Just like the legal notion of mitigating circumstances. I am not saying humans cannot manage meat eating but carnivorous and omnivorous behaviour is more innate in nature than some other behaviours. — Andrew4Handel

I'll repeat myself once more: so, since rape, murder, incest, etc. occur in nature, or are "innate" as you claim, are we to excuse those who commit these crimes? The naturalness, innateness, or whichever term you want to call something in an attempt to dodge your moral culpability, of an act or impulse does not change whether it is right or wrong. It has no impact on the rightness or wrongness of the act. Since we CAN overcome our desires for flesh, and we know there are many good reasons to do so, we ought to.

Also Doctors often cause the death of a patient by decisions about their medical care in life or death circumstances. — Andrew4Handel

A doctor killing a patient against his or her will is called murder. Exceptions apply when we cannot know the will of the patient (as with long-term comatose persons). Try hurting a pig--they will quickly let you know that they do not wish to be harmed, let alone killed. No animal willingly walks into a knife to sacrifice his or herself for the pleasures of our palate.

I don't. Don't pretend that it doesn't end up in their best interest, in light of the consequences, in some cases, regardless of the motive. — Sapientia

It isn't in their best interest. It would be best for them not to be brought into existence. How can a life of agony, which ends prematurely, be good for anyone?

Oh good, so presumably you agree with the point that was made about an extended lifespan in captivity versus a shorter lifespan in nature. — Sapientia

For one: I do not agree; I personally would rather live free and die young, than live in captivity into old age. For two: I don't know what leads you to believe that animals used for food live much longer than in the wild? They have significantly reduced lifespans: the farmer gains nothing from letting an animal live beyond peak-body mass, and in the case of veal, even younger. (And even if you don't eat veal, the dairy industry supports the veal industry.)

Says you. And it's okay if they die of natural causes, then? — Sapientia

Again: how does that argument even make sense? Of course it's okay. Just like it's okay for you to let the aging old lady next door live and die a natural death and not intervene than kill her beforehand, because you weirdly decided you'd be doing something "merciful" (and wanted to eat her flesh before too much of it wasted away).

Leaving animals to natures mercy is not clearly the most ethical thing. — Andrew4Handel

You've been watching too much Shark Week. Nature has brutal moments, and some animals kill to live, but most of a wild animal's life is not "red in tooth and claw." Perhaps you should spend some time observing animals in their natural day to day? They very much enjoy being free, alive, and unbothered by humans.

It seems problematic to me that vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat. — Andrew4Handel

I think your mistake might be the assumption that vegans and vegetarians have some sort of coherent moral standpoint. This is not the case.
A couple of things to consider.

First is that there is many local ecosystems that cannot reasonably offer humans survival without the use of meat and other animal products. And that to impose veganism or vegetarianism in such places would be seriously injurious in terms of pollution from the energy to bring food to those places.

Secondly, is the real reasons that people take on these unnatural practices. These fall into two categories, both emotional and not logical or moral, being basic squeamishness about blood and death, and the other being the anthropomorphisation of animals, particularly that concurrent with the rise of vegetarianism in the 20thC which I have called the Disney Effect.

Moral justifications follow these emotional responses they do not preceded them.

It isn't in their best interest. It would be best for them not to be brought into existence. How can a life of agony, which ends prematurely, be good for anyone? — NKBJ

1. The animals under consideration already exist. So your point about not being brought into existence makes no sense in relation to them. And if your point wasn't in relation to them, and only them, then it fails to address the point.

2. They don't live a life of agony. And the, "They", in the previous statement refers only to the animals under consideration. If you have not been referring to these animals, and to these animals only, then you have failed to address the point.

3. "How can a life which ends prematurely be good for anyone?" - That question assumes a false premise, namely that for a life to be good, it must not end prematurely. That it might have otherwise been better is not that it wasn't good. That doesn't follow.

For one: I do not agree. — NKBJ

You said that, although some deaths may be preferable to others, living is preferable to either. You did not qualify that statement in any way. I see only two interpretations:

The first is that you're suggesting that living forever is preferable to death, which would be a stupid thing to argue for, given that living forever is not an option.

The second is that you're suggesting that living until natural death is preferable to premature death. But living in captivity until natural death is an instance of living until natural death, and premature death in the wild is an instance of premature death. So it follows that living in captivity until natural death is preferable to premature death in the wild. So you should agree, or concede. Not agreeing and not conceding means that you're being logically inconsistent.

I personally would rather live free and die young, than live in captivity into old age. — NKBJ

That would be fine, if it didn't fly in the face of your previous comment, which might have been said in haste without due consideration of the logical consequences. So, I am giving you the opportunity to concede that your previous comment did not convey your true position, and to retract it in light of this.

I don't know what leads you to believe that animals used for food live much longer than in the wild? — NKBJ

That's a strawman. You need to pay closer attention to what myself and others say. What I said was nowhere near as general as that, nor was the original comment by another participant which you replied to. I took care to qualify that I was talking only about specific cases. The other participant took similar precautions. Surely you don't deny that there are exceptions?

Again: how does that argument even make sense? Of course it's okay. — NKBJ

It wasn't an argument. It was a question about your stance. A simple "yes" would've been sufficient. No need to bring up old ladies.

The animals under consideration already exist. — Sapientia

So you think that all of the animals you will ever eat already exist? Or that the money you put into the meat industry by purchasing animal products does not contribute to the breeding of more animals? Some of the animals to be considered already exist, but billions and billions are going to be brought into existence if we do not change our practices. So, in fact, it is very pertinent to the discussion.

They don't live a life of agony. — Sapientia

Clearly you haven't looked at the living conditions on factory farms. The vast majority of animals bred and raised for our consumption come from such farms. Maybe you wouldn't find being mutilated, kept in spaces so small you can hardly move your entire life, force fed, artificially inseminated, having your babies stolen from you and killed, etc, etc. to be agony, but I highly doubt it.

"How can a life which ends prematurely be good for anyone?" - That question assumes a false premise, namely that for a life to be good, it must not end prematurely. — Sapientia

You claim I'm not paying attention, and then you leave out half of my statement :lol:
How can a life of agony and which (to add insult to injury) ends prematurely, be good? How can it be something we can justifiably inflict on others? Especially when we could do otherwise.

I see only two interpretations: — Sapientia

Again, you're purposefully ignoring my explanation. Talk about a lack of paying attention :rofl: You can go back and read it for yourself--I'm not going to bother anymore reiterating myself when you just insist on trying to take me out of context in order to have your strawperson.

That's a strawman. You need to pay closer attention to what myself and others say. What I said was nowhere near as general as that, nor was the original comment by another participant which you replied to. — Sapientia

and:

Oh good, so presumably you agree with the point that was made about an extended lifespan in captivity versus a shorter lifespan in nature. — Sapientia

:chin: I don't think I read that wrong. It's pretty clear, and you did not add any qualifications there. I can imagine arguments along those lines for sanctuaries or zoos, but we're talking about animals raised for consumption. And as far as that goes, they do NOT have longer lifespans.

No need to bring up old ladies. — Sapientia

There is very much a need--since it elucidates the hypocrisy of claiming x, y, or z is good for animals, while it would be heinous to seriously consider for humans.

I'll repeat myself once more: so, since rape, murder, incest, etc. occur in nature, or are "innate" as you claim, are we to excuse those who commit these crimes? The naturalness, innateness, or whichever term you want to call something in an attempt to dodge your moral culpability, of an act or impulse does not change whether it is right or wrong. It has no impact on the rightness or wrongness of the act. — NKBJ

You are only repeating yourself because you are failing to understand my point. Not everything that happens in nature is innate. There are degrees to which behaviour are fundamental for survival or not.

I don't believe in prison or punishment and I think crime is natural and moralising about it is pointless. I would tackle the causes of crime rather than focus on vilifying people.

You are refusing to see any subtlety anywhere if you can't see degrees of import and nuance in behaviour and nature. I have stated apparently not clearly enough that I am a moral nihilist and do not think nature can be "wrong".

What I focused on in the first post is the seeming paradox or absurdity that if we were carnivores veganism would be defunct. That this moral stance is only available of you think human can be herbivores. If rape was the only way to impregnate someone then we would probably find it more acceptable. How could something that is essential be a crime?

I wasn't intending to debate all aspects of veganism here but rather that specific issue of morality versus natural traits.

Heavens, the ending of slavery was based on moral arguments. Who cares that such arguments were not authoritative, and that it did not have near universal agreement? What matters is that they ended slavery. — andrewk

The ending of the official slave trade is not proof that a moral argument is valid. After slavery we had two world wars, several genocides and the Klu Klux Klan so that is hardly moral progress is it?

I don't think campaigning against slavery requires any knowledge of moral philosophy.

To me moral progress if it exists would be moral refinement. Humans behaving less than terrible is actually quite demoralising. So finally Western woman have equality, some gays have equal rights after thousands of years and much philosophy. But these things should have been the default. We shouldn't be proud of having taken thousands of years to give some of the world equal rights.

What I think the moral literature has failed to do is justify morality. To what degree you think reality has improved is subjective. My life has been sub par most of the time.

You've been watching too much Shark Week. Nature has brutal moments, and some animals kill to live, but most of a wild animal's life is not "red in tooth and claw." Perhaps you should spend some time observing animals in their natural day to day? They very much enjoy being free, alive, and unbothered by humans. — NKBJ

I have never heard of Shark week. I have lived in the countryside though. I lived on a small holding that had some sheep. I would say the sheep were expressionless showing no specific joie de vivre. One of them was unfortunately killed by a badger.

Have you seen this quote by Dawkins on nature?

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

A doctor killing a patient against his or her will is called murder — NKBJ

You missed the bit where I mentioned that pet owners have there ill pets put to sleep.

I have had long experience now of being with a seriously ill person who has been in intensive care at least thrice and has had many stays in hospital also I have other family members who have worked in hospitals.

It is not a straightforward case of asking a patient whether they want to be kept alive. There is a wide variety of medical procedures and caring strategies that effects someones longevity in hospital. In my experience most hospital death are not the cliched pulling of a plug. Some times death is caused by eating problems and medication side effects and the medical staff have to make decisions about a suitable medicine regime of diet plan....In short I don't know what role consent generally plays in death.

Something I need to do -- file an "advanced directive" to inform the hospital that has the document (assuming I don't end up in a hospital unconscious somewhere else) how I wish my demise to be managed.

----- Do Not Resuscitate

----- Do not Intubate

----- No heroic measures

----- withhold water

----- withhold food

Under the specified circumstances -- like,

----- probably is already seriously brain damaged
----- will be paralyzed from the neck down
----- will be unable to speak, swallow
----- has little time left before death from organ failure
----- so on and dreary so forth

As far as I know, advanced directives are not binding contracts; if the attending physician thinks I'll pull through just fine, even though it looks pretty bad, he isn't required to forego imtubatimg or resuscitating me. And, if there is no advocate on hand (one is supposed to delegate authority to someone trusted to advocate for pulling the plug under the right circumstances) there is a good chance one's final directive will be ignored.

I'm 71; I'm not figuring on dying in the next few years, but should I get run over by a lightweight vehicle and am not quite dead, or if I should develop a terminal disease which, by definition, isn't curable, then let's get it over with.

This all assumes I'm not awake. If I'm awake and alert, then I'll have to convince the doctor myself to let me out of my misery PDQ.

The ending of the official slave trade is not proof that a moral argument is valid.

As I said before, I have no interest in validity. It is only you that is talking about validity.

Humans behaving less than terrible is actually quite demoralising. So finally Western woman have equality, some gays have equal rights after thousands of years and much philosophy. But these things should have been the default.

It's a glass half full or empty thing isn't it? We can lament at there being still a lot of cruelty and injustice in the world or we can be glad at many forms of widespread cruelty and injustice having been greatly reduced (while still working to reduce what remains).

One reason you can't derive an ought from an is, is because you really never do, even when it looks like you are. You are simply failing to put a tacit assumption into words. — NKBJ

I appreciate the attempt to clarify the matter for me. But what I am trying to get at is something a little different from I understand you to be addressing. And I am quite unsure about it. If subjective experience is taken seriously as something real, and if, intrinsic to serious pain is an intolerability, a badness, an ought-not-ness, or really, if pain is an ought-not in itself, then there is perhaps a sense in which an ought-not can be said to exist in reality. Reality might well contain objective shoulds and shouldn'ts. Maybe it isn't deriving an ought from an is. Rather, maybe this ought-not is an is! And so then we can derive a further is from that is.

Normally, we tend to think that there is a world of things and then we apply value judgements to them, perhaps somewhat arbitrarily. We feel some way about the things that are. If we feel that some state of affairs is wrong, that is simply our feeling about it. But in this way of looking at the matter, the wrongs are not themselves real objects in the world. We are just basically saying that we don't like X. We can say, and be simply stating a fact, that we would prefer for things to be otherwise than they are. Joe disapproves of X. This is a fact. But to make the claim that things really ought to be other than they are is a different sort of claim.

But the usual way in which we talk about facts sort of assumes that the only place to find facts is in the value-free world of objective states of affairs out there, basically just things and their configurations or states among what is third-person verifiable. But if we take subjective experience seriously and realize that it is just as real as anything, the world gets more complicated. Suddenly, it contains not just particles and energy states and so on, but also other things like interests and perhaps selves and rights and maybe even matterings. Maybe there is a way to look at something like a harm as being a real harm, a wrong that actually exists objectively in the world. Maybe it isn't just that I feel it is wrong. Maybe a wrong actually is.

Consider that a rock and its existence seem to us a value-free state of affairs that just is. We can regard this objective state of affairs in a detached manner or can assign value to it, positive or negative, depending on our preferences. But if you have an extreme headache, the situation is quite different. There is now an all too real headache-experience in the world. And that headache experience is intrinsically intolerable. Intolerability is essential to what it is. You can't have this headache and regard it in a detached manner as just a thing in the world while not suffering it. A headache is a state of suffering. That suffering is real suffering and really exists in the real world. A headache experience, which is a real state of affairs happening in the world, has an intrinsic badness to it. It can't cease to be bad or intolerable without ceasing to be what it is or ceasing to exist altogether. The negative value aspect of it is inseparable from it, is essential to it. So there is maybe a sense in which value is objective.

Maybe we could argue in a manner like the following:

Painfulness is badness

Headaches are painful

Therefore, headaches are bad

Bad things ought not exist

Headaches are bad

Headaches ought not exist


I am not sure if any of this really makes any sense. But I have the suspicion that we are so habituated to only considering as factual the usual objective, third-person verifiable things in the world that we are overlooking some very important things about the subjective side of the world. The world doesn't just contain things like quarks, tables, and cells. It also contains things like awfulnesses and interests. The subjective world is perhaps rightly seen as intrinsically value-laden. Here, there is no gap between the ought and the is. They are one thing. Maybe value is something of the very substance of the subjective world.

Maybe? I don't know. I haven't thought all this through very much.

Secondly, is the real reasons that people take on these unnatural practices. These fall into two categories, both emotional and not logical or moral, being basic squeamishness about blood and death, and the other being the anthropomorphisation of animals, particularly that concurrent with the rise of vegetarianism in the 20thC which I have called the Disney Effect.

Moral justifications follow these emotional responses they do not preceded them. — charleton

In the universe I observe, all moral justifications follow emotional responses.

How would you know that the child's suffering mattered if it didn't bother you at all? — Andrew4Handel

Its mattering and badness don't depend on me knowing or caring. This situation is awful even if nobody else exists to know or not know about it. Even if I know about it and enjoy it, it is still a bad thing in the world. There is still suffering and a loss of all sorts of other value. My knowing about or not knowing or liking or disliking this child's torture all make no difference to the reality of what it is.

Pain is essential for survival. People with congenital pain deficit die younger and cause themselves lots of injury. — Andrew4Handel

Certainly. And interestingly, this pain brings a message of ought-not. It dissuades. When you are learning to get around in the world, you need both the encouragement and dissuasion. When you hurt yourself, you know what not to do in the future.

I think a notion of goodness such as what causes least harm will have to reference nature because harm is natural/biological. — Andrew4Handel

It seems to me that to say that goodness is what causes least harm is like saying that warmth is what is least cold.

When there are two possibe states of affairs, such as a child being tortured or that same child happily swinging in a park with friends, there is a sense in which one state is better than another. It would be better if one happened rather than the other. But how do we decide the better? To know the answer to that, to understand what it is that makes all better conditions preferable to the worse, is to know what the good is.

And if you condemn life as being bad in some way, or the world overall as being bad, you are evaluating it according to some criteria of goodness. You have to have a sense of what is good in order to find the world falling short.

Also, what do you mean when you say that harm is natural/biological? Do you mean to refer specifically to something like damage to an organism? If so, when we call that a harm, aren't we attaching a value judgment to it? To harm is to in some sense wrong someone, to make their condition worse. That involves valuation. And if there is a worse, there is also a better. The two arise together. If you know what makes things worse, you also know what makes them better. You must know what the good is in order to know when real harm has been done.

I think your mistake might be the assumption that vegans and vegetarians have some sort of coherent moral standpoint. This is not the case. — charleton

You might be surprised if you cared to talk to one. Sure, our position may not be as well justified as the pythagorean theorem, but it is at least as well justified as any objection to murder, slavery, and so on. Maybe you ought to give Peter Singer's book a read. Many vegetarians/vegans have been influenced by it. I personally have not read it.

First is that there is many local ecosystems that cannot reasonably offer humans survival without the use of meat and other animal products. And that to impose veganism or vegetarianism in such places would be seriously injurious in terms of pollution from the energy to bring food to those places. — charleton

And there may be an argument for the greater good there involving the eating of meat. I think humans should exist at the expense of lower animals when necessary. Humans are more valuable for sure, in my way of looking at all this. But the level of complexity/consciousness of the food sources should be minimized and only the minimum number needed should be taken. The minimum level of sentience might be higher in some situations. I certainly can't justify my own eating of meat in this way, however. There may be circumstances where I could even justify eating human flesh. But I won't eat it when the situation doesn't practically force this.

Secondly, is the real reasons that people take on these unnatural practices. These fall into two categories, both emotional and not logical or moral, being basic squeamishness about blood and death, and the other being the anthropomorphisation of animals, particularly that concurrent with the rise of vegetarianism in the 20thC which I have called the Disney Effect. — charleton

Some vegetarians might well be squeamish about blood and death and that might motivate their dietary choices. That isn't true of most vegans/vegetarians that I've known, though it seems to be partly true of one. It wasn't a big factor for me. My decision to stop eating sentient beings unnecessarily came after a lengthy, rational deliberation on the matter. And it was a difficult change to make for many reasons. And of course, feelings were part of that too, feelings such as empathy, a recognition of another mammal's inner similarity to me, and so on. Feelings are unavoidably a part of it. Feelings motivate most action, even yours. When I see what is done to animals in factory farms, I feel a sense of horror much like what I feel when I see videos showing what the Nazis did, not that I hold these two things on quite the same level. But reason is involved as well in a big way. I would guess that most vegans/vegetarians have rationally examined their dietary practices to a significant degree.

As for anthropomorphisation, it is actually hard to know just what it is like to be an animal, and when we try to understand what they are going through, we do try to occupy their perspective in our imaginations. We place ourselves in their position. Some humanization is inevitable. However, I think it totally reasonable and rational to infer from the behavior of an animal like a dog or pig, with whom we share much, including much similar neurology, that when it squeals and tries to get away from someone cutting into its flesh, its inner state is much like mine would be in a similar circumstance. I've spent enough time with real animals, not Disney cartoons, to have come to have a good sense of just how similar to us they are in many emotional respects. It is harder when it comes to more alien creatures like squid, as their body language is very different. But dogs aren't so far from us. I am confident that I understand them pretty well. And it was partly my experiences with real dogs that led me to realize that I couldn't in good conscience kill and eat my dog, knowing what I knew about her, and a pig is no different.

I assure you that no Disneyesque image of a talking, dancing animal ever came into my mind in the examination that I went throught that led me to stop eating meat.

I think it is probably better to err on the side of thinking an animal more like us than it really is than the opposite. If I don't ascribe any of my inner experiential qualities to an animal, and I assume it is nothing at all like me, lacking even the most basic experientiality, I am likely making a grave mistake and might be systematically causing great suffering without even recognizing it. Descartes made this mistake in a big way when he insisted that animals are automata. If I can decrease the chances that I am causing a lot of undue suffering and harming the interests of other beings while not inconveniencing myself in a big way, I will.

And as it happens, making this change improved my health, my self-discipline, my strength in my ability to live my beliefs regardless of what others around me think or what they say (I am surrounded by people who are quite hostile to this choice as I live in a rural, conservative area), and so on. And it felt great to actually bring my behavior into alignment with my conscience.

If it helps you to feel better to think of vegans/vegetarians in the way you seem to, by all means...

You might be surprised if you cared to talk to one. — petrichor

I've lived with them, fucked them, and dined with them. They do not hold up to scrutiny. Don;t be so patronising. I'm way ahead of you.

Sure, our position may not be as well justified as the pythagorean theorem, — petrichor

Pythagoras avoided beans, and his followers were instructed to do likewise. He believed that loss of WIND through farting, was injurious to the fabric of the humours and very dangerous to health.
You are correct that your justification is not as good as his.

Humans are more valuable for sure, in my way of looking at all this — petrichor

Cockeyed.
Domesticated animals exist because of humans. Without meat eaters there would be no animals on the land at all.
Far from living at their expense; we guarantee their survival and they live in far better comfort and security than their natural cousins; they die cleanly, with no pain. And provide good shit for the soil.

I assure you that no Disneyesque image of a talking, dancing animal ever came into my mind in the examination that I went throught that led me to stop eating meat. — petrichor

You've grown up with these ideas since childhood and have an unnatural view of animals. It's an indelible part of culture.

So you think that all of the animals you will ever eat already exist? — NKBJ

No, of course not. But that's beside the point, which you've missed or are evading. Why is it that there are so few people here who can keep track of a conversation? That's how it's beginning to seem, and I'm getting sick and tired of it.

You seem to have forgotten the preceding conversation. It began with your reply to this:

An animal can (hypothetically/occasionally does) live longer in captivity and be treated nicely and then killed swiftly... — Andrew4Handel

Can, hypothetically, occasionally does...

And it proceeded as follows:

You say that all animals must die anyway, and use that to justify killing them for food/our own pleasure.
— NKBJ

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

a) Don't pretend we're killing the billions of cows, pigs, and chickens we eat every year for their own good.
— NKBJ

I don't. Don't pretend that it doesn't end up in their best interest, in light of the consequences, in some cases, regardless of the motive. — Sapientia

Now, since you have not given me the courtesy of sticking to the point, in return, I will not give you the courtesy of even reading the rest of your post, let alone giving it a considered reply.

Eating other animals is obviously wrong. But most of us do it anyway. It's not that profound.

Certainly. And interestingly, this pain brings a message of ought-not. It dissuades — petrichor

This is a very simplistic view of pain. My point was that it is not a bad thing in the sense that it aids survival. The idea of no one experiencing pain sounds positive until you hear about people who don't experience pain and suffer severe injuries. So do you want to eradicate pain or preserve pain for its survival value?

As a victim of long term bullying in childhood I doubt your pain provides an ought-not theory. If you are hitting someone and you yourself are not in pain it is not going to deter you from doing that.

So being deterred by your own pain is very different from causing pain in others. Also pain and distress in nature doesn't deter carnivores.

I was only referencing the pain that deters some injury but there is a lot of chronic pain that has long outlived any uselessness. I don't think you can turn all pain into a moral issue but if you do it is likely to lead to antinatalist and extinctionist views.

Since the following objection has a bit of substance, I'll address it.

Domesticated animals exist because of humans. Without meat eaters there would be no animals on the land at all.
Far from living at their expense; we guarantee their survival and they live in far better comfort and security than their natural cousins; they die cleanly, with no pain. And provide good shit for the soil. — charleton

Without meat eaters (human meat eaters or carnivores in general?), there would be no animals on the land at all? What?!!! Surely, you mean that these domesticated animals wouldn't be on the land. I'll assume that's what you meant to say. If that's what you meant, it is likely the case that some of them could not survive without our help if we were to let them all go (potentially ecologically problematic, obviously) and it is very obvious that these animals would never have existed in their current form absent our practices. Do you suppose this is something no animal rights advocate has ever considered?

How does this pose a problem for the position that we ought not enslave or eat animals? And how does this pose a problem for the idea that we live at their expense? I have a hard time seeing the existence of a typical factory farm animal as a desirable one, as something there ought to be more of in the world.

To get X at another's expense doesn't always mean that the other in question ceases to exist or would have existed otherwise. If I get pleasure out of torturing you, my pleasure is at your expense, even if I created you just to torture you.

Let's suppose that there is some society that practices cannibalism and finds Danish people to be tastiest. Suppose these people conquer the Danes, or at least some of them, and enslave them and begin some eugenics program to select for more of whatever quality it is that makes them so tasty and less of any capacity to resist, perhaps reducing their intelligence substantially to the point where they are too dumb to even understand their situation. Suppose the Danes here change form over time and become a sort of human that can't breed or otherwise survive without the help of the people who have made them this way. And suppose their lives are utter misery. They are kept in small cages, deprived of sunlight and fresh air, prodded, branded, harrassed with dogs, and so on and so forth, until the day when they are led to slaughter.

Should this practice continue? Does the fact that the continued existence of this new strain of human being relies on this practice justify it? Does the fact that these people would never have existed at all without this practice justify it? I think not. It is monstrous. If the only way for these people to exist is to exist like this, they shouldn't exist. And yes, regardless of the fact that without the cannibals breeding them, they wouldn't exist, the cannibals still live at their expense.

And it seems to me that regardless of the fact that these people wouldn't exist without their "masters", the masters don't rightly own them. As soon as there is someone with interests of their own, they are not the sort of thing that can rightly be considered property. They aren't rightly considered things at all.

As for the animals, it isn't really their existence or nonexistence that is at issue. And the problem with enslaving and slaughtering them involves much more than just causing these particular slaughtered animals to cease to exist, though once they do exist, it becomes a factor.

I think we ought to concern ourselves here with beings that already exist rather than concern ourselves wih potential beings that might exist if certain practices continue. We have this situation, and there are these real beings with their interests. What should we do with them in particular?

If I created you to torture you and you rely on me to be fed, if I decide what I am doing is wrong, now I am probably rightly held responsible for your well-being. I probably ought to provide for you and go to great lengths to make sure the remainder of your life is as positive and free as possible.

If we say that it is wrong to kill someone at least partly because we are robbing them of the remainder of their lives and all their future potentials, are we also saying that they ought to exist and that therefore, more like them ought to exist, and therefore, that we ought to breed as many of them as possible? Is failing to breed as many of them as possible then a serious wrong, the same as killing an equal number? No. Talk of beings who don't exist is fraught with problems. We should concern ourselves here with the rights of existing beings who have real interests. And if we brought them into existence, now that they are here, we are obliged to consider their interests.

Do your potential unborn children have a right to exist? Are you wronging them by not bringing them into existence? If so, that would open a huge can of worms! But any children you happen to have already had are a different matter, aren't they? Those you can't rightly kill. Killing a living being and failing to create a potential being are two very, very different things.

My point was that it is not a bad thing in the sense that it aids survival. The idea of no one experiencing pain sounds positive until you hear about people who don't experience pain and suffer severe injuries. So do you want to eradicate pain or preserve pain for its survival value? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, pain often serves a beneficial function. Could it be that while pain is an evil, some pain is justified if it serves a greater good?

Is suffering ever intrinsically good, without appeal to any extrinsic benefit?

If you don't intend to eradicate pain then it is somewhat arbitrary what pain your try and eliminate.

I don't think goodness is a property but rather a subjective judgement.

I don't think harm in nature gives us any obligations .We can attempt to minimise harm in nature if that is something we feel like doing but as I have said I think it is an improbable/impractical etc task.

Pain seems to be less of a problem if it is not pointless because we are willing to tolerate some discomfort to achieve goals. But I don't think there is any clear meaning in any of it especially since there is no clear purpose in nature.

As I said before, I have no interest in validity. It is only you that is talking about validity. — andrewk

How can you convince someone to not eat meat if you are not concerned with presenting them a valid argument?
There may have been very compelling arguments for ending the slave trade and not just appeals to emotion.

I am not sure what grounds you have for trying to change someones behaviour if they are not valid or rational?
Anyone can try and changes anyone's behaviour in any direction as has historically been the case. But successfully getting someone to believe X or act like X is not a mark of goodness or progress.

If you don't intend to eradicate pain then it is somewhat arbitrary what pain your try and eliminate. — Andrew4Handel

It seems like it might make sense to avoid unnecessarily causing pain where it doesn't obviously serve a greater good.

Am I being arbitrary if I choose to pet a dog or even just leave it alone instead of kicking it in the face?

Also, let's be clear. For me, the pain issue seems secondary to the idea that other sentient beings belong to themselves and not to me. They simply aren't mine to do with as I please. It would be wrong for me to use them as a means to my ends like that without some serious justification even if I cause them no pain or even if I cause them pleasure.

Imagine that I enslave a population of humans and use them for my purposes while using brain implants to make all of this very pleasurable for them. Is this then a good, since the overall pleasure in the world has been increased? I think not. The simple pleasure=good, pain=evil thing is too crude.

...they live in far better comfort and security than their natural cousins; they die cleanly, with no pain. — charleton

I forgot to address this. Even if all that were true, it wouldn't make it okay. It would be wrong even if we fed them a constant supply of pleasure drugs.

Put humans in their place and see if you think it would be okay. Round up all the homeless struggling for survival and do to them what we do to food animals. Would this be right?

And do they really live in far better comfort? Have you looked into what conditions are like in factory farms, which supply most of the animal products these days? Do you really think that these conditions are better and more comfortable? Secure? Seriously? You sound like you believe all the animals live on Old MacDonald's Farm. Where are you from? The big city? I've lived in rural America most of my life and have spent time around farms and ranches and have seen some things. I even worked as a kid on a sheep ranch. I frequently drive by a dairy on the edge of a nearby town where right by the road, you can see all the veal calves confined in their little hutches. I've seen animals being branded. I've helped put the little rubber bands around the scrotums of young male sheep, as well as clipped notches into their ears with a tool not unlike a leather punch. I've seen the male chicks put through grinders or suffocated en masse in large plastic bags. But I never personally saw a factory farm operation. Everything I've encountered directly is tame in comparison to what I've learned about factory farms.

Sure, I realize that animal rights activists, when they make their shock videos, are concentrating the worst footage they have. They are trying to make things look as grim as possible. But if you just look into how factory farms are designed to operate, if you have the least empathy for living beings, you should be shocked that our society does this systematically. Would people stand for humans or even dogs being treated in this way? (And don't get me started about how dogs are treated elsewhere in the world as food animals) The factory farm is a reality that is largely hidden from public view. And now, with all the ag-gag laws, it is harder than ever to educate the public about it.

If all the cattle were free-range cattle, it wouldn't be quite so bad, but it would still be wrong.

And do they die without pain? Some methods are fairly quick, but there is a lot of fear and often struggle involved.

Suppose they do die without pain and fear. Should we go around painlessly euthanizing homeless people that will otherwise likely die slowly and uncomfortably?

A big part of this is the question of who and what rightly belongs to us. If animals have more painful and frightful lives in nature, does this give me a right to exploit them and use them for my pleasure, so long as their pain and fright level is lower under my subjection of them?

I forgot to address this. Even if all that were true, it wouldn't make it okay. It would be wrong even if we fed them a constant supply of pleasure drugs. — petrichor

Why?

Put humans in their place and see if you think it would be okay. Round up all the homeless struggling for survival and do to them what we do to food animals. Would this be right? — petrichor

False analogy.
You are confusing humans with animals.
Please see "anthropomorphisation"

Have you looked into what conditions are like in factory — petrichor

I'm not making an argument for factory farms. I'm supporting the natural right of a human to eat meat.

If all the cattle were free-range cattle, it wouldn't be quite so bad, but it would still be wrong. — petrichor

making your point about factory farms completely irrelevant.

And do they die without pain? Some methods are fairly quick, but there is a lot of fear and often struggle involved. — petrichor

You are ignorant here.
Please compare with natural death by predator or disease.