The case with infants is different, the infant will grow up and gain moral comprehension, the animal will not. The ethics concerning infants do not come from their temporary lack of ethical insight, but rather our moral responsibility to them as fellow human beings.
Anyway, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement, I do not think just about anything can be “included in ethics”, but if I did I would probably agree with you here.
As for pets, I dont see a relevent distinction. — DingoJones

So if the infant is mentally disabled, to the point where they have the same consciousness and intelligence level as a cow, are we then OK to kill that infant, since they will not gain any moral comprehension?

Also, the things that can be "included in ethics" are actions that result in a victim being involve. Some harms to "victims" are necessary, such as self-defense. While other harms to victims are unnecessary, such as kicking my dog for no reason. When there's a victim involved, a moral justification needs to be addressed.

Chatterbears, you need to decide which question you want to debate, the title of your post or the final question in the text. Notice that they are different, and require different answers. To the first one in the title, yes, I think our dominion over animals is ethical and positive in principle. Someday it will pay off when we fight back an alien invasion. — DiegoT

The questions are related. Our dominion over animals has caused unnecessary suffering, which is specifically for our convenience and pleasure. Therefore it is unethical. And I am confused as to how this is relevant to an Alien Invasion?

To the second one, no, there is no excuse for making other sentient beings, from insects to orangutans, suffer unnecessarily. Other animals can not do this, because they lack ethics; but luckily we do. We need to avoid pain and stress to other creatures when it is possible to do so. — DiegoT

Does this mean you are a Vegan? Follow this line of thinking.

- Do you think actions become unnecessary when they are not required for our survival?
- Do you think unnecessary actions that cause pain and/or suffering are wrong?
- Do you think Animal cruelty is wrong?
- Do you think we need to eat animals to survive?

By answering Yes to 1, 2 and 3, while also answering No to 4, you're essentially saying that eating animals is wrong and unnecessary. And therefore, you should be Vegan?

We don't eat animals - we eat carrion. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. Agriculture is less cruel than nature! — karl stone

Can you give an example of this? And I will assume you do not know what goes on within these factory farms.

Nazivegans are right in denouncing that animals are not usually well treated in farms. And they forget about animals that are poisoned and exterminated to produce vegetables, which is much worse in terms of scale of global animal suffering. — DiegoT

Nazivegans? If I was against slavery, would you call me a nazi-anti-slavery person? That's just a very strange wording, because Veganism is about equality and compassion. To prefix that with Nazi is a bit odd.

Also, Veganism doesn't eradicate all suffering and animal slaughter, but it does cut it down a whole lot. Imagine these numbers. Most of the world's crops are eaten by the farm animals we breed into existence. So most of the animals that are being poisoned and exterminated to produce crops, are because those crops are being fed to farm animals. If we eliminate farm animal breeding, that is way less farm animals to die, as well as way less field mice and other rodents to die. Veganism in a step in the right direction on both of those issues. And you also have to remember, farm animals eat way more than we do per day, and we kill 50+ Billion per year. The amount of crops we would need would drop drastically, so there would be far less deaths overall.[/quote]

So I think what you are left with only one counter argument here, that under my view it would be ok to torture the psychopathic, the severly retarded, or pets. I would answer that absent a practical reason to torture/harm the subject, the moral agent could only have immoral reasons for doing so. This is where I would apply the sentiments you expressed above about amoral creatures entering human moral spheres. — DingoJones

Do you buy leather? Do you buy down comforters? Are you a cannibal? I'll give you a "practical" reason for each scenario.

- I want to kill the severely retarded person to use his skin as leather for my handbag.
- I want to kill the severely retarded person to eat them, because I am a cannibal.
- I want to kill the pet because I want their fur for my sweater.
- I want to kill the psychopath because they have tastier flesh than other humans.

Are these practical enough reasons for you? If not, than stop buy animal products, because the reasoning is identical, unless you are going to resort to speciesism.

On the economic side, the meat industry allows unskilled and trade labourers to make a living. As a consequence of ban on meat eating, they might experience a serious drop in well being. On the other hand, it could be argued that they could make a living from only farming the land and producing plants. However, this would decrease the price of plants, and there would still be some people left without of jobs due to the inability for competition. Also several industries - such as fashion, food, medical etc. would experience serious changes. This step risks the loss of a lot of economic wealth. — Fortress of Solitude

If there was a ban on human trafficking, would you also say there is a consequence of that ban, because many people making a living by trafficking women? What if we banned companies that exploited child workers? Would you say many children/families making a living from these companies, and that's a valid consequence?

Even if plants went up in price, it would only be temporary. The reason why meat is so cheap is because of the subsidies surrounding it. Once plants became the overwhelming meat replacement, companies would start to subsidize plants and they would be cheap as well. There is nothing "positive" that comes out of factory farming in which cannot be replaced by plant production. That's not just my opinion or conjecture, it is actually backed by science and peer reviewed journals.

lol... apparently we eat our family now? That's a bit strange... :lol:

Here is a logical phallacy: The dominant farming practices today are harmful for the biosphere, therefore ALL possible farming is harmful. Obviously this is not the case, there are ways of growing plants and animals that offer a very positive externalization to the environment. That is why NASA thinks that someday terraformation of Mars could be possible. — DiegoT

Who said that all possible farming is harmful? Matter of fact, there are some farms who do not kill their animals, but still sell their products rarely. And I said rarely, because they do not push their animals and force them to produce milk or other products for our consumption. Check out long dream farm, for example: https://www.longdreamfarm.com/

Farming can be done correctly, but the main component of that farm is to not KILL the animal. To allow them to live their natural lives. I assume you want to live out your natural life span, correct? So why take away that right from another sentient being?

Farming can not be abandoned by Man, because all those animals and plants whose mere existence depend of our agrosystems do not deserve extinctions after so many millennia feeding us; and after we have killed off their wild varieties. Not only the domesticated species are to be considered, but also the many species that need agrosystems to feed. Many national parks in the world depend on agrosystems around them to keep their diversity. — DiegoT

This is a very weird rationalization. You don't think they deserve extinctions, but you think they deserve to feed us by way of exploitation? You have a strange way of defining "deserve". Do you need animals products to survive? No. Therefore we do not need them to feed us. We need to stop breeding them into existence, allow the current ones to die off naturally, and keep a small percentage in animal sanctuaries or as pets (such as we do with dogs or cats).

We need to control our population and greed, shift to healthy farm practices that offer positive externalizations, and try to prevent the loss of diversity in agriculture, that is huge. And we need to keep on eating our animals and plants because they are part of our family; the Homo Sapiens phenomenon has never been just a bunch of individual hominids, but also the relationships with other species. — DiegoT

Would you accept this same statement from a cannibal who states, "We need to keep on eating our fellow humans because they are part of our family." - You sound a bit deranged at this point.

You really think it is the same to force impregnate a cow by hand or give her the choice to allow a bull to mount her in the wild? — chatterbears

It's pretty close to the same thing, because it is desirable to wait for the cow to be ready to breed, whether by a long arm and a tube or by a bull dick. It would be extremely unwise to attempt to artificially breed a cow who was not willing. A, they can kick hard, and B, if the cow flexes intensely while one's arm is all the way into the cow, it can break one's arm.

Many farmers use bulls and do it the old fashioned way (the bulls fuck the cows). The drawback to using a bull is that one's choice of sires is limited to the bull one has. Plus, when the cattle are out in the open range or pasture one can not know for sure when the bull bred the cow. One has to wait for the pregnancy. Some bulls are not all that efficient in terms of successful breedings.

some bulls are difficult to have around. They are big, sometimes aggressive towards humans, and they eat a lot.

You’re a fucking riot! Never a dull moment when you’re around!

I am aware of what happens in factory farming. I've seen the videos. I've read the articles. I've seen big factory farms.

I've also seen small scale farming -- the much lauded family farm. Most family farmers treat their animals decently, and they don't have the capital to build factory farms. Family farmers, of course, account for a small share of the food supply.

So, knowing all this, why don't I abstain from meat? Because at this stage in life I don't want to radically change my diet (I'm 72). I am selective about the meat I buy; I look for meat that is raised without antibiotics on vegetarian diets and without hormones. What does that prove? Crowding requires antibiotics; vegetarian diets means that animal byproducts aren't being fed to the animals. Hormones (like bovine growth hormone) are a marker for a heavy milking schedules that take a toll on cow health.

In addition I'm something of a hypocrite. At least some of the meat I eat is from large scale factory farms and bad things happen to the animals there. I disapprove, but I still like meat, milk, and eggs.

I think our dominion over animals is ethical, within certain limits. Animals should not be treated cruelly for their sake, and should not be raised unhealthfully for our sake. The Old Testament, which says we have dominion over the earth, also says that one must not prevent the ox which is laboring on the threshing floor (separating grain from the chaff) from eating some of the grain. "“You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain” (Deut. 25:4)."

I try to always do my fucking best.

I dont have the time to respond to the points made to other people another time with you, nor to tediously respond to your cherry picked portions (again, most were not even directed at you) point by point. Besides, ive heard your sermon already. Many times.
I mean no offense, but I restrict my forum activity to engagement of ideas rather than listening to preachers “educate” me about their ideology, so U wont be responding to any of that. Im sure you can understand its not personal.

I dont have the time to respond to the points made to other people another time with you, nor to tediously respond to your cherry picked portions (again, most were not even directed at you) point by point. Besides, ive heard your sermon already. Many times.
I mean no offense, but I restrict my forum activity to engagement of ideas rather than listening to preachers “educate” me about their ideology, so U wont be responding to any of that. Im sure you can understand its not personal. — DingoJones

I originally started this thread, and I try to respond to everyone who contributes to it, including the people who didn't directly respond to me. For the people who didn't respond to me, I pick certain things that I view as problem statements. But for people who respond directly to me, I respond to every point they write, for the most part. So to say I have cherry picked, is dishonest on your part. Because between you and I, I have addressed all your points (which you still haven't addressed). My response to all your points between our conversation is at the end of page one.

Also, what "sermon" are you referring to? Because a sermon is not a discussion. A sermon does not address the points of another person who tries to argue with that sermon. I don't preach to people, but instead, bring awareness to things people do not know about or understand. If you want to talk about an ideology, it is usually the people who leave the discussion (such as you are doing) who are unwilling to engage in ideas.

We don't eat animals - we eat carrion. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. Agriculture is less cruel than nature!
— karl stone

Can you give an example of this? And I will assume you do not know what goes on within these factory farms. — chatterbears

Carrion is the flesh of dead animals. That's what we eat. We don't eat animals like lions eat animals - or the larva of a parasitic wasp eats animals, or sharks etc, etc.

In nature, the act of eating and killing are often much the same thing.

In agriculture, they are separate - such that, very few people do the killing, while the vast majority of people only do the eating.

For you to say to me: "I will assume you do not know what goes on within these factory farms."

What you're saying is that the killing is my responsibility - but in fact, I don't know what goes on in these factory farms, and I don't want to know.

Similarly, when I boil a kettle - it's not my fault that the electricity is not renewable energy. That responsibility lies elsewhere. What should I do? Not boil a kettle, not wash my clothes, not watch TV because for reasons beyond my control or understanding - it's not renewable energy when it could be?

Similarly, should I not eat meat because the animal might not have lived and died in the best conditions possible? How could I possibly know? The responsibility is not with the end user. It's with the producer - of electricity, of meat, and of every other thing.

You'll say - well, you don't have to eat meat. Maybe that's true - but I like meat. The animal could have lived well and died humanely; more humanely than in nature. If you would demand I know the provenance of everything I eat, ultimately you place an unsustainable cognitive burden upon me - that's simply not my responsibility. Or demand that I forego that which I cannot guarantee is consistent with the highest ethical standards.

And because I can't guarantee any such about anything, the logical conclusion of your argument is sitting around in hemp kaftans, singing cum-by-yar, while waiting on a pot of lentils to cook by the heat of a beeswax candle - and that's just not a way of life that appeals to me in the least.

If I said I tortured a dog, and used the dog's skin to make shoes, most people would call me an immoral monster. But what if I paid someone else to torture a dog, so I can get shoes made of dog skin. Does it make me less immoral, just because I am not doing the dirty work myself? — chatterbears

Ok, so the problem with your point, philosophy in general, and my posts too, is that you're attempting to apply logic to a human experience. This process is more an expression of what we wish were true than what is actually true, thus the process itself is fairly labeled rather illogical.

Generally speaking, humans kill, eat and otherwise abuse animals because we want to, and because we can. Logic has little to do with it, other than helping us design the most efficient methods of killing. As we can see in the thread above, if we apply logic at all it is typically only to rationalize what we wish to do for reasons that have nothing to do with logic. Logic is, if you will, merely a cover story. The real story is power.

As example, all of us have probably met people with very limited ability with logic. Such folks typically careen through their life from one calamity to another. If you try to assist by applying logic, it's a waste of time, not because they don't agree with your reasoning but because they aren't on the logic channel. It's as if you are talking to them in Chinese, it doesn't matter what you say, because there is no common ground which effective communication might be built upon.

That's the underlying fundamental problem the documentary and this thread in general faces. The arguments presented might be brilliant, but that's typically not going to matter.

What might matter is if a person witnesses their friend die a gruesome death from colon cancer because their friend has decades of rotting animal flesh stuck in their bowels. That is, if the power equation changes and it is seen that animals can exact their revenge, that is a logic that may be be listened to. Or, maybe not, because what I've just typed is already widely known and the information has quite limited effect.

So, knowing all this, why don't I abstain from meat? Because at this stage in life I don't want to radically change my diet (I'm 72). — Bitter Crank

I think it is never too late for change, but I can understand why you wouldn't care to put in the effort at this time in your life. I think the animals would appreciate it though, as they are suffering needlessly.

In addition I'm something of a hypocrite. At least some of the meat I eat is from large scale factory farms and bad things happen to the animals there. I disapprove, but I still like meat, milk, and eggs. — Bitter Crank

At least you have acknowledged your hypocrisy and internal inconsistency, as that is most than others I have talked to. The next step is to act upon that inconsistency and change to align your thoughts with your actions. Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development.

I think our dominion over animals is ethical, within certain limits. Animals should not be treated cruelly for their sake, and should not be raised unhealthfully for our sake. The Old Testament, which says we have dominion over the earth, also says that one must not prevent the ox which is laboring on the threshing floor (separating grain from the chaff) from eating some of the grain. "“You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain” (Deut. 25:4)." — Bitter Crank

You'd have to explain how it is ethical within certain limits? Also, I have noticed you quoted the Bible. Are you religious? If so, what sect? Christian?

What you're saying is that the killing is my responsibility - but in fact, I don't know what goes on in these factory farms, and I don't want to know.

Similarly, when I boil a kettle - it's not my fault that the electricity is not renewable energy. That responsibility lies elsewhere. What should I do? Not boil a kettle, not wash my clothes, not watch TV because for reasons beyond my control or understanding - it's not renewable energy when it could be?

Similarly, should I not eat meat because the animal might not have lived and died in the best conditions possible? How could I possibly know? The responsibility is not with the end user. It's with the producer - of electricity, of meat, and of every other thing. — karl stone

So you would rather stay willfully ignorant, than to understand the truth and change accordingly? You are responsible for what happens to these animals, as you are the customer who demands the product they produce while being tortured and slaughtered. If we did not demand these products, the products would not exist. They only exist because we demand them, hence we are responsible for their existence.

- I kill peter myself.
- I hire a hitman to kill peter.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not responsible for the death of peter in the 2nd situation? I think it would be dishonest to say so, and you logically know it. There is plenty of information out there which exposes the practices of these factory farms, such as the documentary I linked in my original post (Dominion). It's up to you to make that decision and take responsibility for your choices.

You'll say - well, you don't have to eat meat. Maybe that's true - but I like meat. The animal could have lived well and died humanely; more humanely than in nature. If you would demand I know the provenance of everything I eat, ultimately you place an unsustainable cognitive burden upon me - that's simply not my responsibility. Or demand that I forego that which I cannot guarantee is consistent with the highest ethical standards. — karl stone

To claim it is an unsustainable cognitive burden, is to completely lack any ability to take responsibility for your actions and improve as a thinking moral being. In the case of animals, it is very simple. They die unnecessarily for our pleasure and convenience. You can stop contributing to their death by not buying the products they produce for us. If you have time to watching Netflix, Sports, Browse Facebook, etc... You have time to think for an hour per day, researching what happens in the world we live in. This is how we become more aware and obtain knowledge of what goes on in our world. If you don't care to grow as a person, then that's your prerogative.

And because I can't guarantee any such about anything, the logical conclusion of your argument is sitting around in hemp kaftans, singing cum-by-yar, while waiting on a pot of lentils to cook by the heat of a beeswax candle - and that's just not a way of life that appeals to me in the least. — karl stone

That's quite a ridiculous statement, which you have deployed to make you sound more reasonable than you actually are. The logical conclusion of my argument is to be socially aware and informed of what goes in our world. That factory farming isn't just unethical, but also detrimental to your own health and the environment. It doesn't take days of research to understand that concept and become informed. There is plenty of scientific data out there for you to read, but you have to be willing to learn and change.

And according to you, the way of life that appeals to you is to be willfully ignorant of what goes on, so you can enjoy your dinner without having to think about where it comes from. Would you also support the same situation if it were happening to humans? I wouldn't be surprised if you would, as it sounds like you don't care to learn, taking responsibility for your actions and/or change.

It seems to me that you can justify the "exploitation" of animals on utilitarian grounds. While the way animals are treated as commodities does produce suffering, that suffering is outweighed by the benefits their exploitation produces. Factory farms, for example, produce nutrition that is available at relatively cheap prices. That means that more people will have access to affordable food in such a way as to either (1) permit their survival where they would otherwise face starvation or (2) once survival is provided for, allow them to allocate resources they would otherwise spend acquiring that nutrition to areas that increase their overall quality of life.

I realize that you assert in the OP that using animal products is unnecessary. I can't argue for or against that claim since it requires significant empirical economic research. I suspect it is ultimately not capable of clear evidentiary proof either way. In any event, you provide no good grounds or summary from the documentary link for believing it's true. My guess is that it could be true for developed countries, but may hold significantly less the less developed a community is.

That said, even assuming it is true that using animal products is unnecessary, a utilitarian justification can still be worked out on the basis of (2) above. In fact, you seem to admit that animal exploitation does produce "pleasure and convenience". Without discounting the former but focusing on the latter, this means that factory farming creates economic possibilities for pursuing other life-enhancing activities that people would not otherwise be able to pursue if they had to direct their resources (personal or societal) to compensating for the lack of factory farms.

Your initial claim was that, unqualifiedly, it

definitely is unethical to support these industries — chatterbears

Since a utilitarian could accomodate the commercial use of animals as being acceptable within their system of ethics, the claim can not be absolutely true since, for them, commercial use of animals is not only ethical, but required given the utilitiy-loss that would result from not using them commercially.

if the cow flexes intensely while one's arm is all the way into the cow, it can break one's arm. — Bitter Crank

You're not a farmer, so you know this how?

Ok, so the problem with your point, philosophy in general, and my posts too, is that you're attempting to apply logic to a human experience. This process is more an expression of what we wish were true than what is actually true, thus the process itself is fairly labeled rather illogical. — Jake

You apply logic to actions taken by humans, in which you can improve the understanding of those actions and make better decisions in the future. If you cannot apply logic/knowledge to an action, then you will probably justify any action you want to. As I told someone else, ethics requires consistency (logic) in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development.

Generally speaking, humans kill, eat and otherwise abuse animals because we want to, and because we can. Logic has little to do with it, other than helping us design the most efficient methods of killing. As we can see in the thread above, if we apply logic at all it is typically only to rationalize what we wish to do for reasons that have nothing to do with logic. Logic is, if you will, merely a cover story. The real story is power. — Jake

Using logic to criticize our actions, is how we take responsibility and change those actions for the better. Yes, we use our power to rule over animals and the rest of the world, but does might make right? Just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean you should, correct?

As example, all of us have probably met people with very limited ability with logic. Such folks typically careen through their life from one calamity to another. If you try to assist by applying logic, it's a waste of time, not because they don't agree with your reasoning but because they aren't on the logic channel. It's as if you are talking to them in Chinese, it doesn't matter what you say, because there is no common ground which effective communication might be built upon.

That's the underlying fundamental problem the documentary and this thread in general faces. The arguments presented might be brilliant, but that's typically not going to matter. — Jake

Despite people not being friendly to logic, they also may be unaware of what actually goes on. I have talked to somebody last week at work, who told me they did not actually know that chickens were killed after they were spent in egg-laying. Some people are just actually ignorant of what goes on in these farming industries. Which is part of why I start these threads, to spread awareness, which is separate from the logic arguments.

What might matter is if a person witnesses their friend die a gruesome death from colon cancer because their friend has decades of rotting animal flesh stuck in their bowels. That is, if the power equation changes and it is seen that animals can exact their revenge, that is a logic that may be be listened to. Or, maybe not, because what I've just typed is already widely known and the information has quite limited effect. — Jake

Yes, most people are selfish and only care what happens to them, or what they are affected by. We claim to be the more intelligent species, yet we use that intelligence by abusing our power and act as the most selfish species on the planet. We are the most destructive and most self-centered species this world has ever seen.

In my view our exploitation of other species is no more of an ethical problem than other species' exploitation of our bodies for food and housing (bacteria, mites, mosquitoes etc.), or other species' exploitation of other species.

In any event, I'm a moral relativist/subjectivist/noncognitivist who believes that no moral utterance can be true or false, objectively correct or incorrect. Morality boils down to individuals feeling however they feel about interpersonal behavior.

I was raised in a religious Protestant family but I am no longer a believer.

By "ethical within certain limits" I mean that it is ethically acceptable to eat meat from animals that have not been raised with industrially intensive, harsh conditions. Agriculture was changed extensively after World War II. The use of pesticides and herbicides was hugely increased; the methods of raising poultry, hogs, and beef were intensified. These changes have continued to intensify over time.

Why did this happen? It happened because advancing technology brought new chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones) to market for use in agriculture. Maximizing yield on investments was the driving force.

Raising animals became mechanized and dehumanized.

People who raise(d) animals on small family farms are/were involved daily, and personally, in the care and feeding of their flocks and herds. There is a huge difference in quantity and quality. Raising 150 chickens, 50 cows, a 100 pigs is entirely different than raising 15,000 chickens, 5000 cows, and 7500 pigs on one farm. A farmer who milks 30 cows knows each one by name, by personality, and history. Milking operations that involve 10,000 cows are 7/24 operations where the cows are (literally) numbered.

Milk cows are treated relatively well, even in huge dairy operations. Beef cattle, not so much. Beef are concentrated in feed lots where they are fed a rich diet of grains and grow fast. These operations are where antibiotics come in for heavy use to control infections and speed up growth. These are the operations where antibiotic-resistant bacteria are likely to be developed. The lives of these cows is pretty much like the lives of chickens or hogs which are packed into cages inside buildings.

There are humane farm operators that sell meat which one can find in specialized stores (like food co-ops and high-end grocery stores).

It is "ethical within limits" if one restricts one's meat eating to humanely raised meat, eggs, and dairy. This is dicey, because marketing regularly misrepresents products in various ways. But grass fed beef, for instance, isn't raised in feed lots. It tends to be more expensive and its taste is distinct from feed lot beef. Free range eggs, if the chickens really are free range, will be substantially more expensive than organic, cage free eggs.

You're not a farmer, so you know this how? — Hanover

Doesn't everybody know that?

Three sisters married farmers all living nearby, who were dairy, hog, and beef farmers. I spent quite a bit of time at their small farms when I was growing up in the '50s and '60s. The main industry in the area was, still is, farming. Because SE Minnesota is hilly, farms are small, owned by descendants of mostly German and Scandinavian immigrants from the late 19th century.

I realize that you assert in the OP that using animal products is unnecessary. I can't argue for or against that claim since it requires significant empirical economic research. I suspect it is ultimately not capable of clear evidentiary proof either way. In any event, you provide no good grounds or summary from the documentary link for believing it's true. My guess is that it could be true for developed countries, but may hold significantly less the less developed a community is. — Mentalusion

Unnecessary=Not needed
Need=something essential to survival.

It is a scientific fact that we do not need to consume animals to survive. In fact, the opposite is true. It is more beneficial for our health, and the environment, if we consume plant-based products instead. Here are a few links for you to reference (but you can research this yourself as well).

- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing

- https://www.facebook.com/notes/grumpy-old-vegans/humans-have-no-need-to-consume-animal-products-to-be-healthy/544935285618383/

Also, the less developed a country is, the more expensive animal products are. If you think about the cheapest foods in the world, they are not animal based. Rice, grains, beans, etc...

That said, even assuming it is true that using animal products is unnecessary, a utilitarian justification can still be worked out on the basis of (2) above. In fact, you seem to admit that animal exploitation does produce "pleasure and convenience". Without discounting the former but focusing on the latter, this means that factory farming creates economic possibilities for pursuing other life-enhancing activities that people would not otherwise be able to pursue if they had to direct their resources (personal or societal) to compensating for the lack of factory farms. — Mentalusion

Rape can produce a pleasure and convenience for a person who wants to have sex. But does that mean the "utility" of pleasure in the case of rape, means we should continue to condone/permit rape? No, because the victim involved within a rape does not become so insignificant to the point of utility becoming superior. Pleasure and convenience are never a good reason to based moral actions on. You could say the same thing for slave owners, as it brought them convenience to own slaves. And some slave owners would rape the slaves, which brought them pleasure. So does that mean, owning slaves has a utilitarian justification which should be considered as valid? No.

Since a utilitarian could accomodate the commercial use of animals as being acceptable within their system of ethics, the claim can not be absolutely true since, for them, commercial use of animals is not only ethical, but required given the utilitiy-loss that would result from not using them commercially. — Mentalusion

Are you taking the utilitarian approach? If not, how do you actually define morality. And how do you define how we should determine a bad action from a good action?

What might matter is if a person witnesses their friend die a gruesome death from colon cancer because their friend has decades of rotting animal flesh stuck in their bowels. — Jake

No one has had rotting animal flesh stuck in their bowels and lived very long to tell about it. The whole point of digestion is for enzymes and bacteria to break down food into its constituent chemicals and absorb them. One of the functions of gut bacteria is to prevent "rotting".

What is more likely to cause bowel cancer are smoking and chewing tobacco, eating a lot of smoked and charred meat (or charred turnips, for that matter), and feeding on excessive amounts of sugar and fat. In other words, bad habits and bad diets cause colon cancer.

In my view our exploitation of other species is no more of an ethical problem than other species' exploitation of our bodies for food and housing (bacteria, mites, mosquitoes etc.), or other species' exploitation of other species. — Terrapin Station

Bacteria and mosquitoes do not have the same cognitive ability to reason and evaluate actions as we do. We are the more intelligent species, in which we can self-reflect and improve our actions, based on ethical consistency and logic. To say, "Action X is ok because mosquitoes also deploy action X", is a bit demeaning and devaluing the potential of our species. Some Lions kill cubs at birth, which is infanticide. Would it then be ok for me to commit infanticide because Lions do it? To say so, would be a bit outlandish. We should never base our moral actions on the basis of another species. We are our own species, in which we should take responsibility for the actions we commit.

In any event, I'm a moral relativist/subjectivist/noncognitivist who believes that no moral utterance can be true or false, objectively correct or incorrect. Morality boils down to individuals feeling however they feel about interpersonal behavior. — Terrapin Station

So if I feel it is morally permissible to kill old people, would it then be considered morally correct, just based that is how I feel? If you based morality on how people feel, rather than logic and/or ethical consistency, you would have a world of chaos (worse than it already is). At least we have some laws put in place, some of which are unnecessary and harmful, but most are supposed to be for the protection of the society built within it.

How do you decide whether or not an action it morally good vs. morally bad? Or do you not have a method at all, and just abide by however you feel at the time?

It is a scientific fact that we do not need to consume animals to survive — chatterbears

In the long run (like within the next hundred years of global warming) we will all be eating a vegetarian diet if we are eating at all, because climate change will steadily render more and more current agriculture untenable. Humans and most animals do not do well in excessive heat and high humidity.

In the long run (like within the next hundred years of global warming) we will all be eating a vegetarian diet if we are eating at all, because climate change will steadily render more and more current agriculture untenable. Humans and most animals do not do well in excessive heat and high humidity. — Bitter Crank

Not sure if you are aware, but factory farming is one of the leading causes of environmental damage. I'll assume you accept the science behind global warming being human caused/enhanced, correct? 51 percent or more of global greenhouse-gas emissions are caused by animal agriculture, which is more than transportation.

factory farming is one of the leading causes of environmental damage — chatterbears

I mean, an oil rig or a gold mine cause more environmental damage pound for pound, there's just so many farms (and many of them cutting corners).

51 percent or more of global greenhouse-gas emissions are caused by animal agriculture, which is more than transportation. — chatterbears

Where did you hear that?

According to my sources, that's bologna.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data