So what I'm saying is, that I would rather pay my taxes, have government decide scientifically on standards of animal husbandry - and apply laws on that basis that place the burden of responsibility on the producer - where it belongs. — karl stone

So until the government put animal cruelty laws in place, you didn't know how to not be cruel to animals? You seem to be saying, you will go along with whatever the laws/government say and not think for yourself, correct? Because I don't need the government to tell me not to kick my dog, as I know that causes unnecessary harm. Same with eating animals.

Are you saying that animals can be murdered? There's a case going through the British courts at present, in which for reasons too lengthy to relate - an employment tribunal judge is deciding whether "ethical veganism" is a philosophy.

I say it's not, because it lacks the cogency required of a philosophy. — karl stone

Animals can be killed. And whether or not I kill an animal myself, or I pay somebody else to do it, I am still responsible. Whether that is by 1st hand or 2nd hand, doesn't matter. This originally started with you saying you are not responsible for how the animals are treated or killed, yet you pay for them to be mistreated and killed. Same with a hitman. If I pay a hitman to kill somebody, I am responsible for that person's death. Instead of acknowledging this point, you focus on the term "murder", which isn't relevant here. What is relevant is whether or not you are responsible for doing a crime yourself, or paying someone else to do the crime for you.

But it's not an equality that applies both ways. I know just from the fact you are using a computer you didn't build you are happy to exploit human labour, but if it were an animal performing labour, you'd have an ethical objection - and premise that on equality and compassion, that leads to you to equate the killing of animals with the killing of people. Killing people is murder, and any part in a murder has an equivalent moral consequence. That's not so if it's not murder. — karl stone

Three points here.

1. You'd have to provide evidence that the parts I bought to build my pc, were made by humans who were exploited. You would then have to provide me with an alternative that is cruelty-free (made by humans were NOT exploited). After you have done that, I would happily buy those parts instead, which makes me ethically consistent. If I refused to buy different parts, even after you have shown me evidence of human exploitation, then you could say I am committing an immoral action. And that is the position you are in. I have shown you an alternative (plant-based diet), that would eliminate the exploitation of animals (animal products you eat). But instead of accepting that alternative and changing your actions accordingly, you will continue to support animal exploitation, correct?

2. Murder is a useless term in this context, as we are talking about unjust and unnecessary killing. Whether you want to call that murder, slaughter, or just killing, it doesn't matter. People can be killed unjustly. Animals can be killed unjustly. The term "murder" is irrelevant to the actual reality of sentient beings dying unnecessarily.

3. Lastly, a one time purchase of computer parts (every 5-7 years) causes far less suffering than eating 3 meals per day (which all include animal products). This leads to billions of animals being slaughtered every year. How many humans were slaughtered for my computer parts? Not to mention, for how many people I have talked to using my computer, in which they have change their mind on many different topics, has a positive net benefit overall. I am not saying this justifies human exploitation, but there is no net positive benefit to consuming animal products, unlike buying a computer. I can criticize racists and display animal rights activism through my computer, but what can eating a hamburger do for you?

Certainly, to some degree - my demand induces supply. However, the assumption that it's wrong is not safe. Because it's the very question we are examining, it cannot be a premise. i.e. you cannot say eating meat is wrong because eating meat is wrong. It's a tautology. You cannot cogently argue that eating meat is wrong on grounds of equality, unless you would also forgo all interdependence on human labour. Do you imagine farmers want to plow, and plant and harvest crops? It's hard work - I imagine. So you would torture a farmer, but not a cow? The equality argument doesn't hold either. — karl stone

I never said eating meat is wrong because eating meat is wrong. I specifically have said it is wrong because it causes unnecessary suffering to sentient beings. The premise for my moral foundation are the rights of a sentient being, and their ability to suffer. Veganism is an extension of human rights to animals, in which we cannot avoid without committing an internal inconsistency.

A farmer has the free-will and right to leave his job to find another. He also can hire help so he doesn't have to work long days and the farmer can rest when he wants to. You are starting to become dishonest when you equate the "torture" of farm labor to the torture of animal farming, where they mutilate the genitals of animals without pain meds, as well as make them live in their own waste.

It's not realistic to place upon me the burden of knowing about farming because I'm not a farmer, and nor am I a farm inspector working for the government. I employ them, at some remove - in the expectation that the manner of production and slaughter is as humane as possible, or - to decide on my behalf, if such products should be available at all. There are products that are not available - despite a demand for them. So to say my demand is responsible for their production is false. — karl stone

It's a bit troubling how far you will go to rationalize your food consumption. Eating is not something you do once in a while that may or may not be linked to exploitation of sentient beings. Eating is something you do 3 times a day, which has massive impact on the world around you. And not just in regards to the immoral aspect of it, but what about the environmental damage it causes?

If it was a known fact that Samsung uses child labor to make the Galaxy Note 9, and I went out and bought the Galaxy Note 9, am I not contributing to the child labor in which Samsung has initiated? Or should I be like you and say, "I don't work in the tech industry, nor am I a phone inspector working for the government." - This is an extremely harmful way of thinking. You don't need to be an expert in the field to be knowledgeable about the business practices of an industry. And when you find out how corrupt an industry is, you stop supporting it, especially when there are plenty of other alternatives.

That's the reality - and for you imagine that equality and compassion should prevail is a comforting pretense. That's your opinion and prerogative - but it has little to do with the world we live in. — karl stone

Ok, so should I apply your thought process to people too? Should we go back to owning slaves, since equality is not what nature has in store for animals? Since, it is a fact we are animals as well. We are a slightly higher intelligent animal, but still an animal. And by your logic, we should not abide by the values of empathy, compassion or equality, correct? And if you think those values should only apply to humans, but not animals, what is your justification for doing so?

Where did you hear that?

According to my sources, that's bologna. — VagabondSpectre

- https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Global Emissions by Gas - Agricultural activities are part of all forms (aside from F-gases). They are included within Methane, Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide.

- http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
This PDF goes more in depth: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

- http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
An assessment by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations indicated the contribution of the livestock sector to global greenhouse gas emissions exceeds that of transportation.

- https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/index.html
Sources cited throughout this article.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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, 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?

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.

Now if I'm right and it is an ethical matter, you could still argue that it is not wrong to exploit animals, perhaps by invoking the significance of species membership (which includes the so-called "marginal cases"). That is, you could argue that species membership justifies our treatment of animals, even though it doesn't justify the claim that the treatment of animals is not ethically significant at all. This would probably be something like my own position, e.g., we can eat meat without doing wrong, so long as we don't treat the animals cruelly. — jamalrob

This runs into problems when you push consistency toward your "species membership" idea. Because this is what you are saying, in a basic form.

- It is morally good for humans to kill pigs, since pigs are not a member of the human species.
- It is morally good for aliens to kill humans, since humans are not a member of the alien species.

I'd assume you disagree with the 2nd statement, since you would probably not accept it as a moral good. In fact, you would probably say it is morally wrong for aliens to kill humans, just because humans are not of the same species as the aliens. You would probably want a proper justification, instead of speciesism. Because speciesism is the same idea as racism or sexism. You are discriminating against someone else, just because they are not like you. Which is a very dangerous and destructive belief to hold.

I don't approve of factory farming practices which subject animals to unnecessary stress, pain, or discomfort. — Bitter Crank

Then why support what you don't approve of? Do you still buy animal products? If so, then you are directly contradicting yourself. You cannot say "I don't approve of factory farming practices", but then continue to support factory farming practices by buying their products.

In nature, most animals are slaughtered by predators. Predators are not humane; they begin eating prey animals as soon as they are no longer a threat (like by kicking). A prey animal might have to endure a couple of hours of being eaten before it finally bled to death -- depending on what the predators ate first. — Bitter Crank

Again, we are not wild predators. We are an intelligent species that is "supposed" to exercise compassion and empathy to other living beings. Also, you seem to be ignorant as to what actually goes on within factory farms. The animals there have years of pain and suffering they endure, unlike a few hours a prey may endure in the wild to a predator. Have you not watched that documentary I linked in my original post (Dominion)? You should watch it and educate yourself.

An animal's death in a slaughterhouse is quick and final. What would you prefer? A natural death by being chewed on by several wolves, or a bullet in the head? — Bitter Crank

A life without confinement, extreme mental stress, living in your own waste, unable to see the light of day, being kicked and electrocuted, have your children ripped away from you at birth.... That is a short list, but that list is far more detrimental than being eaten by wolves in the last moments of your life. You could ask yourself the same honest question.

- Would you rather live as a factory farmed pig?
- Would you rather live as a wild pig?

Pigs get their genitals mutilated without any pain medication. They also get their teeth clipped in the same way. They are said to be more intelligent than dogs, which leads to extreme mental conditions from confinement (imagine being locked in a small cage all your life). Not to mention, every animal in the factory farming industry gets their life cut short by more than double their natural lifespan in the wild. For example. A factory farmed pig will be killed after 6 months. A pig in the wild can live more than 10+ years.

Have you made a first hand comparison of a cow being inseminated artificially with a cow being inseminated by a bull? — Bitter Crank

Yet, the cow is caged and unable to move to get away from a forced impregnation by the technician. At least with the bull, she is able to exercise her freedom and leave if she wants to. 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?

Our interaction with animals is not an ethical matter. Ethics are a social contract which animals cannot agree too. — DingoJones

Is that how you define ethics? A social contract? So if there is a social contract to own humans as slaves, does that mean it is ethical and permissible? AKA, morally right? If so, that is a very destructive way to view ethics.

What animals DO abide by is nature, survival. That is something humans are capable of understanding, and Id go further and say that humans are already doing that. We are a part of the food chain after all. Its just incoherent, to me at least, to include them in ethics. — DingoJones

Wild animals live for survival. We live for convenience and pleasure. Big difference there. And our convenience and pleasure should not come at the cost of another sentient being's welfare.

Even if we ignore that and we focus only on what humans can do to measure animals according to our rules, woildnt we be obligated to do everything we can to reduce the suffering of animals inflicted by other animals? It doesnt make sense. — DingoJones

Why would we be responsible for every living being's actions, and when did I ever say or imply that? I specifically have stated that we should be responsible for our own actions, and how we treat other sentient beings. If you want to talk about social contract (which is how you define Ethics), then you should already understand this within many societies around the world. Many societies already have in place, animal cruelty laws. Which, if you harm/torture/kill a dog/cat unnecessarily, you can go to jail. And since that is a social contract within many societies, why not extend that contract out to other animals (not just dogs and cats). Why not extend that contract out to chickens, pigs, cows, etc... Since we do not need to eat animal products to survive, then it is unnecessary to kill them for our convenience and pleasure.

Our dominion over animals is not unethical, it is natural. — DingoJones

What's natural about rape (forced artificial insemination), torture and unnecessary slaughter?

Ethics concern humans, it is created by humans for humans, and even then only about what specific humans or groups of humans agree to. It doesn't make sense to apply ethics to creatures not capable of ethics, you might as well apply ethics to a rock. Non-sequitur, apples and oranges etc — DingoJones

Is this how you define ethics? So ethics do not concern dogs, cats, etc? We wouldn't apply ethics to a rock because a rock is not sentient. We apply ethics to living beings that have the ability to suffer.

Also, the way humans treat animals has nothing on the way animals treat animals. Nature is a savage, merciless and relentless wasteland of suffering and horror. — DingoJones

So since animals do horrible things to each other in nature, that means we should as well? Should I go around and kill children since animals do it? To derive your moral standard from animals is very scary, as you would have to condone the same treatment for humans. Unless you're speciesist?

If you want animals to have a seat at the table of ethics then it stands to reason that we prioritize the ethical violations against them, since they inflict so much more suffering on each other than we do, how exactly do you propose we go about holding animals accountable for that? — DingoJones

Animals cannot evaluate their actions and analyze their ethics in the same way we can. We can analyze an action of owning people as slaves, understand why it is wrong, and then abolish slavery. Animals cannot do this, because their sole intention is to survive. They need to kill each other to survive. We do not. We are killing animals for pleasure and convenience. I assume you understand the massive difference here?

Human beings are, by evolution or creation, omnivorous. That does not just mean that theycaneat most kinds of foods but that they need to eat different types of food. — Sir2u

Omnivore is a consumption classification for animals that have the capability to obtain chemical energy and nutrients from materials originating from plant and animal origin. There is no definition that states the NEED to obtain your nutrients from animals.

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

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

Above are sources (the google doc I created) that showcase studies which provide you with evidence that humans can thrive from a plant-based diet.

I set the meaning in the statement following the one you quoted. If some subsist by eating animals (and they do), and animals are sentient, and if eating animals (that are sentient) is immoral, what excuse could you allow to any human for eating an animal for any reason? Would a person who is in extremis, literally starving, be excused for eating his dog? Or, if because it is immoral to kill and eat 'sentient' beings, he should simply get on with his own demise? — gloaming

Still not sure I understand your point, but I'll try to answer.

I don't think it is immoral to kill an animal for your survival. Whether that is a dog, cat, or even a human But humans are never put in this situation, aside from the extremely rare hiker who gets lost in the woods and can't find his way home, in which he is forced to kill an animal in order to survive. Bringing up this type of hypothetical doesn't apply, because it is not a real world scenario that everybody in this forum faces. It's also irrelevant to the original point of this thread, which is that humans do not need to eat animals in order to survive.

There's a rare case for every type of situation. But the overwhelming majority of humans never experience this themselves, let alone hear about it.

but we don't have a godlike ability to absolutely refrain from exploiting life which is lower down the food chain for our own survival and prosperity. — VagabondSpectre

I never stated we can perfectly refrain from exploiting any form of life. We do it all the time, and it will be almost impossible to eradicate it. What I am saying is, to refrain from exploiting another animal unnecessary, when it is practical and easy to do. Changing your diet, is an easy way to refrain from the unnecessary exploitation of animals, and it is easy to do compared to other things.

If lions are allowed to prey on other animals in order to prosper, why are we not allowed to prey on other animals in order to prosper? — VagabondSpectre

I have explained this already. Lions prey on other animals in order to survive. Do we need to prey on other animals in order to survive in the same way the lions do? Absolutely not. Also, if you are going to look to a lion for moral guidance and action persuasion, then do you believe it is ok for humans to kill their babies since lions do it as well?

You could say that the lion doesn't know better or that it has no other choice (and these reasons apply to humans in various degrees), but the very existence and prosperity of lions and other predators necessitates that they go around exploiting other forms of sentient life. — VagabondSpectre

Yes. When an animal has no other choice to survive, other than killing other life, I don't find it immoral to do so. We, as humans, are in a position where we do not need to factory farm in order to survive. We are not in the same position as the lions.

Going by the basic standards you've outlined, it would not be immoral to exterminate all lions and other predator species in order to preserve the other forms of life which are unfairly exploited by them. If I see a mountain lion trying to kill a family of deer, can I not shoot the lion in defense of the innocent deer? — VagabondSpectre

To kill that lion would mean that you believe it is wrong to take an innocent life, even if it is based on survival. And to do so, would mean that you surely believe factory farming is immoral and would stop contributing to it.

I do not think it is immoral for an animal to survive by killing another animal. If that the only way they know how to survive, there is nothing immoral about it. Not to mention, lions are not moral agents. They do not have the capacity to reflect on their actions in the same way we do, which is why it would be asinine to deploy human standards of morality to a lion. In the same way it would be asinine to deploy adult standards to a 3-year old.

If you disagree because what lions and other predators do is natural, then you've unfairly or irrationally delineated between humans and all other nature. — VagabondSpectre

I have never stated that I base my moral outlook on what is natural. It is based on the unnecessary suffering of sentient creatures. A zebra does not unnecessarily suffer from a lion, because that lion's survival is dependent upon the necessity to hunt and kill. Farm animals unnecessarily suffer from humans, because a human is not dependent upon a farm animal in order to survive.

What is natural and what is moral, are two completely separate things. And I have made this clear multiple times, so I am not sure why you and SSU keep coming back to that. As I said to you once already, please copy/paste a line of me stating something, and another line of me contradicting myself.

I claim that it is arbitrary to place humans on one plain, the warm 'n fuzzies a close second, and slugs, snails, tadpoles, shrimps, sea anemones, and plants sufficiently far below those-in-the-club that we can tread on them or eat them as we wish. I claim this because of the very intelligence and superior grasp of moral principles that you say humans possess. — gloaming

A rhino isn't warm n' fuzzie, yet I would put him on the same plain of moral consideration as dogs. Also, it is not arbitrary to state that sentient creatures are deserving of life. Since, sentient implies the ability to feel pain and suffer. And to feel pain and suffer, directly relates to how we make moral decisions. If a plant cannot feel pain or suffer, then moral consideration does not apply to it. That is not arbitrary. And as I said to Vaga, humans should be held to a higher moral accountability than other animals, similar to how an adult should be held to a higher moral accountability than a child. As the famous quote goes, with great power comes great responsibility. And with great intelligence and the ability to reflect on one's actions, comes great accountability to ensure those actions are morally correct and ethically consistent.

For example, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet that mere sentience, if that truly applies to any one of the warm 'n fuzzies, is a sufficiently distinctive quality to place them outside of our list of consumables. There isn't even a good argument against cannibalism, except for a few glitches arising from prions and other defects. Instead, the arguments seem more to rely on the 'ick' factor than anything else. — gloaming

There are different levels of sentience, but at the baseline, a sentient creature should not be exploited or used for an unnecessary purpose. Plain and simple. Also, I am not against cannibalism, at it's core. A human can die of natural causes, and someone else could eat them. I have no problem with that. The problem comes in when people place value on the dead person's body, in which they would not want their loved one eaten by somebody else. But if you're referring to a different cannibalism, where people are being killed and eaten unnecessarily, then yes I am against that.

If it is immoral to eat animals, as the more zealous insist, and not just to farm them more efficiently, then it is immoral for all humans because we are deemed to be equal. How would you fault, in a compelling argument, those who subsist on animal byproducts? After all, their prey are 'sentient'....aren't they? — gloaming

Your sentence doesn't make sense. "If it is immoral to eat animals, and not just to farm them more efficiently, then it is immoral for all humans because we are deemed to be equal" - Huh?

It is immoral for all humans to what? It is immoral for all humans to eat animals at all? It is immoral for all humans to exist? I don't understand what you just said there.

I think the main contradiction SSU is concerned with is that you treat humans as wholly separate from nature and therefore indictable by standards which apply to nothing else. I've said it before, we aren't yet fully emancipated from nature; we're still playing a survival game and the risks are still considerable. — VagabondSpectre

When did I say humans are wholly separate from nature? Humans are animals. Animals are a part of nature. Humans are a part of nature. I never denied this.

Also, why wouldn't we apply different standards to a species that has a higher capacity for moral consideration and intelligence? Do you not hold an adult to a different moral standard than a child? Similarly, do you not hold a human to a different moral standard than a lion? I think the answer is clear here.

Humans are not separate from nature, but they are more accountable for their actions than all other animals. Please tell me exactly where I contradicted myself? Maybe finding the exact line-by-line would help me, because I still don't see it. And I am not just saying this sarcastically. If I am actually contradicting myself, I would like you to show me exactly where.

We love our dogs; we have five. (!) But they cannot come and go as they wish; they are captives. Morally, is this OK? That's what I'm asking. ... And my answer is: I'm not sure. (Yeah, I know, lacking decisiveness. :smile:) — Pattern-chaser

The main distinction that you seem to be ignoring here is, our pets cannot survive on their own. They wouldn't be able to eat normally, while also being put in more danger from things like cars and possibly other animals (coyotes / mountain lions / etc.). We, as humans, can survive on our own. If someone drugged you, tied you up and locked you in their home, we would see this as captivity. But if that person let you go, could you not survive on your own, given the current resources our world has for human survival.

On the flip side, owning pets is a selfish endeavor that humans have engaged in. Most of the time, the pet is sleeping and/or doing nothing. And if the dog barks, we tell it to be quiet. Many people rarely even take their dogs for an adequate walk (at least 1 hour). Many people ignore and/or neglect their dogs. Most people would put their dog down if it needed a surgery that costed too much money, yet wouldn't think twice if the same situation applied to their children.

But for the people who actually treat their dogs like family, and treat them like they have physical and emotion needs (which they do), it is more moral to take care of this dog in their home, than to let it be 'free', as it cannot survive on its own.

I'm also comfortable with the fact that my existence might cost others theirs. Or that theirs might end up costing mine. I didnt make up those rules, would change them if I could, but honestly, I'd rather be the wolf then the deer, if the choice was mine. — Akanthinos

Understood, but would you stop unnecessary violence if you could? I understand that much of us have probably benefited from the exploitation of another living being. Even something like the tires on my car, were probably made from cow by-products. This is something I have no control of, unless I want to ride a bike to work. But even the bike would have tires made with the same ingredients. Veganism isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It is basically stating that we can help where we can, practically and simply. How cars are made, is not in my control. What I eat, is completely in my control. (Aside from a food allergy or other anomalies.)

So again. If you could help another living being not suffer, why wouldn't you?

I would put into the ground anyone who would do to my cat what I did to those hogs, and yet, even when I'm writing this, I can't help but feel that this is normal and in no way hypocritical. Our worst curse is probably our ability to justify just about anything to ourselves... — Akanthinos

Well, you would just have to explain why you put more value on your cat, rather than a pig or a cow. Would you also feel the same about a random person's cat? Or is it only your cat, that you would be upset about? But I think it is clear, that society has essentially indoctrinated us to believe that some animals deserve love and care, while others to not. This is where the inconsistent belief system starts. Why is a dog/cat deserving of life, but a cow/chicken/pig is not? It has been researched that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, so you cannot point to intelligence as the determining factor. If it is about a special bond with your specific cat, your reasoning becomes part of the special pleading realm, with a hint of being arbitrary. And I doubt that you would want your existence to rely on someone's arbitrary decision to keep you alive, or based on how special you are to them.

When a species of animal, in nature, creates things for its own survival out of necessity, it is deemed as natural. Humans do nothing of the sort. Almost everything humans create is unnatural. - Yes, all of our food is unnatural. And your point is? — chatterbears

I rest my case.

I've never seen anyone as self-contradictory as you in the PF. — ssu

Going to ignore you from this point on, since it is clear you're a troll and/or uninterested to have an actual discussion, while dishonestly misrepresenting my position.

1. I defined natural. And part of that definition was when a species of animal creates things for it's own survival out of necessity. Such as a spider creating a web to catch prey to eat and survive.

2. Humans do not create things out of necessity for their survival, which is why almost all of our food is unnatural. We do not need to eat animals to survive, which is why factory farms are not natural.

There is no contradiction here, other than you asserting there is one. As I said, I'm going to stop responding to you from here. GL on another thread.

(ought we intervene to save the cubs?)

Is it morally acceptable for lions to slaughter animals for meat consumption? — VagabondSpectre

Vaga, a few points here.

1. I'll respond to your last post. It was a bit long and I'm going to take a bit more time to respond to it. Probably will by tomorrow.

2. Lions do not have the same intelligence level as we do, and do not have the same moral thought process as we do. In the same way I am not going to hold a severely mentally handicapped person accountable for their wrongdoings, I don't necessarily hold the lion accountable either. On some level, they may or may not have empathy (we know some animals do display empathy, while others may not). But again, as humans, we can think and reflect on our actions on a much deeper level. We know that infanticide is immoral, unless of course the child was suffering in pain from a disease they were born with, in which it would be more moral to end their suffering than to continue it. But at that point, it probably wouldn't be labeled as infanticide anymore, as that is usually associated with an unjust killing of a young infant.

And yes, as I said before, some animals need to kill other animals in order to survive out of necessity. And if you couple that with their very limited reasoning ability to process their actions and reflect back on what they have done, I would not say a lion is immoral for killing a zebra. It is the only way that the lion knows how to survive. But on the other hand, we as humans, can survive on plants. Yet we still choose to create a system that breeds animals into torture and slaughter, just so we can have a better taste pleasure. We know of many ways to survive, while the lion does not. Yet we still choose to survive on the unnecessary exploitation of animals.

Also Vaga. (and I welcome anyone else to critique this as well). Can you tell me if you see the same "contradictions" that SSU is seeing within my argument. Because according to him, he has never seen anybody contradict themselves more than me on this forum. (smh)

On one hand you say the human race is a species just like other and hence, part of nature. — ssu

Yes, humans are a part of nature.

Then you define natural by being anything not made or caused by humankind. — ssu

Yes, things that humans create (such as watches) are not found in nature. Things that occur naturally, such as trees and beaver dams, are different from things that do not occur naturally, such as airplanes, watches, phones and automobiles.

So what is the human race, natural or separate from nature? — ssu

The human species are part of the animal kingdom, which occurs in nature. What humans actually create, such as helicopters, are not naturally occurring.

So what beaver does is natural, but what we do isn't. — ssu

This depends on how you define the word 'natural', which is why I told you to define it (but you still have not). But yes. In how I define it, a beaver builds a dam to provide ponds as protection against predators such as coyotes, wolves, and bears, and to provide easy access to food during winter. When a species of animal, in nature, creates things for its own survival out of necessity, it is deemed as natural. Humans do nothing of the sort. Almost everything humans create is unnatural. If you define natural in a different way, then explain your definition. But I have not contradicted myself within my own definition and how I use the term.

Actually with your definition nearly all of our food is unnatural as the flora that we eat is cultivated and farmed, just like uh, the domesticated fauna. But that contradiction doesn't concern you. — ssu

Yes, all of our food is unnatural. And your point is?

Then your totally hypocritical idea of mass genocide of the domesticated fauna. First you accept that domesticated animals can indeed have a good life and all sentient life deserves to have a life. Then you purpose a mass extinction of domesticated animals. Because they are killed in a bad way. — ssu

There's a difference between causing an extinction and letting animals die off naturally. If we created Robots, but then stopped creating them because they were causing too many problems, would you call that a mass extinction? That's just an incorrect use of the term extinction. You're trying to inject a contradiction where it does not fit. And I've already address this point once, so go back and read my response to you on the last page.

The judgment that I make on what is or isn't natural, is based on the actual definition of natural. It has nothing to do with my moral outlook, so I don't even know where you got that from. — chatterbears

This was my original statement. In which you then only quoted part of it.

It has nothing to do with my moral outlook, so I don't even know where you got that from. — chatterbears

Can you be more dishonest? If you actually comprehended the FULL context, I clearly stated how I use the term 'natural', which has nothing to do with my moral outlook. Whether or not something is natural, does not say whether or not something is morally acceptable. Lions commit infanticide in nature, yet I wouldn't state that is morally acceptable (even though it is natural).

Never have I seen anyone contradict himself in PF like you do. You go on and on about torture chambers, the suffering of animals, the inhumane treatment animals when they are killed, but then you declare it has NOTHING to do with your moral outlook! Nothing. You're even confused where would I get this kind of idea. — chatterbears

Please point out the contradict, in context. Without quoting one part of a sentence like a dishonest tool. When did I ever say that my objection to animal torture chambers have nothing to do with my moral outlook? Please quote where I said that, and you better do it properly this time.

Science is a method, which tells how things are. Not how things ought to be. You should teach yourself the definition of science. — chatterbears

Science uses a method, but it is not a 'method' by definition. Science builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Therefore, if science tells us that eating meat is unhealthy for your body, it can make a probable prediction about your health in reference to how you eat. You should teach yourself the concept of understanding how something is defined.

then there's a multitude of articles done by scientists promoting a healthy diet with small part of the diet consisting of fish and meat. — chatterbears

Yes, in which most of those articles/studies are funded by the industries who create those products. Not to mention, the argument that states "Incorporating a small amount of meat into your diet won't hurt you." - Is the same as saying, "Smoking 1 cigarette per week won't hurt you." - Yeah, of course a small amount of something bad won't have a significant impact on your health. That doesn't mean that it isn't bad for you.

But anyway, that's useless because there's actually no logic in your views, where you start from denying that your reasoning comes out from ethical views. — ssu

Coming from the person who dishonestly misquotes and misrepresents my position.

It's not about who deserves what, it's about what is thermodynamically viable and necessary to sustain our existence, and the existence of farmed animals. Life exploits life, and as I have tried to explain, we're not yet fully emancipated from nature. In other words, unless we keep eating meat in the immediate and short term, some people will be malnourished and die. — VagabondSpectre

Life exploits life? What are you talking about. Also, majority of the US and many other parts of the world are obese, if not at least overweight. And as I said before, all the crops being grown to feed farm animals, could be used to feed the people who are currently malnourished. You're appealing to a very small amount of people, while ignoring the excess of food we currently produce.

Can you imagine the initial cost of switching from a cattle farm to a synthetic meat farm? — VagabondSpectre

There you go again with price/cost. I get it. You value the cost reduction over a cow's quality of life. But I'd assume you wouldn't say the same thing if we were farming humans, would you.

But we are trying, and you seem to ignore that entirely. Why do you think there are so many vegans? Why do you think they're inventing lab grown meat? — VagabondSpectre

So many Vegans? We are an overwhelming minority. Not to mention, the Vegan movement has barely started to grow in the past few years. I was stating, if our species wasn't such selfish assholes, we would have started this movement years ago, while already have been creating replacements for everything.

At the end of the day we would need to recoup these lost calories and nutrients elsewhere which may very well cost us more money despite the existence of subsidies for meat and dairy farmers. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, back to cost again. Instead of constantly telling me that you don't want to pay more to help another species live peacefully, tell me why they don't deserve to live peacefully? Tell me why an innocent animal, who we bred into existence, doesn't deserve to NOT be torture and exploited unnecessarily for our selfish benefit of taste pleasure?

If to live in balance and harmony with nature we actually needed to depopulate the planet to around half a billion, would we be obligated to do so to avoid causing the suffering of other animals? — VagabondSpectre

At the very least, we would be obligated to come up with other alternatives that do not harm the planet and everything living inside of it. Which is a step that Veganism takes in the right direction.

We just have bigger problems, and it's not been long since we have become enlightened enough (by and large) to actually extend moral consideration to animals where possible. — VagabondSpectre

What bigger problems are you referring to? This is a big problem. If you don't care about the animals, the environmental detriments alone are enough to take it seriously. Not to mention the negative health impacts on our bodies.

How expensive is it for us to care for the severely mentally handicapped? — VagabondSpectre

Not sure. Do you have the numbers for this?

If it is true that farming some meat is economical, is exploiting an animal justified if it is required to care for the severely mentally handicapped?

I'm not in favor of setting them loose in the wild, that's for sure; I would rather farm animals. — VagabondSpectre

A severely mentally handicapped person does not need animal products to survive. To claim that they need the exploitation of an animal is already a false premise.

It's your evidence and you need to explain the relevant bits yourself in the context of our discussion. — VagabondSpectre

I will happily do so. But just to recap what happened, you first stated, "I suspect that I need to eat meat to have optimum health (and not because I like the taste)." - In which I replied and stated, "This is just scientifically false." - And I proceeded to show you studies by pasting some links. Here they are one-by-one to make my point.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/

- We humans do not need meat. In fact, we are healthier without it, or at least with less of it in our diets. The Adventist Health Studies provide solid evidence that vegan, vegetarian, and low-meat diets are associated with statistically significant increases in quality of life and modest increases in longevity.1 The world that we inhabit would also be healthier without the commercial meat industry. Factory farms are a waste of resources, environmentally damaging, and ethically indefensible.2 It is time to accept that a plant-predominant diet is best for us individually, as a race, and as a planet.

https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179

- The document states the BDA and The Vegan Society will work together “to show that it is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan-friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages”. The organisations will also “promote reliable, evidence-based advice on a healthy vegan diet to members of the public, services users and medical professionals”.

https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets

- It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

- Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods.

If you would like me to reintroduce the sources and arguments I've expressed in the other thread, I will happily do so. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, please do.

We're heading toward more ethical and animal free agriculture, but it will take time. Are you saying we're unethical because we should be there already? (should we fall on our pitch-forks?) Are you saying we're unethical because we're not presently heading there fast enough? How quickly do we need to stop eating animals for you to cease your ethical rebukes? — VagabondSpectre

We are unethical because we continue to support these industries that torture and slaughter innocent sentient life. Each individual person can make the greatest impact themselves, by simply choosing to incorporate other foods into their diet. While at the grocery store, go down a different isle, it's really that simple. We are the most selfish and destructive species on the planet, and I am not surprised this is happening. We barely even care about each other, let alone other species of animals. We are an extreme disappointment of a species, but I hope we will wake up one day. People look back on slavery, and think about how ridiculous it was that it took so long to abolish it. The same is true for the animal holocaust, but people are just as selfish today as slave owners were back then. Everyone turns a blind eye, until they are the ones in the gas chamber. Everybody talks about how great and superior the human race is, yet we are the least compassionate and most destructive. To use the word 'superior' to describe us, is laughably ignorant and dangerously illogical. I bet the white man justified his actions by thinking he was superior to the black man, while we justify our actions by thinking we are superior to cows and chickens. Might makes right, right?

Also. If you had a daughter, and your daughter had a husband. And your daughter had a friend (or co-worker) who found out about her husband cheating on her. Would you not want your daughter to be informed of the dishonesty and disrespect that her husband is hiding from her? Or do you still stand by the illogical statement of, "Bottom line: collective wisdom in western civilization is that when it comes to marriage, MYOB"

Thank you for a fair reply! I can see you have persuaded yourself that the business of others is your business. — tim wood

I persuaded myself that unnecessary harm being caused to others should be stopped, especially if you are able to to do. And in this case, the OP is able to do so. If you found that the wife was being beat by the husband, would you not try what you can to stop it? Call the police? Tell someone else who might be able to help? Etc...

Also implicit is that you get to cherry-pick your obligations. In the case of crimes being committed, then I'm with you, except call a cop. But no crime is here alleged. — tim wood

So you base your moral actions on whether or not it is a crime? Hundreds of years ago, owning a slave wasn't a crime. So you'd be fine with that? If rape was legal, would you be fine with that as well? Basing your moral actions on what the law dictates, is a very poor way to come to a moral decision.

It's you who are making a value judgment, and it's not about yourself. You're deciding what's right and wrong for other people. Possibly it's the sex you object to - after all, someone's cheating! But what is it, exactly, that constitutes the cheating? That answer matters, and I'm pretty sure you haven't got it. And it's odd you measure the strength of the obligation against convenience. — tim wood

I am not deciding what is right and wrong for other people. It is demonstrably wrong that cheating causing pain in a relationship. This is a form of dishonesty and manipulation, but at a very high degree. People's relationships, especially marriages, are not to be taken lightly. That is two people who decided to trust in each other, and when someone breaks that trust, that is immoral. I don't object to the sex. I object to the dishonesty and unnecessary pain that is being caused to the other person. Which is what I stated from the beginning about how I defined morality.

Bottom line: collective wisdom in western civilization is that when it comes to marriage, MYOB. — tim wood

Yeah so again. If beating your wife was legal, such as in other cultures, people should just turn a blind eye and mind their own business right? We shouldn't try to intervene and stop it, or call the authorities, because they aren't breaking a law. Right?

Notice I did not say the excited opinions of friends. If you speak, you own and are responsible for what happens because you spoke. Some good is conceivable; you don't get credit for that. For pain and damage, that's all yours. And it might be a risk worth taking, except that it is an unnecessary risk. You put others at risk, without their input, to serve your agenda. Not ethical at all. — tim wood

How do you put others at risk by revealing the truth to what is happening within a dishonest relationship? It's unethical to allow it to go on, rather than to reveal it for what it actually is. You have it backwards.

Please make the case. I'd like to see it. — tim wood

Now this will come down to how you define morality, and how you come to moral decisions. For me, it is quite simple.

Morality is how we differentiate immoral actions from moral actions. We place actions in categories, such as Morally Unacceptable vs Morally Acceptable. An immoral action is an action that causes unnecessary physical or mental harm. It is an action that results in a victim being involved. Within moral actions, there are moral obligations and moral virtues. How I define moral obligation vs moral virtue is quite simple. A moral obligation is an action that requires less effort and puts you at little to no risk. A moral virtue is an action the requires a lot more effort and possible puts you at a much higher risk.

Here are two examples.

Moral Virtue: Saving a person/animal from a burning building. Although this fire could have started by accident, you care enough about the life in danger to put your own life at risk to save another. You are not obligated to do so, as you didn't cause the fire and trying to save something from the fire is a big risk to yourself. If you started the fire and caused others to be in danger because of your actions, it would then become a moral obligation to save them. Since your action to start that fire caused unnecessary harm.

Moral Obligation: Finding out your friend has a partner who is cheating on them. Although you have not committed the cheating yourself, you are enabling this behavior by not addressing it and having the person take responsibility for their actions. You are also allowing the cheater to continue their behavior while being dishonest and hurting his spouse for a longer period of time. This also comes at very little risk to you. And it also doesn't require much effort at all. If you're scared about the cheater going insane and trying to kill you for releasing this information, you can tell that person (the victim) anonymously (if you fear for your safety).

Black people are people, they aren't farm animals. If left alone, black people can take care of themselves and survive. If left alone, farm animals cannot survive (they'll starve during the first winter or be killed by predators). There are so many farm animals that if we decided to keep feeding and caring for them without harvesting their meat then every meat farmer would go into debt. — VagabondSpectre

Why are people deserving of living a life without exploitation, but animals are not? Also, of course the farm animals that we genetically modified into existence by altering their DNA, could not survive in the wild. Because we made them to be that way. Their specific purpose is for our consumption, not sustaining a long life.

If there was no demand for meat then everything else would suddenly become more expensive while meat farmers go out of business. — VagabondSpectre

Meat would get replaced by lab-grown meats, or soy based 'meats'. Farmers wouldn't go out of business. Their business would just evolve into something else.

The fact is that 90% of the land used to grow field corn isn't suitable for human quality produce (unless high fructose corn syrup is healthy). It's simply not more efficient to stop farming animals. — VagabondSpectre

Meat, in and of itself, is not even of 'human quality'. Most people do not care about what is actually healthy, they care about what tastes good. You really think McDonalds provides 'human quality' food? People will devour anything, as long as it tastes good. And as I said before, is taste preference more important than the life of an animal?

It's a problem because we don't have the technology science or infrastructure to make the switch yet. — VagabondSpectre

Based on what? As I said previously, the problem is our lack of effort to initiate.

Not unless you know some kind of alchemy that can magically fertilize fields and turn feed corn into sweet corn. — VagabondSpectre

Which I am sure they can do. But also, it doesn't necessarily have to be corn that we grow. It can be something else, that isn't based on torturing and slaughtering sentient beings.

Even if we burned off all our taste buds it's still more expensive. — VagabondSpectre

So is the price of an item more important than the life of an animal? It's like saying. Abolishing slavery will cost too much, because we get cheap/free labor when owning slaves. Nobody would say this, because a small price increase is worth the money if it results in abolishing slavery. Same with animals. I would pay more to end the suffering of these animals, and that shouldn't even be a question.

Eventually we may figure out how to adequately nourish the entire planet without the use of animals, but we havn't yet figured that out. — VagabondSpectre

Do you think that we might have already figured this out, if humans actually took this seriously and made it our priority? Imagine a world of all minds thinking together and trying to figure out a solution to this problem. We probably would have had this figured out decades ago already.

Humans are much more sentient than farm animals, which is my first objection to this comparison. Secondly, if I was a slave who could only ever have existed if I am eventually slaughtered, I would still rather have existed than never have existed at all. — VagabondSpectre

And a severely mentally handicapped person has about the same sentience as a cow. Does that mean we should group up all the mentally ill people and exploit them? Also, would you rather live as a factory farmed animal, where you're mutilated at birth, while being kept in a small confined area your entire existence, until you were eventually sent off to get your throat slit? Or would you rather not live at all. To say you would rather be a factory farmed animal, than to not live at all, is a bit dishonest. No logical and caring person would ever say this.

You don't know me, the research I've done, or the diets I've tried. Copy/pasting the studies you find is the laziest kind of research possible (it's not even a citation, you might as well just start dropping book titles), and you have given me utterly zero reasons to take your assertions with any grains of authority.

You're presumptive in the extreme about the science of nutrition, and ignorant in the extreme about the realities of agriculture. — VagabondSpectre

And why don't you show me the research you have done that apparently contradicts the mounds of research in favor of plant-based diets? I am the only one who has provided any type of scientific research, yet you think you're more credible in your assertions than I am with actual studies I present to you?

Also, if showing you scientific studies is considered lazy, what do you consider someone who shows you nothing? Such as what you have done. Which is provided me with nothing to counter any of these studies, other than saying, "You don't know me. You're a lazy research paster. You're ignorant about agriculture."

I'm also curious how one should provide information to another person, regarding scientific studies. I'd love for you to provide me with some research that isn't lazy. Also, one of the studies I linked, did have a citation.

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/

Cited by other articles in PMC
Recommending plant-based diets [Canadian Family Physician. 2017]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5729135/

Now I assume that this kind of alteration of the environment or 'farming' by a species you deem 'natural', but when it comes to our species, suddenly everything we do becomes so 'unnatural' — ssu

When did I say that everything we do becomes unnatural? I was referring to one specific thing, which is breeding animals into existence (rather than letting them exist/evolve/breed on their own), and then torturing them, followed by slicing their throats. A beaver builds a damn out of necessity to survive, while we have built torture chambers for animals out of pleasure, because we prefer the taste. If you're going to claim that factory farming is natural, was slavery also natural? The word 'natural' is defined as: " existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. " - So maybe you should define what you think the word 'natural' even means. You seem to be confused.

The judgement is solely based on your own views on morality, what is deemed 'good' and what is 'bad' and that is totally understandable to me. Yet you try justify it by reason and above all, by science. As that if we can survive on a vegan diet, then it is by 'reason' and 'science' that we should be vegans. — ssu

This is false. The judgment that I make on what is or isn't natural, is based on the actual definition of natural. It has nothing to do with my moral outlook, so I don't even know where you got that from. Also, science supports a Vegan lifestyle being healthier for the planet and for ourselves. And I can reference peer reviewed studies to backup my claims. Are you denying the science behind adopting a plant-based diet?

Do you think that domesticated animals cannot have a good life? — ssu

I believe domesticated animals can have a good life.

Or that they don't deserve a life? — ssu

All sentient life deserves to have a life. Free from unnecessary torture and slaughter.

You propose as your 'humane' final solution be to gradually stop breeding the domesticated animals. Yet what you are promoting is still the extinction of what you apparently think as 'unnatural' animals as they have been produced 'unnaturally'. — ssu

They don't need to go extinct. Many of these farm animals would be put in farm sanctuaries, while the rest would die naturally, as they lived their full natural lives. This still aligns with my answers to your two questions. Cows could have a good life, while deserving a long and torture free one, in which they die of natural causes, just as a human would.

Somehow for you the solution cannot be that cruelty (that Akanthintos gives examples of) would be reduced by simply improving living standards of domesticated animals. No. Your 'benevolent' answer is the mass extinction of this kind of life. Because it's not 'natural', even if you admit that we are one natural species just like others in the World altering our environment to fit our desires. — ssu

Improving living standards of farm animals, while still ending their lives abruptly and not allowing them to live out their natural lives? When a life is in constant pain, it is actually more benevolent to end it, rather than slightly improve it (which wouldn't even happen). There's no way to regulate all these farms 24/7, so it is better to end the suffering all together, and only keep a small amount in animal sanctuaries. This also has nothing to do with what I think is natural. It has everything to do with causing unnecessary pain and torture, when we absolutely do not need to. Not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to understand. If you are causing unnecessary pain to a sentient creature, and there's an easy/practical way to end that pain, you should do so. Otherwise, you're acting immorally.

No. I spent a few months working there, and then at some point I counted the number of hogs I had seen going in. 2 millions. My dad had told me, when he sent me working there, to work hard at it, but to always be looking for a reason to quit and get myself a better job. That I had a (shared) killcount of anything in the millions was a good enough reason for me. — Akanthinos

It's good you don't work there anymore. Did you become vegetarian/vegan because of that experience? Or do you still eat animals? If so, why.

Let's try again: what do you think "should" means? "...is referring to people" is incoherent as any sort of definition.

I'll tell you what I think but you need to go first; its your word. — tim wood

Then clarify what you are asking next time. You can look up the word "should" if you want to, as there are clear dictionary definitions.

When I say should, and as the dictionary states, he is obligated to share that information. I'll give you two different ways of saying it, since you're confused.

1. He should tell the people who have been wronged.
2. He is obligated to tell the people who have been wronged.

There is a difference between a moral obligation and a moral virtue. In this situation, he has a moral obligation to reveal this information with the people who have been wronged.

Isn't ALL life imbued with the same value, all things which can self-replicate? Why do we kill and eat plants. Shame on us. — gloaming

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I will address your statement. We have a higher moral consideration to life that is sentient, since that life can experience pain and suffering. Which means, our actions toward that life can cause pain that may be unnecessary. And if it is unnecessary, it is our responsibility to stop it. Plants are not sentient, as they don't have a brain or nervous system to process things like pain and/or pleasure.