I dont think it is coherent. You said it yourself, animals are not moral agents. Is it coherent to treat non-moral agents morally? A rock? A tree? No. In order for you to include animals for special treatment over trees and rocks, you have to make a special pleading fallacy for animals or you will have to make some kind special exemption for living creatures/suffering. Neither have a rational basis.
Morality is made by humans, for humans.

what about human infants, they're not moral agents as they do not understand or comprehend such concepts? should we we not be moral to them?

Ive noted you didnt speak to a point I actually made but instead moved on to make another point about human babies. You asked why it would be incoherent, I answered. Was there some wrong with my answer? If so, you should explain what it is, and if not you should concede the point. Anyway, I will answer your new point.
A baby isn't a moral agent because it hasnt developed yet, as it does it learns many things one of which will be some sense of morality. They can be taught to understand a social/moral contract. Animals generally do not and cannot.
Remember, I said morality is made by humans, for humans. Babies are humans.

Remember, I said morality is made by humans, for humans. Babies are humans. — DingoJones

and my point was that your argument of them not being moral agents does not entirely fall upon all humans,
and even then they are living creatures what would make us be moral to humans and not them?

Sure, in underdeveloped humans you dont find the same kind of agency. It has yet to develop moral agency, but it will. Thats not the case with most animals, so I fail to see where that point lands.

and even then they are living creatures what would make us be moral to humans and not them? — Augustusea

...because morality is made by humans, for humans. Its not made by living creatures for living creatures, its not made by humans for living creatures. Its a human thing, for humans.

As far as sharing or applying human morality to non-humans...sure, there are certain criteria that qualify humans for moral agency. If enough of these traits were found in something not human then we could suggest to this potential moral agent our human morality and they could operate within the parameters perhaps. I see no problem with that.
Most animals are not like that however, so it still doesnt make the case for veganism on that basis. It might make the case for not eating certain animals (something already done culturally) though, maybe we could find common ground there.

Perhaps you could elaborate further on what it is about eating meat that you find immoral.

Is it specifically eating animals?
Is it killing animals?
Is it hurting animals?
Is it the exploitation of animals?
Is it all of the above?

killing and hurting animals

..because morality is made by humans, for humans. Its not made by living creatures for living creatures, its not made by humans for living creatures. Its a human thing, for humans. — DingoJones

why? who said so? and why?

would skinning a cat live be moral in this case? would torturing any none human be moral?

and what makes us different from animals other then our moral judgement (which not all of us even have)

Well, that puts us in a rather odd position.

Veganism means one does not wish to use animal products at all, but not all animal products require the killing and hurting of animals. So by what you've said it seems you're not primarily interested in veganism.

Vegetarianism is also debatable, because it seems it would be perfectly acceptable for you to eat an animal that was struck dead by a bolt of lightning, dying instantly thus suffering no hurt, and dying by the hand of a natural occurence.

On the topic of the morality of killing an animal:

Would you consider it immoral for a hunter to kill an old, sickly member of a herd of animals in order for a young one to survive? This happens commonly to avoid healthy wildlife from starving. Let us also assume the hunter is skilled, and is able to ensure a painless death.

Veganism means one does not wish to use animal products at all, but not all animal products require the killing and hurting of animals. So by what you've said it seems you're not primarily interested in veganism — Tzeentch

well logical veganism lets dub it

Would you consider it immoral for a hunter to kill an old, sickly member of a herd of animals in order for a young one to survive? This happens commonly to avoid healthy wildlife from starving. Let us also assume the hunter is skilled, and is able to ensure a painless death. — Tzeentch

I personally (am not a vegan) would say its moral as it is a prevention of pain for both.

Then we have established that neither eating nor killing animals is categorically immoral, therefore let me suggest that the circumstances under which these things happen are way more important.

It is my experience that many vegetarians and vegans, when questioned, do not necessarily have a problem with hurting, killing or eating animals, (circumstances seem to matter) but with the treatment of animals, and more often specifically with the treatment of animals in what is commonly referred to as the 'food industry'. Though, correct me if this does not represent your views.

Empathy is a reality of the human mind that developed to help us live as social creatures. We use terms like "Psychopath" to refer to brains that are missing this functionality. Evolution never intended for empathy to be applied towards animals. But it certainly does apply towards animals. Empathy is not even dependent on reality; just the perception of suffering can trigger empathy. For example, let's say you are watching a movie with 3D special effects. The movie depicts a (non-real) human stabbing his hand with a knife. Seeing this would cause you to grimace with pain, even though it is clearly fake. There was no practical purpose for your empathy, but you experienced it anyway.

In this sense, we are slaves to our empathy. We have to cater to its needs, even if those needs seem like a misapplication of an evolutionary mechanism. I believe animal rights fall into this category. We must have policies to avoid animals experiencing pain (mental and physical). If we do not, the penalty is that we also experience tangible pain as a reflex of our empathy.

That said, killing animals instantly is morally acceptable, assuming you catch the animal by surprise (so that there is also no mental pain from the fear of being killed). We can do whatever we want with animals, as long as we don't add more suffering to their existence. However, the suffering of animals is dependent on how we perceive their subjective experience. There are things which we think cause animals suffering, when in reality, they do not mind. We also do many things to animals that seem harmless, but in reality, we are causing the animal to suffer. What matters in the end, is whether we realize it or not. We are ultimately serving our own needs when we act morally towards animals; and they just coincidentally benefit at the same time (or so we think).

why? who said so? and why? — Augustusea

Humans.

would skinning a cat live be moral in this case? would torturing any none human be moral? — Augustusea

I wouldn't say moral no, though to me it always depends on why something is being done as a determinate of whats moral or immoral. I would call that ammoral.

and what makes us different from animals other then our moral judgement (which not all of us even have) — Augustusea

Well many things, but moral judgement and all that is required for moral judgements (cognition, reasoning etc) are all thats relevant here.

Animals experience pain.
Causing unnecessary pain is wrong.
Humans eating animals is unnecessary in most circumstances now.
Humans eating animals is wrong in most circumstances now.

When we grow up into racist grandpas, systemic species-ism is going to be as tone deaf as systemic racism now. We're gonna be the racist grandmas and grandpas, oblivious to our own prejudice, seeing it as natural. We'll feel the borderline lethal humidity of earth and be unable to connect it to our own desires to eat the juicy delicious meat. We'll be old fashioned, consigned to the history of how we got in this mess, nostalgic over rendered fat. And make no mistake, it is delicious.

When we grow up into racist grandpas — fdrake

Are we going to publicly denounce and revoke all relationships to them while using/keeping/and abusing everything that's now yours as a result of their action and act like that's supposed to mean anything to anybody?

It's not even black and white there's people and groups who don't even exist anymore. I mean, it already happened. No reason to add hypocrisy to the list.

Similarly, one could add that we should not make a distinction between animals and plants. Or mammals and insects, or even bacteria. We have to follow things through.

I don't understand.



There's no good reasons to believe that plants suffer. Or bacteria. I dunno about insects. So the argument doesn't apply to them since killing them does not inflict harm.

There's no good reasons to believe that plants suffer. Or bacteria. I dunno about insects. So the argument doesn't apply to them since killing them does not inflict harm. — fdrake

Science is inconclusive on whether plants feel pain. They certainly react to being killed.

But lets assume they cannot feel pain, then this just gets us into a right tangle. If pain becomes the critericum as to whether we can or cannot kill something, can we freely kill things that cannot feel pain? What if the act of killing is painless, thus no pain or suffering is inflicted?

Science is inconclusive on whether plants feel pain. — Tzeentch

There are good indicators that they don't. They don't have neurons or behave like they have central executive functions. The kind of "evidence" that says plants feel pain is more a philosophical interpretation of evidence - like reading some study that some species of plant communicate through "communication => mind states => pain" into evidence that they (1) can experience things in a manner that makes them agents and (2) have pain states. IE, it's not about what is established about plants, it's about reading what is established about plants in accordance with an already held doctrine.

This is a red herring really anyway.

The animals we usually eat feel pain, we should not cause unnecessary pain, eating animals is unnecessary in many circumstances for many people, we should not eat those animals in those circumstances. Simple.

There are such things as obligate scavengers - creatures that don't kill but eat meat (dead carcasses). The present debate on meat eating turns on the existing practice of killing to acquire meat but, as obligate scavengers prove, there's another, completely moral way, of getting meat - that from animals that die from natural causes. In short, the solution to the moral problem of meat eating isn't necessarily a change in diet as some believe. :chin:

Coming to the issue of plants - what, on Earth, are fruits? They're delicious for a reason in my opinion - plants bear them for the specific purpose of being consumed by animals so that animals may aid in dispersal of the seeds. No animal I know of does anything similar - there doesn't exist an animal that deliberately makes itself a tasty treat. In fact, the primary goal of all animals seems to avoid becoming lunch for predators - camouflage, toxin, etc.

Does this mean plants don't mind getting eaten? No. I've heard that some plants excrete a sweet liquid that attracts ants to them and that these ants protect the plants from caterpillars, beetles, that eat the plants. Then there are thorns meant to prevent plants from being grazed upon. Some plants even produce toxins that keep herbivores at bay. Plants don't like to be eaten or, at the very least, they have a list of things that can be eaten (fruits) and a list of things that can't be eaten (stems, leaves, roots etc.)

Could we survive on fruits and carrion? :chin:

This leaves the most important part of my inquiry unanswered:

If pain becomes the critericum as to whether we can or cannot kill something, can we freely kill things that cannot feel pain? What if the act of killing is painless, thus no pain or suffering is inflicted? — Tzeentch

(1) Animals experience pain.
(2) Causing unnecessary pain is wrong.
(3) Humans eating animals is unnecessary in most circumstances now.
(4) Humans eating animals is wrong in most circumstances now.

Can you please spell out how your inquiry interfaces with the above argument?

This would imply that killing an animal painlessly is perfectly acceptable.

If "causing unnecessary pain" was restricted to "killing" I'd agree with you that it interfaces with the argument. But as stated, it doesn't - the unnecessary pain caused to animals by their consumption doesn't come all at once with their painful (or painless) death.

the unnecessary pain caused to animals by their consumption doesn't come all at once with their painful (or painless) death. — fdrake

Could you elaborate?

Could you elaborate? — Tzeentch

Do you really need me to explain common ways in which animals experience pain through industrial meat production? I thought bins full of baby chickens, force feeding, constant disease, little to no allowed movement etc etc are quite well known.

An argument goes that the effect of an individual's consumption of animal products only negligibly supports the above, so it's permissible to make those decisions. That negligible difference matters pragmatically, but perhaps not morally.

It seems the problem lies with the meat industry then, and not necessarily eating meat.

It seems the problem lies with the meat industry then, and not necessarily eating meat.

And those who never purchase meat cannot influence the direction of the meat industry. So a vegan is letting the meat industry continue on unhindered, banking on the hopes that it will randomly collapse someday. But if that is unlikely, then the fastest way to lessen the suffering of animals in the meat industry is actually to purchase humanely-raised meat. The industry will follow whatever practices sell the best to consumers.