mmm bacon?

We don't need to hunt to bring our community together. We don't need to eat animals to survive, or even be healthy.

 

[The Noble Savage]

I don't think that's an accurate paraphrase of the position I put forward, but rather a straw man.

 

[Prophecy]

Prophecy,

I'm pretty certain from what you've said, and the equivalences you want to draw between people and other animals, that you hold that the pain other animals experience provides them equal moral footing with human beings. One problem (there are others) in granting the same basic rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) to all creatures capable of feeling pain--let's call this Peter Singer's position--is that it leads to unsupportable and often perverse conclusions. For instance, if we accept that human beings and squirrels both experience pain, consider the following scenario.

You're driving your car on a road near a school. Walking down the sidewalk, you see a human child. Suddenly, a squirrel runs out in front of your car, and to avoid it, you must run your vehicle up on the sidewalk, striking the child.

If we hold these two beings as moral equals, either choice--squirrel or human child--is acceptable. If not, if we have strong intuitions that the child's life is more important than the squirrel's, and if we hold that killing the child to save the squirrel would be morally unacceptable, it exposes a flaw in Peter Singer's position.

A similar point was made by Richard Posner in response to Singer. I take this quote from their correspondence, which you can find at:

https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/200106--.htm

"Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog—more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. You [Singer] would have to say, let the dog bite (for "if an animal feels pain, the pain matters as much as it does when a human feels pain," provided the pain is as great). But any normal person (and not merely the infant's parents!), including a philosopher when he is not self-consciously engaged in philosophizing, would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would minimize the sum of pain in the world."

Now, if you accept that you should respect the pain caused to other animals, including squirrels, but that human life is ultimately more valuable, you'd need to say why you hold this view. The end result will be lowering the standard of concern for the suffering of non-human animals. if you hold them as fundamental equals, then the lives of squirrels and chimpanzees and dogs should be of just as much concern for us morally, and we should be (as Singer is) willing to kill x number of humans if it saves/improves the lives of x+1 other animals.

Whilst your post is interesting, you have supposed that I value the lives of anything that can feel pain on an equal footing. I have taken care not to give that impression in this thread, and I my basic moral belief is much simpler than that. So simple that honestly people in this thread still don't understand after I've explained it numerous times.

We, in the modern world, with an abundance of food, don't need to eat meat to survive or be healthy. (In fact we can lower our risk of various diseases associated with eating animal products, hence why I think it can be a healthier diet.)

So in our supermarket world, does the pleasure that comes from the taste of food, and the sheer enjoyment of killing that food, outweigh the fact that sentient beings are killed, before their natural age, who (we can suppose) want to live?

 

[Prophecy]

I don't think that's an accurate paraphrase of the position I put forward, but rather a straw man.

How so? All I mean is that your supposition of my view isn't correct. I don't hold humans to the same value as dogs. Even if I did, I wouldn't even present the argument because it wouldn't last a minute.

 

[The Noble Savage]

When you fish you're hooking a sentient, innocent being round the lip and pulling it out of the water whilst all the force is on his mouth. Sometimes so fast that internal organs are ruptured, so that even if return it, it might well die or suffer further.

Hunting. You mean brainwashing a child that we're a superior species so much so that we should trick innocent, sentient beings into close proximity and then shoot them? With no regard to their own lives or families or whether they could be mothering etc.

Animals feel pain and suffering, and we are causing it. We can stop it.

As for overruling ethics - slavery was once legal. Non-equality for women was once legal. Raping and murdering neighbouring tribes-people was once normal. There is a growing movement defending paedophilia as it's a 'natural urge'. Let's ponder that for a minute.

You say it's not black and white, but that's because meat-eaters wish there was a grey area. For the 22 million animals killed each day for the sake of our taste buds, there's no grey area. They want to live.

I think in each of these examples, you are drawing the equivalence I noted. Fish are sentient and innocent. Hunting involves the belief that human beings are a superior species. And your examples of ethical changes, related to animal rights, draw on slavery, rape, murder, and non-equality.

If I was mistaken in my understanding, I sincerely apologise, but I think it's clear why I would misunderstand you.

And if other animals are not on equal footing with human beings, among a range of moral positions, we could ethically hunt, fish, and consume meat--as I've defended with at least 4 examples now.

 

[The Noble Savage]

But which person is the vast majority of people in the modern world? Which person holds no particular belief when it comes to animals other than they are following the traditional of their parents and their parents' parents and because mmm bacon?

We don't need to hunt to bring our community together. We don't need to eat animals to survive, or even be healthy.

This is not an accurate paraphrase of the position I put forward.

For instance, Dan is doing more than merely saying 'mmmm...bacon' or blindly following in the footsteps of his forebears. Rather, as a conscious, thoughtful, significant choice, he's engaging in a lifestyle that is more closely connected to his ancestors and their traditions. This cultural connection is cited, for instance, as a defining reason behind Aboriginal whaling rights. This is not merely a question of subsistence whaling, but of cultural connection. And it's sufficiently important that it's enshrined in law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling

 

[Prophecy]

This is not an accurate paraphrase of the position I put forward.

For instance, Dan is doing more than merely saying 'mmmm...bacon' or blindly following in the footsteps of his forebears. Rather, as a conscious, thoughtful, significant choice, he's engaging in a lifestyle that is more closely connected to his ancestors and their traditions. This cultural connection is cited, for instance, as a defining reason behind Aboriginal whaling rights. This is not merely a question of subsistence whaling, but of cultural connection. And it's sufficiently important that it's enshrined in law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling

That's where you thought I was entering a strawman, but my example of the 'mmm bacon' and blindly following the tradition of his parents, guy, isn't any of your examples. I'm using it as another example, one that's prevalent in today's modern society.

We eat animals because we've always eaten animals. And yes you have misunderstood all my parallels with slavery, non-equality etc. I'm saying that tradition doesn't dictate ethics. We abolished slavery because we realised it wasn't ethical.

What I'm saying is that we don't have to decide if animals are in anyway on equal to humans. It's not a road we need to cross in order to come up with my ethical stance which is we don't need to kill animals therefore its unethical.

Obviously that is my opinion, because its important we realise that ethics are essentially subjective and they are different from a science. Who are you to say that something is ethical? Who am I to say something is unethical? It's not fascism, and all we're doing is stating opinions.

My opinion is that it's unethical to eat meat (not as a rule as per some of your examples) because its not necessary.

 

[The Noble Savage]

Yeah, I'm not saying that your ethical position doesn't make sense. Rather, I'm responding to claims like this where you went quite a bit further:

Yes, veganism is more ethical than eating meat. There's no moral defence.

 

[Prophecy]

Yeah, I'm not saying that your ethical position doesn't make sense. Rather, I'm responding to claims like this where you went quite a bit further:

Yes I don't think there is any moral defence to eating animals or their produce, unless it's necessary to do so for your health. What you've done is you've shown there to be exceptions to that and yes I accept that. Nothing is all and there are exceptions to everything, but as a general rule yes I don't believe there is any moral defence to eating animals.

 

[The Noble Savage]

'If a child is born into factory captivity, they do not have any memories of fields, sky, sun. All they know is cages, being packed tightly tigether and being fed.
They do not miss anything. They do not duffer. They are content and happy, as long as they ate well watered and well fed. If they get sick they get medications, if badly hurt they get put down.'

Hopefully you felt what I did when I read that. You have brainwashed yourself. If you think that chickens, choking and suffocating on faeces and urine and ammonia, rife with disease and stress, without any natural light, barely enough room to move, having their beaks cut off without anaesthetic and living in such a stressed and horrific condition, are 'happy and content', then you are much further removed from any ounce of animal compassion than I thought.

And in all fairness, after re-reading your posts, I think you did explicitly draw the comparison to which I referred.

 

[The Noble Savage]

I don't think the positions I outlines are exceptions.

Exceptions to what, a general rule that it is unethical to eat meat?

 

[Prophecy]

And in all fairness, after re-reading your posts, I think you did explicitly draw the comparison to which I referred.

Nope, it was merely to draw emotion in order for the poster to realise that the statement they made was completely void of any compassion or humanity.

 

[Prophecy]

Exceptions to what, a general rule that it is unethical to eat meat?

Yes.

 

[The Noble Savage]

To explicitly equate human beings to chickens is still to explicitly equate them, I think, for emotional or logical appeal. And to replace the word "chicken" with the word "child" is clearly to equate the two, in that, at the very least, your emotional appeal draws on this parallel.

And to present a blanket rule that it is unethical to eat meat, and then describe a variety of moral positions that disagree as 'exceptions to that rule,' is to assume the conclusion of an argument you need to make.

 

[Prophecy]

I don't think the positions I outlines are exceptions.

You've come up with an ardent utilitarian, a hunter, an indigenous person, and a Christian. Not exactly a fair representation of the majority of council flats in the UK.

 

[The Noble Savage]

As I said, carefully, a majority of people who eat meat probably agree with parts of each of these claims. They needn't hold one to the exclusion of others, and most people find that their moral choices share a number of different logics.

And whether they represent the average UK resident or not isn't germane. Veganism is also not a "fair representation" of most people's positions. That's not the point.

The point is that to claim a moral position as universally binding, you'd need to demonstrate the failings of any alternative position. You haven't done that, and though it's obvious that you feel very strongly aout this issue, it's becoming clear to me that you don't intend to debate in good faith.

 

[Prophecy]

To explicitly equate human beings to chickens is still to explicitly equate them, I think, for emotional or logical appeal. And to replace the word "chicken" with the word "child" is clearly to equate the two, in that, at the very least, your emotional appeal draws on this parallel.

And to present a blanket rule that it is unethical to eat meat, and then describe a variety of moral positions that disagree as 'exceptions to that rule,' is to assume the conclusion of an argument you need to make.

OK, so let's say it's for emotional appeal. Why shouldn't I try to draw on peoples emotions? It comes down to how we've been brought up and essentially programmed to believe that these animals on the farm are for us to eat, whilst the animals in our house are for pets.

If you draw on someone's emotion, you can remove their blinders and get them to think for themselves for the first time about the subject, possibly ever, and they can begin to realise that they have been brainwashed into double standards.

There are actually people who will protest on their streets about other cultures eating dogs. While that's hilarious, it's also indicative of sheer amount of indoctrination we've faced in our lifetimes.

 

[The Noble Savage]

It's important because you're admitting that you did draw the equivalence that I suggested, after insisting that you had not done so, and furthermore, had been careful not to. You accepted my apology for misunderstanding you, only to later agree that you did what i thought you did.

Why accept my apology, then, and insist that I had you wrong? Merely to deflect the argument that I made contra holding animals and people as moral equals?

And that suggests that you are indeed not arguing in good faith.

 

[Prophecy]

You haven't done that, and though it's obvious that you feel very strongly aout this issue, it's becoming clear to me that you don't intend to debate in good faith.

But we don't all have to debate according to your standards and your set of debating rules. You're stating ethics like they're a science but they're not, they're subjective. And we should all be thankful they are or else nothing would ever change.

I stand by my statement that eating meat is unethical for the vast majority of us, on the basis that a vegan diet is at least just as healthy hence killing sentient beings is unnecessary. I haven't seen any evidence from you or anyone else that has successfully countered that opinion, and that is not to take away any of your efforts which I have found to be of great interest.