For someone to change their behavior, they have to believe their current behavior is incorrect or wrong. I want to know if you actually believe that supporting the animal agriculture industry (buying animal products) is wrong. If you do not think it is wrong, why would we even discuss further than that? — chatterbears

I'm curious as to whether anything can be done, practically speaking, and without the use of force. Call me cynical, but it just seems to me that there will always be people like me, and that your cause, whether noble or otherwise, might in reality be a forlorn hope. And it's for that reason that I don't think that it really matters whether or not I answer your question in the way that you want me to. I'm only one person. Good luck changing the world.

Anyway, I do think that it's kind of wrong, as I have revealed to you in a past discussion. Yet, lo and behold! My behaviour has remained, and continues to remain, unchanged, and it may well remain unchanged until the day that I die.

As for your point about inconsistency, even if you can tie me down on an inconsistency, people can continue their lives with that knowledge and yet remain fairly content. I may be one of those people for all you know. It's a matter of what your values and priorities are, what you can or can't live with. Sometimes it's not even really an option. What if I were gay, but being gay conflicted with my morals? If I couldn't bring myself to abandon my morals, then it could come down to a choice of being consistent and unhappy or inconsistent and happy. Which would you choose? In some respects, my life choices reflect a life motivated by pleasure seeking and contentment over and above the life of some sort of noble sage. And yet, in spite of all of this, I can still sleep at night. I'm not racked with guilt. I'm not burdened with regrets. I like animals, but then I also like the taste of meat. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You keep saying how selfish we are, but do you apply those beliefs into your own actions? Are planning on become Vegan, since it seems to me that you think it would be selfish not to, correct? — chatterbears

Strictly speaking, I'm not vegan. I practice a form of dietary 'ahimsa', that is, I feed in such a way that my habits do not cause harm to others. I eat plant-based food, milk and eggs. (The eggs are a rare delicacy since I'm mildly allergic to them.)

Unfortunately, I feed my cats meat in combination with plant-based diet. This is because I think it would be wrong of me to subject the cats to my way of nutrition when theirs is a little different.

You don't get to choose what to base morality on. That's the subjectivist error again - see my answer to Terrapin above. — Herg

But you do? You have decided suffering is the basis for morality, how is that different? You discovered it written into the code of the universe by god or what?
I am not a subjectivist, but only a fool thinks morality is anything other than a human creation for humans. There is just no foundation for it to be otherwise. Its amazing to me when someone has the audacity to essentially say “my made up moral basis is legit, but your made up moral basis is not.”
Morality is something we decide to create. Once we decide to create it, then we can refer to reason to create an objective standard for it. Im really couldnt care less where you think your moral basis comes from, as long as it and the resulting moral
System make sense.

they apparently feel compelled to communicate that objection at every juncture. I have never met a vegetarian - I only later discovered was a vegetarian.
— karl stone
I've only just met you, and already you've told me you're a meat-eater. Funny, that. — Herg

In a thread discussing the eating of meat - it's not entirely surprising you know I eat meat. But I didn't start this thread. And I didn't start a thread with a question; and then answer every post telling people what the answer is. The title might have read 'our dominion over animal is unethical' - a statement of position, that would at least have been honest.

It's in that context one has to wonder why: "I have never met a vegetarian - I only later discovered was a vegetarian." I imagine I'm about averagely sympathetic, so I cannot believe that there are people in the world - so incredibly sympathetic, it's for that reason alone they are compelled to moralize to everyone they encounter. Like the question at the top of this thread, I don't believe it's honest.

Now add to that, the fact that nature is red in tooth and claw. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. How can vegetarians possibly accept that fact - when moralizing in the way they do? They don't - they live in some fantasy world, where the lion lays down the lamb - so to speak. Again, it's dishonest.

And this leads to the question of ethics. Ethics is not a simple matter. i.e. farming involves suffering. Suffering is wrong. Therefore farming is unethical. That's false. Ethics is a system of moral values that play out in relation to the real world. So, if the title were 'our dominion over animals is unethical' - that position would have to account for all the relevant and related factors; not least, human sustenance and industry.

There's no attempt to address those factors here - and this is a philosophy forum. It's not a chat forum. My interest here is ethics. The subject matter, is to my mind - a workable example. Only there's no work - there's just some bleeding heart pretense as a claim to moral superiority. It's dishonest, and that is unethical!

I don't know. You're too far ahead of your time. Like, for example, the Buddha.

I wouldn't eat meat, including fish, if I had to kill and prepare it for myself. Not for any ethical reasons. Just because I'm a lazy f---. I don't even like eating chicken, say, if it has bones, etc. So, for example, I don't like Kentucky Fried Chicken where you've got to eat around a bone. I don't like to have to do any work when I'm eating. I don't like eating shelled peanuts either. I like peanuts, but I'm not going to sit and take them out of the shell to eat them. I also don't like eating fruit unless it's already cut up/deseeded, etc.

So it's not a moral thing, I'm just hate having to do any work to prepare my food to eat. (I don't cook either, by the way. The most I'd do if I were on my own is throw something into the microwave.)

Not true. I take my dog to the vet to be inoculated because it's in his best interests. Having interests is nothing to do with having self-awareness. — Herg

It seems to me the attribution of interests in this case is an anthropomorphic displacement to your dog of YOUR understanding of interest and what the dog's interest might be. The dog itself is not "interested" in doing anything. It behaves purely on instinct. If there were no humans around to conceptualize interest, animals would have none in a state of nature, and I do not think it makes sense to term purely instinct based behavior "interested."

Further, it seems to me that at some level the only interests being served are your own since you have made the decision to keep a domesticated animal. You don't take the dog to the vet to further its interests (since it doesn't have any). Ultimately, you take it to the vet to further your own interest in wanting to continue to derive whatever pleasure the company of an animal companion brings you. I mean, the dog would never take itself to vet so I don't see how it is possible to say that that is in its interest if it's not a behavior it would ever engage aside from being forced to engage in it by a human. Generally, then, any interest it may have is derivative of and maybe even entirely constituted by YOUR interests.

The fact that we sometimes impose decisions on other humans on the grounds that it is "in their best interest" can't be used as an analogy for animals because when we do that for people, the implication is that the person for whom the decision is being made, for whatever reason, can not decide adequately for themselves what is in their best interest. This comes up most often in the case of the elderly or children who, respectively, have either lost or not fully developed the ability to reason about what their interests really are. In those cases, we decide for them in a way we think they would have decided were they not incapacitated in their decision making. When we decide for them in this way, though, there is some analogous subjective experience we can base our decision on because we believe that any reasonable person would want to promote their own interest. There are no analogous sets of experience we could look to in order to determine what animals interest really are since (1) they do not have the ability to deliberate about their decisions in the first place and (2) we have no way of reasonably believing what their experiences are like such that we could form a conception of what they take their interests to be.

However, the fact that animals are not capable of having interests doesn't necessarily implies that animals are not entitled to some moral agency. It is simply to say that you cannot assume that whatever moral claims may hold between humans will hold among humans and animals since the fact that they may have some claim to moral agency does not end the question. In particular, you can't assume that the moral prohibitions (if there really are any) against eating other humans necessarily apply to humans eating animals.

The relevant distinction is the ability to feel pleasure or pain. If plants can feel pleasure or pain, then, other things being equal, we should not eat them. — Herg

This is different from what you had said here

What makes an action immoral, in the end, is that it adversely affects ... any sentient being. — Herg

I supplied the emphasis here to draw attention to the gist of your original claim, the one I was responding to.

My argument responding to the original claim, which is not addressed in your subsequent post, was that

(1) Not all animals are sentient.
(2) If there are some non-sentient animals, a fortiori, they do not feel pain.

Consequently,

(3) if the claim that it is morally wrong to eat animals is completely grounded on the fact that they feel pain/pleasure, there is no moral reason for people to abstain from eating at least non-sentient animals.

In addition, even assuming your position is really that the morality of eating animals depends on pain/pleasure and assuming further that sentience necessarily entails the capacity for having pain/pleasure (a claim I don't think is true, but whatever), that still does not end the inquiry since, as I pointed out in another post on this thread in response to @chatterbears, a utilitarian ethicist can accept that animals feel pain/pleasure but still conclude that eating them is ethically allowed provided that any pain their slaughter causes is outweighed by the utility derived from products created as a result of that slaughter. That is, there is at least one ethical system where arguments that it is morally acceptable to eat meat can easily be formulated.

Maybe you reject utilitarianism. Fine. But then you will have to argue for (1) why that whole system is flawed and (2) why any proposed alternative system is justifiable before you starting arguing about the morality of eating animal meat. Otherwise your arguments will simply be aimed at cross purposes with a significant number of relevant moral agents, i.e. utilitarians. (I should point out that not all utilitarians agree that animal exploitation is justified from a utilitarian perspective. Peter Singer, for example, advocates utilitarian reasons for vegetarianism. I don't think that changes the fact that animal consumption can in theory be justified on utilitarian grounds.) The OP here was directed at the claim that there are no moral or ethical justifications for eating meat. I believe I have provided at least one such justification in the form of utilitarianism, making the absolute claim posited in the OP false. None of the posts have given me any reason to think otherwise at this point.

A secondary issue for the pain/pleasure position is that (1) it would be obsolete provided we implemented pain free methods of animal husbandry, which seems entirely possible and (2) since it only would prevent a person from causing an animal pain in order to exploit the resulting meat for consumption, it does not absolutely prohibit humans from eating meat provided they were not the ones who caused the pain. That is, there would be no moral prohibition against eating fresh road kill, for example, or scavenging the meat freshly felled by other animals. In other words, even if pain/pleasure is what made animals relevant moral agents, that would not form the basis for an absolute moral prohibition against eating meat. Consequently, there is no universal justification for strict vegetarianism.

You didn't explain what the "will to live" is though. Nor if it can be ignored (by those who think that life is immoral, for example). — Πετροκότσυφας

I already answered this. I told you, depending on what your moral system dictates, you can ignore it if you want to. If you don't care about an animals will to live, then don't. Hitler didn't care about the Jew's will to live, but I wouldn't say he had a logically consistent moral system.

You also failed to answer my questions to you in my last reply to you. Do you care about a human's will to live? Or do you not care about an animal's will to live? If you care about one, but not the other, what distinction are you making to create that difference in separation?

Is pleasure and convenience is worth the death of innocent sentient beings? — chatterbears

To me personally, this isn't the interesting question because I already agree with your sentiments (though I did kill a roach today). To me the more interesting question is not moral but tactical, what is the most effective way to share this understanding?

Do humans have dominion over animals? Macro animals, maybe, but not necessarily animalcules. My hackles go up anytime it's assumed humans have dominion over anything other than themselves. Actually, I tried to access the OP linked video and was asked to sign into youtube.
Plants could be considered sentient. Life eats life. Can't live off of air and saliva.

For example, how would you convince christians that it is wrong to kill animals for food when their religious teachings contrast that? — BrianW

Quite simple. Religious people are the easiest targets for ethical inconsistency. The bible condones slavery, yet they don't think slavery is morally acceptable. They will then tell you, "slavery was condoned back then, not for today's era." - I can follow up and say, how do you know eating animals was condoned back then, but also for today's era, yet slavery is not?

Religious people pick and choose which verses they should abide by, in which the core concept of "follow the bible" becomes completely contradictory.They will follow the 10-commandments, which are in the old testament. Yet when you point out another law in the old testament, such as killing homosexuals, they will say, "I don't follow that law because that was the old testament." - But when you point out their inconsistent ethics, they are stuck, and try their best to rationalize their illogical stance.

The arguments work for humans because it's clear that we're equal. That is not the same for animals, hence the current inconsistencies.

As for your point about inconsistency, even if you can tie me down on an inconsistency, people can continue their lives with that knowledge and yet remain fairly content. I may be one of those people for all you know. It's a matter of what your values and priorities are, what you can or can't live with. Sometimes it's not even really an option. What if I were gay, but being gay conflicted with my morals? If I couldn't bring myself to abandon my morals, then it could come down to a choice of being consistent and unhappy or inconsistent and happy. Which would you choose? In some respects, my life choices reflect a life motivated by pleasure seeking and contentment over and above the life of some sort of noble sage. And yet, in spite of all of this, I can still sleep at night. I'm not racked with guilt. I'm not burdened with regrets. I like animals, but then I also like the taste of meat. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — S

This is the core problem. This is how slavery existed for hundreds of years, because people were content with their inconsistency. It is how women didn't have the right to vote up until recently, because people were content with their inconsistencies. People feel ok discriminating against others, acknowledging their inconsistency on the basis for doing so, and continue to discriminate.

Also, if being gay conflicted with your morals, you'd have to evaluate your moral system and allow it to align with your beliefs, in which you would then be consistent AND happy. Anybody who is gay that is conflicted, has been brought up religious. Where the bible believers have ingrained the value of "being gay is wrong" into you. You would then have to evaluate why being gay is wrong according to religious teachings. Is it based on authority? (follow whatever the bible says?) In that case, you'd have to also condone slavery, genocide, misogyny, etc... But once you figure out that the way you feel about your sexual preference is not immoral, but instead, the teachings you were given from a biblical perspective are the actual problem, you can live a life without the need to worry. Especially when looking at the science, since homosexuality occurs in nature in many other species of animal.

Also, you seem like a person who lacks empathy and focuses on selfish desires. Which is not surprising, because a vast majority of people are like that. As you said, you like animals, but you also like the taste of animal flesh. Despite this being in conflict with your values, you will continue to do it anyways because you value convenience and pleasure over the life of another being. A slave owner could justify his actions by saying something very similar. "I like humans, but then I also like the convenience of owning slaves.

The arguments work for humans because it's clear that we're equal. That is not the same for animals, hence the current inconsistencies. — BrianW

People can claim that we are equal, but majority of people don't even believe that about their own species. Why do you think so many people are against immigration in the US? They don't care about other people's struggles or what they have to go through. Or the fact that people's countries are so awful, that they need to flee from it and come to the US. Go back 100 years, women didn't have the right to vote. Go back even further, black people were owned as property. You really think it is "clear" that we are equal? We tell ourselves that, but it is far from the truth.

But even if it were the case, that humans only treat other humans well, but not other animals, why is that? They would have to provide a justification for why one sentient being is deserving of life, and another sentient being is not.

But even if it were the case, that humans only treat other humans well, but not other animals, why is that? They would have to provide a justification for why one sentient being is deserving of life, and another sentient being is not. — chatterbears

Utility.

Some animals are bred for food, some for companionship, some for work, etc.

Some animals are bred for food, some for companionship, some for work, etc. — BrianW

And by the same "utility" standards, could I not justify slavery by saying "Some humans are bred into slavery (black people), some for companionship (white people), etc..."

If there's a utility in animal agriculture (which causes harm to the environment, our health and the animals themselves), then there should be a utility in owning humans as property (this only causes harm to the humans [slaves] themselves).

"Utility" isn't a justification for why one sentient being is valued over another. That fails on multiple levels.

I wouldn't eat meat, including fish, if I had to kill and prepare it for myself. Not for any ethical reasons. Just because I'm a lazy f---. I don't even like eating chicken, say, if it has bones, etc. So, for example, I don't like Kentucky Fried Chicken where you've got to eat around a bone. I don't like to have to do any work when I'm eating. I don't like eating shelled peanuts either. I like peanuts, but I'm not going to sit and take them out of the shell to eat them. I also don't like eating fruit unless it's already cut up/deseeded, etc.

So it's not a moral thing, I'm just hate having to do any work to prepare my food to eat. (I don't cook either, by the way. The most I'd do if I were on my own is throw something into the microwave.) — Terrapin Station

Would you accept "laziness" as a justification to harm another human or animal?

- I am lazy, therefore I own a human slave to do the hard work for me.

- I am lazy, therefore I will eat in a way that takes the least amount of effort, despite what harm it causes.

If your response is, "I wouldn't condone laziness if it harms a human, but I would condone it if it harms an animal." - What distinction, between animals and humans, are you making, in which the same action would justify doing it to animals, but not humans?

To me personally, this isn't the interesting question because I already agree with your sentiments (though I did kill a roach today). To me the more interesting question is not moral but tactical, what is the most effective way to share this understanding? — Jake

What is the most effective way to share an understanding of how not to rape? Or how not to steal? Or how not to kill a child? It's quite simple. Recognize that another sentient life should be valued. But if you want to discriminate against that life, you can take whatever action you want, right?

The ironic part about the entire premise of veganism is, many people who reject it are the same ones who have been discriminated against themselves. Black people, who endured horrible things like slavery and constant discrimination even to this present day. They can recognize oppression within their own group, but cannot recognize it within another group, such as animals. In the same way a white man was brought up to believe that black men are inferior to him, humans (in general) were brought up to believe that animals are inferior to them.

Do humans have dominion over animals? Macro animals, maybe, but not necessarily animalcules. My hackles go up anytime it's assumed humans have dominion over anything other than themselves. Actually, I tried to access the OP linked video and was asked to sign into youtube. Plants could be considered sentient. Life eats life. Can't live off of air and saliva. — Anthony

You were asked to sign-in due to an age limitation, as YouTube wants to make sure you're old enough to watch that graphic material.

Do plants have a nervous system? Pain receptors? Nerve endings? A brain to process pain? As far as we know, they do not have any characteristic that would conclude an ability to feel and/or process pain. But even if you want to take the ridiculous stance of, "Plants have feelings too." - It takes 14 lbs of plants to create 1 lb of meat. By going Vegan, you are also contributing to less plant "deaths", since humans would not need to consume as many plants as animals would. Majority of the plants in the world are fed to farm animals. We could save those plants by ending animal agriculture.

I don't think you did. Whether I am willing to ignore it or not does not explain what you mean by the "will to live". Also, your example is not symmetrical at all to mine. Whether Hitler was willing to kill Jews says nothing about whether, for example, those who find life in general immoral are able to ignore their own will to live. — Πετροκότσυφας

Will to live = Does not want to die.

Deer in the wild, flee from danger. A zebra runs away from a lion so it does not get eaten. It has a will to live. If I put a hot iron up to my dogs head, she will yelp in pain and try her best to get away from that iron. Every animal on this earth, has the will to live. AKA, they want to survive and avoid pain. Animals want to avoid suffering and pain, just as humans do.

That's because I'm not advocating a moral stance, I'm just trying to explore yours. Also, what the will to live is supposed to mean has not been answered, so I cannot answer either way. But, generally, my ethics is not essentialist, therefore the question does not make much sense to begin with. From within an essentialist ethics, the distinction (any distinction) drawn could simply be based upon self-interest. — Πετροκότσυφας

It seems to be a common theme that two-way discussions in a philosophy forum aren't valued. You only want to explore my moral stance, but not answer or acknowledge any questions or points in your direction?

Now that you know what "will to live" means, do you care about an animal's or human's will to live? If you care about one, but not the other, what distinction are you making to create that difference in separation?

Do plants have a nervous system? — chatterbears

Action potentials, yes. Plants have senses. Actually, they share genes with humans; mutated genes in deaf people mess up the hair cells in cochlea ; the same genes mutated in plants deforms their root hairs . All meat lovers should have to slaughter their own animal, if they continue to eat meat afterward, they're alright with me. The convenience of buying food off the shelf is unreal if we want to be self-sufficient: suffice it to say that that's not where your food came from. If people weren't so dependent on other people for alimentation, it might change their perspective entirely. In a way that makes sense. Some of the most self-sufficient animals are meat eaters or at least omnivores. Living from the earth clears up confusion as I see it. The point: when you are faced with ontological directness (sun and earth), you'd probably eat what you had to in case you might die otherwise (a dyed in the wool vegan would start frog gigging, I'm sure). Having so much choice at the market is a bit of a puerile dependence. Gardening is possibly my favorite activity because it feels right to be more self-sufficient in a market society of commercialized people as products and consumers. Haven't hunted yet, though it could still happen. Btw, factory farms are hideous and we likely agree if that's where you're coming from. Always take no more food than what you need. Mass production and industrialization are enormities. Surplus grain from cash cropping rots away in bunkers. Meat recalls. Diseases on factory farms leads to millions of animals' needless deaths with no food value, usually chickens. What a waste. There's a lot more going on than animal cruelty, here. We're all complicit in the market society.

Would you accept "laziness" as a justification to harm another human or animal? — chatterbears

Would you say that there could be a difference between accepting someone else proposing something (y, say) as a justification (for x, say) and yourself feeling that that x is justifed by y? (I'm asking because I want to understand just what you're asking me--I can't really answer until I understand the idea you're getting at.)

At any rate, by the way, as I've expressed many times, NO non-moral stance can justify any moral stance.

In general, you keep bringing up "justification(s)," but I don't talk about justifications when it comes to morality, and I don't think it really makes a whole lot of sense to talk about them, except as another way of saying that someone has whatever moral stances they do. I see justifications as good reasons to believe that something is the case, but when we're talking about morality, we're not talking about anything that's the case. We're talking about ways that people feel.

And by the same "utility" standards, could I not justify slavery by saying "Some humans are bred into slavery (black people), some for companionship (white people), etc..." — chatterbears

All humans are, presently, believed to have free-will as part of the equality package. This means that, unlike animals, humans get to determine their circumstances.

While we have a tendency to govern animals by their utility, we are building momentum where we govern humans by choice.

What is the most effective way to share an understanding of how not to rape? Or how not to steal? Or how not to kill a child? It's quite simple. Recognize that another sentient life should be valued. — chatterbears

What I'm asking you, all activists, to do is to investigate whether a bias for moralistic finger pointing is interfering with clear thinking. Moralistic finger pointing can be quite emotionally satisfying to the finger pointer, and it's reasonable to take such a distracting agenda in to account. Moralistic finger pointing tends to build rejection in those who are the target of the finger pointing.

What I've suggested above is that the most rational and effective course may be to identify those who have already decided to become vegetarians, and help them make the transition as easy as possible. When I first became a vegetarian many years ago I thought that meant buying frozen peas from the grocery store. True story! :smile: I needed help obviously, and was lucky to be in an environment where I got that help. Everybody does't have such help available, and may easily return to what they already know if they don't get it.

This is a philosophy forum, we're supposed to question everything, eh?

Action potentials, yes. Plants have senses. Actually, they share genes with humans; mutated genes in deaf people mess up the hair cells in cochlea ; the same genes mutated in plants deforms their root hairs — Anthony

We also share genes with bacteria, but I wouldn't say that matters in the realm of moral actions. I asked if plants have a brain to process pain. To process pain, you need nerve endings and pain receptors, which plants do not have. Unless you want to provide me with some scientific data saying otherwise?

But as I already said before. By going Vegan, you are saving more plants as well.

All meat lovers should have to slaughter their own animal, if they continue to eat meat afterward, they're alright with me. — Anthony

All rape porn watchers should have to rape their own human, if they continue to watch rape porn afterward, they're alright with me. Very sound logic here...

Btw, factory farms are hideous and we likely agree if that's where you're coming from. Always take no more food than what you need. Mass production and industrialization are enormities. Surplus grain from cash cropping rots away in bunkers. Meat recalls. Diseases on factory farms leads to millions of animals' needless deaths with no food value, usually chickens. What a waste. There's a lot more going on than animal cruelty, here. We're all complicit in the market society. — Anthony

Yes, so would you agree that people who buy animal products are contributing to the cruelty? Meaning, they are largely responsible for what happens to these animals.

Would you say that there could be a difference between accepting someone else proposing something (y, say) as a justification (for x, say) and yourself feeling that that x is justifed by y? (I'm asking because I want to understand just what you're asking me--I can't really answer until I understand the idea you're getting at.)

At any rate, by the way, as I've expressed many times, NO non-moral stance can justify any moral stance.

In general, you keep bringing up "justification(s)," but I don't talk about justifications when it comes to morality, and I don't think it really makes a whole lot of sense to talk about them, except as another way of saying that someone has whatever moral stances they do. I see justifications as good reasons to believe that something is the case, but when we're talking about morality, we're not talking about anything that's the case. We're talking about ways that people feel. — Terrapin Station

You keep getting hung up on synthetics, when I have already explained to you before what I meant by "justification". For you, I will refrain from using any complex words, and instead just break the idea down. So let me rephrase the question multiple times.

- Would you accept "laziness" as a good reason to harm another human or animal?

- Do you believe that "laziness" is a good way to go about making moral decisions?

- Each of us engage into moral decision making. Do you think a person should make moral decisions on the basis of "laziness"?

For you, laziness is a good basis for moral decisions. Because you have stated, you commit actions due to laziness, regardless of if those actions cause harm to another living being. You wouldn't eat meat, including fish, if you had to kill and prepare it for yourself. But since you don't have to kill it or prepare it for yourself, you are okay eating it, which contributes to the killing (harm) of these living creatures.

All humans are, presently, believed to have free-will as part of the equality package. This means that, unlike animals, humans get to determine their circumstances. — BrianW

That's irrelevant to the point. Years ago, black people were believed to NOT have free-will as part of the equality package. This meant that, LIKE animals, black people did NOT get to determine their circumstances.

Just because times have changed, doesn't change the problem. Instead of black people in slavery, it is now animals. Well, animals were slaves back then too, but I am referring to how you are constructing this point.

If you lived 200 years ago, you'd be saying this:

- All white people are, presently, believed to have free-will as part of the equality package. This means that, unlike black people, white people get to determine their circumstances.

Present day:

- All humans are, presently, believed to have free-will as part of the equality package. This means that, unlike animals, humans get to determine their circumstances.

All you did is replace black people with animals, yet the argument still fails. This still displays excessive discrimination against another set of living beings, whether black humans or animals, doesn't matter. The unjust treatment of people or living things, shouldn't exist and we should not support it.

While we have a tendency to govern animals by their utility, we are building momentum where we govern humans by choice. — BrianW

There is less utility in animal agriculture than there was in black slavery. Utilitarianism leads to Veganism, not away from it. Veganism benefits the world more than non-Veganism. Health, environment, and the animals themselves.

Suppose a husband and wife have a child with Down's Syndrome whom they have always loved dearly are cared for in an exemplary manner.Is the dominion - in terms of the strict discipline and physical restraint, etc; - that these parents must often exercise over their DS child's behaviours on a day-to-day basis ( or even hour -to hour) unethical?

Regards

John

Apologies, if this has already been addressed above...

There will be a story on NPR tomorrow about meat products grown in a lab. It's real meat, but no animals involved. I'm guessing you know more about this that most of us, so I'd be interested in your understandings and opinion.

My very basic understanding, hopefully somewhat correct, is that they do in the lab just what an animal does, start with plant material, and turn it in to meat.

What do you know about this?