But this is not remotely similar to contributing to animal torture and death. We know who is responsible for the animal slaughter and yet we still contribute to it. Both situations display our selfish actions, which are indeed immoral. — chatterbears
We're not talking about your suffering or death. No human is going to die because we decided not to hurt the animals. — NKBJ
Do you realise the risk that obligation entails by referring to nothing more than our current knowledge to judge the infinite future consequences of our actions? Do you really trust our current knowledge that much? — Pseudonym
I know that... — NKBJ
Just now we were talking about being caught between two acts. I'm pointing out that giving up meat is nothing compared to the suffering of animals. You jumped to talking about sacrificing animals to save humans. I explained that no one is suggesting we sacrifice human lives or even cause them suffering. The great thing is, we can do both: we can let humans live AND let animals live. Woot woot!
That is a wholly different argument than explaining that human and animal suffering are alike in many significant ways that both matter morally. — NKBJ
I provided scientific evidence that eating animals cause more objective harm than eating a carrot. Are you going to provide any counter-argument or any type of evidence at all, other than just saying "carrot harm and snail harm are the same"? Also, the comparison of snails to factory farmed animals is absurd.In the reality that we presently occupy you must procure your carrot and in doing so you effect as much harm if not more harm than you would by eating the snail. — Marcus de Brun
Fundamentalist how? Again, saying things without providing an actual argument or evidence for it. You seem to just assert things without any logic to back it up.All vegans are vegetarian and some are fundamentalist in their thinking. — Marcus de Brun
If we conclude that it's OK for the lion to kill the gazelle because it doesn't know right from wrong, then, in order to be consistent, we must also conclude that it's OK for the mentally disabled person to kill whomever they wish because they don't know right from wrong. — Pseudonym
I only have to answer the question in a way which answers the question, which is what I've done. I don't have to answer the question in the way that you're pushing for, which is unnecessary and would play into your hand — Sapientia
Who here, if anyone, is of the position that intelligence or any other single trait is the sole basis of distinguishing between humans and other animals in terms of how we judge how they should be treated? Let's not forget that you have played a part in bringing about this problem by asking subtly loaded questions which contain the controversial assumption that the distinction is due to a single trait, rather than a set of traits. — Sapientia
And dogs? Surely dogs too. — apokrisis
The lion requires the consumption of the gazelle to survive. This is a necessary evil for the lion to survive. The mentally disabled person does not require the killing of whomever they wish in order to survive. This is an unnecessary evil for the mentally disabled person to survive.
Hence I go back to the factory farms, which are an unnecessary evil, and is not required for humans to survive. — chatterbears
The 'what we should prefer to eat' remains an entirely selfish and self serving argument, because the meat or animals that he does not wish to eat resemble himself in some manner: vis the capacity to have thought, experience pain, be unhappy and so on. Life is to be more valued as it approximates to the animal that he loves the most. — Marcus de Brun
This is simplistic and again is subject to selfish principles because one must decide upon the form of life that can be eaten and that which should not be eaten, and once again we arrive at rigid fundamental principles. — Marcus de Brun
Upon the carrot there live micro organisms that are also imbued with life. The Carrot itself is a valid living entity that is no less alive and no less beautiful than an oak or redwood tree. — Marcus de Brun
If I have a chainsaw in my hand and I ask chatterbears which is more immoral: to chop down the old redwood or eat the burger? If he says that carrots are less beautiful than redwoods that is simply because there are more carrots than redwoods... again a self serving view of what is beautiful and what is to be cherished. Dont eat the carrot, dont eat the cow and dont chop the redwood unless you have a philosophically validated need to do so. — Marcus de Brun
Yes, and that's just one of many absurd consequences which arise from the endorsement of an equality of kind which neglects a difference in degree. This is the one fault which pervades much of his thinking. — Sapientia
But what does it mean to talk of killing other beings unnecessarily? — Sapientia
I think chatterbears is very passionate about animal rights, and sometimes when that's the case it becomes hard to understand why other people don't believe as oneself — Moliere
Because humans are more important to me than other animals. It's not a particular trait of humans that makes me feel that way, or a set of traits. I belong to the group 'humans', and I look out for their self-interest. — Moliere
B will still have some indirect pain/death associated with it, such as the field mice that die during the harvesting of our crops. But the pain/death associated with B, is not even remotely similar to the pain/death associated with A. — chatterbears
You seem to be erroneously assuming that others must accept this hidden principle of an equality of sorts among species which you seem to presuppose. If I reject this principle, then I'm not being inconsistent if I don't judge or act in accordance with it. I can have empathy for humans and logical consistency, yet reject veganism. — Sapientia
This seems to me you are a speciesist. Is this correct? That because a species is different, we are therefore justified in treating them however we want. — chatterbears
If you're not consistent within your own subjective ethics, you have no grounds for telling me what is moral or immoral. And also, you have contradictory/hypocritical beliefs within your own internal moral framework. — chatterbears
You see this is where you keep changing the terms of your argument. On the one hand you talk about the pain/suffering of creatures who can feel pain (this is how you avoid the reality that vegetable farming kills billions of insects/worms etc). But then when the idea of humane animal farming is raised, such that the farmed animals feel no pain, you go back to the idea that it is simply the killing that's wrong for purely ethical reasons (to avoid having to concede that humane animal farming would solve the problem). — Pseudonym
It seems to me that you believe animals have inalienable rights. But why? Why on earth would you believe such a thing? What gives animals rights? — Moliere
And we are an animal I happen to prefer over other animals, when it comes to satisfying needs. — Moliere
So to clarify, are you a speciesist? — chatterbears
Because since you don't have a specific trait you can point to, in distinguishing why one animal (humans) deserves better treatment than another animal (pigs), this is an easy position to attack. — chatterbears
Sapientia believes it is okay to kill animals for food, based on the difference in species.
Alien believes it is okay to kill humans for food, based on the difference in species.
Do you accept both of these scenarios? If not, you're internally inconsistent. — chatterbears
Rather it decreases with what I describe as ''feeling range'' which is basically the fact that our feelings are strongest for the self, then family, then friends, community, country, humans, animals and then plants. — TheMadFool
No, I'm not a speciesist — Sapientia
I ask for a single trait, rather than multiple at a time, so we can tackle each trait one-by-one. I am fully aware that everyone has multiple traits they can point to, but I'd rather dissect each trait to see if it is valid and worthy of justifying the unnecessary killing of animals.
So if you have 5 traits: Weight, species, intelligence, taste, convenience
We would need to go one-by-one and see if each justification is valid and consistent on its own. Is a difference in "weight" a valid justification for killing something? No. Is the pleasure of "taste" a valid justification for killing something? No.
We can go one-by-one, and eliminate each justification by deploying logical consistency to it, in which the person would now be left with ZERO valid justifications for why they feel it is okay to kill animals. — chatterbears
In order to be consistent you would have to hold the view that, if at any time if became unnecessary for the lion to kill the gazelle we are as morally obliged to prevent it as we are to prevent the deaths caused by the psychopath — Pseudonym
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.