So now you're talking about freedom, not death. If the animals were free prior to us killing them for food, then it would be ethical? I can see that as an argument. It would still apply to pets, which, by and large, aren't free — Isaac
How? Dogs are perfectly capable of living free, they do so in large packs in many southern European cities. So how is restraining them on a lead and imprisoning them in a house 'guardianship'? — Isaac
Yet all you have given so far as unethical is lifespan (the foreshortening of it)... So if all you've got as non-ethical is the reduction of lifespans, then high-welfare farming is the most ethical way to treat animals. — Isaac
Agreed. But that's not the argument you made. It's got nothing to do with Veganism... Then you're using a different definition to most. That might be part of the misunderstanding here... Veganism is not just a position that we ought act ethically toward animals, it is a declaration of what that ethical treatment should entail. It bypasses the debate about what constitutes ethical treatment and substitutes its pre-conceived notion of the solution. — Isaac
I don't believe I ever talked about death. The claim is that other species have a right to their own lives. — Graeme M
The argument is that other animals have a right to their own lives and to be treated fairly, including the right not to be treated cruelly. On these grounds, we should choose not to farm animals for the same reasons we shouldn't farm humans. That is, it is not ethical to own a human, to treat a person as property, to use them as a means rather than an end. — Graeme M
If under Articles 3-5 it is not ethical to enslave humans, then we have already specified what is ethical. The same applies in the case of other species. Which is exactly what veganism is. — Graeme M
It [veganism] isn't simply a diet. — Graeme M
Then I'm unsure what ethical concern you're raising against welfare-concerned farming. The animals 'have' their own lives. — Isaac
So you've no objection to hunting? — Isaac
How do you feel about factory work? Is it your view that factory workers have chosen to work in those conditions of their own free will? — Isaac
No. Veganism would preclude hunting, for example. — Isaac
My argument is that if we wish to protect the interests of other species we probably should choose not to hunt animals for food. — Graeme M
am arguing for the same consideration of basic interests. Is it ethical to own slaves? I would say no, and I think that is generally agreed by most people today. The issue isn't how well the slaves live, it is the fact they are slaves in the first place. — Graeme M
as a society we have agreed that a fair wage is sufficient to minimise this form of exploitation. — Graeme M
Why? This is Graeme M's thread about veganism and you posted a claim on it. Why are we now discussing a caricature of a theory of mine that I haven't even mentioned? — Isaac
You were the one refuting my claims against the naturalistic fallacy (ancestors etc). Thus I refuted that refutation. — schopenhauer1
A claim is not defended by pointing out that an alternative claim is wrong unless the two claims are mutually exclusive. — Isaac
whenever we can — Graeme M
when possible and practicable — Graeme M
I don't see how that applies to hunting. You seem to have gone back to this being about foreshortening life. — Isaac
As a society we've agreed that farming is a reasonable way to create food. I don't see how your argument works here. — Isaac
It would be good if you were willing to be more open to the proposition rather than simply trying to find weaknesses. — Graeme M
It would be good if you were willing to be more open to the proposition rather than simply trying to find weaknesses. — Graeme M
The claim is straight-forward. — Graeme M
other animals deserve to have their basic interests protected. If a basic interest is to be free to conduct one's own life (which is what is meant by the right to life, liberty, freedom and not be enslaved), then a) we should not breed them to be used as property and treated as a means rather than an end, AND b) we should not kill them when we do not need to. — Graeme M
It may seem that way to you. The point of posting in a discussion forum is surely to discover if it also seems that way to others. If you already have all the answers then one wonders what the point was. — Isaac
I have explained why the ethical basis for the proposition is consistent with everyday human ethics and why we can make similar decisions about the things we do in this regard. — Graeme M
In the case of your objection which is - as best I can tell - that animals can be farmed ethically, — Graeme M
Neither (a) nor (b) follow from your premise alone. You've drawn no connection at all between liberty and being used as an end. — Isaac
Nothing about killing something interferes with it's liberty other than by foreshortening its life. If foreshortening life is unethical, then it's hard to see how lengthening it (above average) is also unethical. Farmed animals often live longer than their nearest wild equivalent. — Isaac
Your objections either don't seem to apply, or apply also to humans where some exchange of freedom for welfare is made. — Isaac
I guess the crux of this matter is to what extend everyday human ethics should also apply to animals. You take the position that it should apply almost completely (citing human rights), but I don't think that is the dominant ethical view in today's society. — PhilosophyRunner
Again, address these claims made by Isaac. If you cannot refute this then your argument doesnt stand.
The fact that you only got “animals can be farmed ethically” from reading Isaacs posts is amazing to me, and it should give you pause on your own position that you have so clearly failed to comprehend counterpoints made against it. This is a very good sign that you haven’t considered the issue thoroughly. Also a good indicator you are making an ad hoc argument, rather than in good faith. — DingoJones
the actual topic isn't whether my proposition is perfectly correct but rather why is it the case that an ethical society shouldn't wish to treat this ethical issue seriously. — Graeme M
I have explained why the ethical basis for the proposition is consistent with everyday human ethics and why we can make similar decisions about the things we do in this regard. — Graeme M
In the case of your objection which is - as best I can tell - that animals can be farmed ethically, then your personal choice would be to buy only meat and dairy from those kinds of producers. — Graeme M
I am saying it is not controversial to argue that humans have a right not to be treated the way farmed animals are. As I am proposing that the exact same ethical principles should apply to other species, it is therefore not ethical to farm them. Whatever reasons can be adduced that show why we cannot do so to humans also apply to other species. — Graeme M
If your position wasn't correct, would that not be an ideal candidate for a reason why it is not taken seriously? — Isaac
You don't do 'explaining' here because such an activity is reserved for when the notion in question is to be understood by the interlocutor (such as a teacher-student relationship, or the giving of an instruction). You've presented a proposition which may or may not be coherent. Either clarifying, defending or modifying it is the response to criticism. — Isaac
This just re-affirms the obvious - that we each act according to our own ethical standards. It's conceited for you to assume that others not acting so compassionately toward animals is an indication that they just haven't thought about it. It may be an indication that they have thought about it but reached a different conclusion to you. — Isaac
Firstly, we've agreed there are many caveats to the principles you've outlined, even for humans. Take children, for example. Are they free to leave the school grounds or the home whenever they feel like it? No. ... <snip> ...If you have an answer to that question - if you have a reason why you think it is wrong, or unnecessary to interfere with the 'appalling' conditions that prey animals live in in the African savanna, conditions we would be monsters for allowing other humans to endure unaided, then you have your first caveat, your first difference of circumstance between humans and other animals. — Isaac
I am also interested in why it is a rational and defensible argument. — Graeme M
This is just restating what I have proposed. ... If after that an individual prefers to act contrary to the principles outlined, that is their choice. — Graeme M
Do you think it ethical to own human beings, breed them for your own ends, and kill them when you wish to further those ends? — Graeme M
In the case of human rights, we are specifically constraining our ethical concern to how human beings affect other human beings (relations between people). — Graeme M
I mean this is patently false. Again the reason why I provided the example I did. If other humans were suffering as a result of frequent animal attacks, or frequent earthquakes, or volcanoes... We don't wash our hands of the humanitarian issues because they were not caused by other humans. We have barriers in place to prevent such tragedies because we care about the humans who would otherwise suffer. So if our ethical concerns extend without caveat, to other animals, then why do we not similarly protect prey from the suffering at the hands of their predators. A lion is no less a natural occurrence than an earthquake. We evacuate people from the vicinity of the latter, ought we evacuate prey from the vicinity of the former? — Isaac
So why do we protect other humans from natural (non-human) causes of harm, but not other animals? — Isaac
Well, we should try to if they are in our protection. — schopenhauer1
Why are the gazelles on the African savannah not in our protection — Isaac
were are not kings with dominion over the earth with all animals as our subjects for protection. — schopenhauer1
Why not. Why are we not morally responsible for other animals? — Isaac
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.