I know, I was only seeking to address the question of moral worth — BitconnectCarlos
But the interests of cows are not the same as our interests. Equally, we can farm cows without causing them harm ( — Graeme M
Throughout this discussion I've been making the point that animals don't have as much moral worth as humans. — BitconnectCarlos
Ethical vegans claim that the interests of other animals should be afforded the same weight of consideration as those of humans, — Graeme M
I would suggest however that is not true - I propose that other animals have no interest in so doing, IF we are talking about an interest over and above a natural biological disposition. — Graeme M
Some would suggest that killing the steer is a harm, but I'd disagree if we do so in such a way as he is unaware of his death. — Graeme M
However a beef steer on a free range farm may enjoy a life considerably better than his wild counterparts and on the whole may attain considerable happiness and well-being. — Graeme M
Throughout this discussion I've been making the point that animals don't have as much moral worth as humans. I don't see how I'm being contradictory. — BitconnectCarlos
Pick a position please and then please actually try to make your case. First you use an example to show that they are not of the same worth, then you admit that your example cannot really prove anything about their moral value, and then you go back to saying they're not of the same worth as though you've made a case for that somehow, which you haven't... I mean... what exactly is your point? Or do you even know anymore?
don't need to pick a position in regard to meat eating vs. vegetarianism. — BitconnectCarlos
To be an ethical vegan only requires the recognition that the interests of a cow to live and be unharmed outweigh our interests to eat their carcasses for pleasure. — Artemis
Unless of course you actually meant to say "he is unaware of any pain associated with his death." Because otherwise you're admitting that it is harmful to take the life away from a creature who even "only" possesses a natural biological interest in continuing said life. — Artemis
If we eradicated factory farms and the evils that go with it, the vast majority of people would still have to go vegan because there simply would not be enough meat to go around. — Artemis
Also, people like to suggest that "nature is red in tooth and claw," but if you look at the average day-in-the-life of a wild animal--especially a large, herding herbivore like a cow-- it is (or would be) pretty pleasant. — Artemis
I didn't ask you to. My post was all about your waffling on animal and human moral value.
It is more to the point that the moral value of a cow is worth more than the temporary pleasure you get from eating its body. — HannahPledger
This does not make those acts moral, as we have refined our thought and evolved beyond accepting those behaviours as "part of nature" and "the way of the world" as we should with eating/exploiting animals — HannahPledger
They desire a life without suffering and exploitation and therefore we should not deprive them of that considering we don't have to. — HannahPledger
We have moral agency unlike lions who kill without thought, and we also can live healthily without meat which lions can not. — HannahPledger
"If we eradicated factory farms and the evils that go with it, the vast majority of people would still have to go vegan because there simply would not be enough meat to go around."
— Artemis
I completely disagree. How could you possibly come to that conclusion? — Graeme M
This raises a problematic issue though. Because while the lion kills without thought, it certainly does so with the implied consent of humans. The issue is more pronounced if you look at projects reintroducing predators like wolves into a habitat. Being killed by some wild animal is often accompanied with a lot of stress and pain. Do we therefore have a moral imperative to stop wild animals from killing other animals where possible? — Echarmion
The sheer amounts of meat produced and consumed seem to preclude any significant consideration for animal welfare. Without factory farms, the prices would skyrocket well beyond what most people can afford. — Echarmion
What we do know, based on the studies of animal behaviorists, psychologists, neurologists, etc etc. is that animals show the same or at least very similar reactions in the face of danger as humans do. Plants do not. Since plants don’t have brains, the suggestion that animal reactions to danger were similar to plant reactions is just kinda ludicrous on the face of it. But that aside, we have a preponderance of evidence that animals do feel as we do in the face of danger, and a total lack of evidence that they are missing something. — Artemis
We’re not killing animals to sustain our own lives. We’re doing so to enhance the pleasure of our own lives. Big difference. — Artemis
“How Animals Grieve” by Barbara King is an excellent resource on the matter. There are numerous other books and accounts that describe the grief herd animals go through when one of their own, especially their offspring, are taken or killed. — Artemis
You can disagree as completely or incompletely as you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that our current meat-consumption habits are dependent on the mass-production only a factory farm can afford. 99% of our meat comes from the factories. We don’t have the farm land or labor force necessary to sustain both the pastoral ideal and our overconsumption. — Artemis
“I did you a good, now I’m allowed to do you a bad” — Artemis
So consider my arguments framed in the context of those animal uses that are able to be defended on valid grounds (ie there is some actual genuine value for us). — Graeme M
So cows and humans avoid being harmed because they do not want to be damaged. That is different from not wanting to die. — Graeme M
A cow might grieve the loss of a calf or a fellow cow. But it doesn't follow that she knows that she can die. — Graeme M
Brian Tomasik — Graeme M
There is no ultimate moral code, we answer to no-one but ourselves and natural circumstance. If we must use other animals for a good reason - and there seem to be such reasons - then it is up to us to decide whether we should to do that ethically. — Graeme M
You'll have to be more specific, because other than animal use for food (which is only of pleasure value and not genuine value), I'm not sure what your example of the pasture-raised and painlessly-killed steer is supposed to defend. — Artemis
So... now you're saying humans don't care about dying either? And if you think humans do... why in the world would you think animals do not possess the same fear? Just because you haven't heard them say it in so many words? That seems rather self-serving considering evolutionary theory alone tells us that any capability we find in one animal exists to varying degrees in others as well. — Artemis
Your entire argument seems to boil down to "but we don't KNOW that the cow thinks x, y, or z" without any reason to suggest that she wouldn't. Again, we have all the evidence in the world which leads to the strong inference that she does, and no evidence to support the inference that she wouldn't. — Artemis
What are "good reasons" and what does it mean to do something "ethically" if we answer to "no one but ourselves" and there is "no ultimate moral code"? You are, in the space of a single paragraph, jumping from radical moral relativism to the ideal of an objective morality--or at least are being so sloppy with your language that you seem to be doing this. — Artemis
It worries me that such a simple and clear statement confuses you. That probably explains much of your commentary — Graeme M
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.