…
That seems intuitive, but is it actually true? In my view, moral is a social construct (I’ve called it a ‘social selector’ in the past, i.e. something that decides a society’s fitness to ‘stand the test of time’, so to speak), and thus, to extend it beyond anything that can be reasonably considered a society seems problematic. Similarly, if there is an evolutionary reason for morality (and I think there is, at least in so far as there is an evolutionary reason for a tendency to create societies), I can’t easily see how to apply it to species you can’t interbreed with; they’re part of the environment, as far as evolution is concerned.
One could think about broadening the confines of the term ‘society’ to such an extend that it includes, for instance, pets or even farm animals; but still, that doesn’t, at least as far as I can see, imply that the same moral rules apply to them. There is no a priori necessity that all members of a society ought to be treated equally; it’s a tenet of our current society’s morality, but that can’t necessarily be extended to a society with non-human members.
In short, other than stipulating an absolute, over-arching morality, I don’t see that extending even basic moral tenets such as the right to life to non-human beings is quite that simple.
Sorry, but I think my point stands (erislover put it more eloquently). Substitute “creatures” for “things”, you as a human are still deciding what this non-sentient thing with no self-awareness deserves and doesn’t deserve. And fine, I’ll give great apes and porpoises the benefit of a doubt. But cows, chickens and yummy king crabs? Into the pot they go!
I don’t see why it would be worse to eat a human embryo than a pig. A pig probably has a greater sense of consciousness and higher intelligence. We should determine the legality of foods based on the scientific evidence of each creature’s consciousness and intelligence. For example, any being more “advanced” than a six month-old human fetus should be illegal to kill.
Think about the process of raising soybeans, rice, or any other vegetable for human food. Acres of land are tilled and cultivated. Do you think they send people into the fields to chase away the animals that already live there? The slaughter of field mice, meadow moles, bunny rabbits, hedgehogs, shrews, woodchucks, even baby deer is horrendous. There are certainly hundreds of animals killed plowing a single acre.
Compare this to raising free range cattle on pasture. The death toll is much lower. Of course, you’re guaranteed to kill at least one, but what of the hundreds you don’t kill. Is a cow intrinsically more valuable than a rabbit?
Speaking strictly from the standpoint of my worldview, people who claim that “Meat Is Murder” are mildly insane and should be watched for possible self- and other-endangerment.
If you don’t want to eat meat yourself, more power to you. I’m not going to stick a tube in your esophagus and force loose sausage down there. But leave other people out of it. “Meat Is Murder” people who try to push it on the rest of us are no different than the folks who stand outside abortion clinics with posters showing aborted fetuses. Neither of the foci of these folks’ advocacy are human beings, despite the wishes of these advocates.
What I always wonder about this is - why would anyone be married to someone who commits murder?
I’ve made it a practice in my life to drop associations with people I find highly immoral or unethical. Or at least minimize them as much as possible. I’m no longer friends with the guy who beat the shit out of his girlfriend, once that was discovered, he disappeared from the social circle. The acquaintance who abandoned her kids - when I run into her I try and get out of the conversation as soon as possible - being civil, but certainly not friendly. I simply can’t imagine going to sleep next to someone every night who I considered a murderer and who was unrepentant and going to participate in murder again.
Have they redefined murder to be “no big?”
Well, I’m not sure how I wound up as the sole defender of animal rights here, but I’ll do my best devil’s advocacy. Consider it this way: if you took an animal, like a dog, and you subjected it to brutal torture for several days before it eventually died of its injuries, I think it’s clear you did something cruel. Something immoral. And your action was cruel and immoral not because of anything you did to another human, but because of the excruciating and needless pain you caused to the dog. So IMO it’s pretty clear that animals are deserving of some moral consideration. The only question remaining is, how much moral consideration? Of course you could head this argument off at the pass by claiming that torturing the dog to death wasn’t wrong. But that’s not a route I would like to take. Morality may be conventional to some extent, but “conventional” =! “whatever we make it”.
Could you give an outline of Singer’s argument, or at least a link to it? I read his Wikipedia page, and it didn’t convince me. For instance:
So does that mean humans incapable of feeling pain (comatose, vegetative) are not worthy of consideration and may be eaten? Indeed, what about dead animals? He makes the argument against killing, but presumably leaves the door open to scavenging and cannibalism.
While I think it is hasty to dismiss the rights of non-human animals out of hand, I think it can easily be argued that things should stay roughly the way they are; i.e. being a carnivore is completely legal, but there are a few common-sense anti-cruelty laws on the books. I’m more of a pragmatist, myself. It appears Singer is too, but we just draw the line at different places.
I can agree with this. After six months a fetus is too crunchy.
I started; but I have to go home. I can post it tomorrow.
So I either admit that dogs have “rights”, or admit that I’m OK with dogs being tortured to death. Nice false dilemma you’ve created. Yawn Anyway, I think Half Man Half Wit covered that quite adequately in post #5.
Singer goes the other way: he advocates the right to kill newborn infants (up to a month old) who are disabled in such a way as to give them diminished prospects of eventually enjoying an adequate “quality of life”, in his words, because to allow them to live would take away resources from what Singer calls “normal” children.
Raising animals for food = Holocaust. Killing infants who are physically or mentally handicapped = great idea.
I am not a good person to summarize his beliefs, however, as he makes me want to spit.
Some years back, I read a short story called “Foet”. The gist was that the skin of aborted human foetuses was retained, made into leather, and used to make high-fashion accessories, such as very expensive handbags. An interesting concept, and really kinda squicks you out.
Anyway. If it’s not a human, it’s not “murder”, simple as that. They may argue that it’s cruel or inhumane if they wish, and we can have a discussion about that, but “murder” it ain’t.
Eating turnips is vegicide.
And deservedly so.
The vegetarians in question aren’t “assuming” meant is murder, they are making the argument it’s murder. I believe it’s incorrect, but it’s not the same thing.
What these people are arguing is that animals deserve equivalent rights and that killing them is murder, same as killing a human being. A dictionary will not solve the problem. 
The best argument has already been given, in my opinion: it’s impossible to live without killing animals, whether through killing them directly for meat, taking away their habitat through expansion of our own, or by the deaths of animals during farming. We can minimize our impact and attempt to avoid cruelty to animals, but beyond that, you’re left with ideas that are rather laughable, like ‘humans should all practice subsistence farming and eat what they grow themselves.’ Many humans have stopped doing that because they are much more likely to survive, not to mention enjoy a greater quality of life, under the system we have now.
[side observation]
I am constantly fascinated by the dynamic of these threads. In almost every case (and I’ve participated in a half dozen or so on this topic), there is the same ratio of posters. A majority contingent who think there isn’t even a reasonable debate to be had–animals are clearly no different from chairs or plants. A vocal and significant minority who believe that and also believe that animal rights activists are actually mentally ill. This group becomes enraged at the mere suggestion of animal rights theories. And maybe one or two posters who try to offer up Singer or other theorists as proof that there is a legitimate debate. These posters aren’t even trying to argue that the animal rights theorists are correct–AFAICT, no one on this board believes that–but to just show that there are rational arguments out there which cannot be defeated by logic alone.
[/side observation]
It is a wonderful demonstration that animals deserve some moral consideration. It is a poor foundation for animal rights. Justice and morality do overlap to some extent, but they diverge quite rapidly in most treatments I’ve read (though my readings are rather sparse). I know of no meaningful way to bring animals into human society, nor yet for a human to enter into an animal society, such as they are (and, I think, they are). To the extent that moral codes exist to reduce, avoid, or eliminate suffering, animals are due some respect, at least as much as they give us, probably more because of our position of dominance over them. But a theory of animal justice is not something I have ever read about, or even heard about. Perhaps my imagination is simply not up to the task.
Change that to “one or two posters who engage in appeal to authority fallacy”, then I’d tend to agree. With the added fallacy that because a name can be attached to a position, the position therefore has merit (or even “cannot be defeated by logic”). :Shrug: I imagine you can find a “theorist” for almost anything these days.
It’ll be neat to see if that happens this time. So far, so good.