I've explained, because it is an example of the fallacy of composition. It's a fallacy to infer that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole, or even of every proper part. — Sapientia
Again, unless you want to produce an inconsistency within your own ethical framework, you would need to grant the same 3 basic rights to animals. — chatterbears
Since you claim you are not a speciesist, you seem to be basing your reasoning on preference? Which we can easily refute right now.
Is "preference" a valid justification to use for causing needless harm to another sentient being? It could be the preference of a white man to enslave a black man. It could be my preference to torture a dog and then kill it. It could be your preference to contribute to factory farming. None of these are a "need". So when you say, "when it comes to satisfying needs", eating meat is not a NEED for survival.
Clearly "preference" is not valid, and not consistent. — chatterbears
Plants do not have a brain or nervous system to experience pain, therefore they don't' belong in this discussion. As far as basic rights, my "feeling range" is the same for all sentient beings. So I don't know how your point applies to my argument. — chatterbears
-Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security (Article 3)
-Freedom from Slavery (Article 4)
-Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment (Article 5)
I don't believe all animals deserve every right a human has, such as Article 17, which is the right to own property. But I do believe all animals deserve these basic 3 rights, which have been granted to humans. Animals deserve what they can understand and experience. Owning a car, house or voting cannot be understand by these animals. — chatterbears
Animals deserve what they can understand and experience. — chatterbears
I'm saying that the suffering of other animals is nothing compared to the suffering of humans — Sapientia
Quite simple. Don't kill other sentient beings if you don't need to. — chatterbears
There are two options.
A: Eat animals, which results in pain, torture and death.
B: Eat plants, which results in almost no pain, no torture and no death. — chatterbears
A is unnecessary to live and be healthy. B is necessary to live and be healthy. 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
Also note that need, for myself, is not just brute necessity, but is defined by what makes human beings happy rather than what is required to survive. — Moliere
So, yes, plants can't feel pain but you should feel the pain of death and through such knowledge grasp the value of a plant's life. — TheMadFool
Other animals can't understand or relate to life, liberty, personal security, freedom, slavery, torture, and degrading treatment, to the unique degree that we do, so it wouldn't make sense to treat them as if they did. — Sapientia
There's also an inappropriateness in your suggested application of those concepts with regard to other animals. For example, keeping chickens on a free range farm is not slavery, it's more like serfdom. Slaughter is not torture, it's execution. And what's degrading treatment for humans isn't necessarily so for other animals. — Sapientia
Though of course if ones position is that it is unethical to farm any animal for consuption under any condition, then the two other questions don't arise, but I doubt that is the case with chatterbears, since he doesn't seem to object to the ethics of growing unconcious animals for consumption. — Tomseltje
So does a dog deserve to eat meat? Or would you force it to be vegetarian under your bill of universal sentient rights? — apokrisis
Both options are necessary to live the way that I want to live, which involves eating meat and vegetables. So I choose both. I can live with the death of plants and other animals for the sake of my personal gratification, so I must be an evil monster. But it turns out that being an evil monster has it's upshots. I get to enjoy the food I like, and you get to enjoy feeling superior. It's win-win. — Sapientia
Not necessarily equality, as more so to do with consistency. Also, even if it was about equality specifically, what valid counter-argument have you presented to reject this principle? All you have presented is, "Cows are animals, humans are humans. Therefore I can subject cows to pain and slaughter." - This sounds like a speciesist position, in which can be easily refuted by an Alien hypothetical. So again, you're not logically consistent. — chatterbears
It can be summed up by saying that an equality in kind, or on some level, or in some respects, doesn't necessarily entail equal treatment. And that any relevant differences in circumstance and severity ought to be factored into appropriate treatment. The goal should be to strive for appropriate and proportional treatment, rather than equal treatment. — Sapientia
So at this point, you're either being intellectually dishonest or are extremely confused. Other way, I think I have tried enough times to get a valid, coherent answer out of you, but you never supply one. I don't care to continue the discussion with you specifically, but others (such as Buxtebuddha or NKBJ) are welcome to try.
Until you supply me (or anyone) with a valid and coherent justification for why you feel it is necessary to kill animals, there's no point in a discussion. All you say is, "There's no single trait that I can point to, and I am not a speciesist." - If you don't even know why you are justified in committing the actions you initiate, it is no surprise that you have a hard time with considering animal well-being. — chatterbears
If I don't need to point to a single trait, as opposed to a set of traits, then why should I do so? Because you'd prefer it that way? Because it suits your strategy? Not good enough. If you can provide a good enough reason for me to answer any differently than I have done so thus far, then I will oblige you. — Sapientia
The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. For example: "This wheel is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is clearly fallacious, because vehicles are often made with a variety of parts, many of which may not be made of rubber.
How am I doing this by deploying a consistent test toward each justification that people use for killing animals? I am not saying, eliminating one invalid trait (part) means their (whole) position is invalid. I am saying, if we go one-by-one and assess the validity of each trait, and all the traits they point to are invalid, then clearly their entire position is invalid. But I don't start with "their whole argument is invalid because one trait is invalid." - I start with, "Let's go one-by-one and see if each trait is valid and logically consistent. If each treat is not, we can eliminate it and move on to the next trait."
This is nothing remotely similar to the fallacy of composition. Because I am saying, let's asses each PART. And if each and every PART is invalid, then the WHOLE becomes invalid. — chatterbears
Correction here. The proper term would be sentient, not conscious. So can you point to a non-sentient animal that we would raise for consumption? But even if you could, I'd say it would only be ethical if it was necessary. Which, raising any animals for food (in this current day) is NOT necessary. We have plenty of plant-based alternatives that can sustain our survival perfectly.
The proper question would be, "Can a dog survive on a vegetarian diet?" - The answer is yes. — chatterbears
This is just as flawed as appealing to 'preference'. What makes you happy does not say anything about what is right or wrong.
If it make me happy to cheat on my wife, am I then justified in doing so? If it makes me happy to torture animals, am I then justified in doing so? If it makes me happy to exploit animals for my taste pleasure, am I then justified in doing so? No. No. And no. — chatterbears
Also, as a side question. What do you base your moral foundation on. The bible? The mind of God? Etc... — chatterbears
That weight alone isn't enough, and that species alone isn't enough, and so on, and so forth, does not mean that a collection of qualities together as a whole isn't enough. — Sapientia
I don't really see an ethical difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food — Tomseltje
It might be possible that humans could survive perfectly on a plant only diet, but it will be hard to convince me there is any practicality to it, seeing that even the most strict vegans eventually take supplements of animal origin. — Tomseltje
My argument was against your OP - where you argued that we should be consistent with our feelings. And what is obvious then is that we all could have different kinds of feeling about the issue of killing and eating animals. — apokrisis
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.