Eating Meat is Ethical/Unethical

Great Debates
361

You seem to be thinking that equal consideration = equal value. This is not the case. When I say equal consideration, it simply means you look at the issue from their point of view. Not just your own. Most rationalizations we have come up with are simply because we are denying the interest of others. Equal value is different. You realize that ants have less value than animals. You realize that animals have less value than humans. This we agree on.

I realize that these incremental changes will take too long and much larger self sacrificing choices are needed.

362

I see this thread is still rumbling along the same exact arguments as on the first page. I haven’t really kept up, having been away for a while, but it doesn’t seem much progress has been made.

[QUOTE=Trust]
You seem to be thinking that equal consideration = equal value. This is not the case. When I say equal consideration, it simply means you look at the issue from their point of view. Not just your own. Most rationalizations we have come up with are simply because we are denying the interest of others. Equal value is different. You realize that ants have less value than animals. You realize that animals have less value than humans. This we agree on.

I realize that these incremental changes will take too long and much larger self sacrificing choices are needed.
[/QUOTE]

So, what you are saying here is that you acknowledge that values are different for different animals, but then set an arbitrary value that you feel others must, if they want to be ethical, agree with…and then that they must sacrifice to make your arbitrary values part of their value system and reality. That’s…well, that’s really a rather interesting way to look at the world, I must say. :stuck_out_tongue:

Just to re-re-emphasize:

Why yes…I think we ALL realize this. The only difference is others make different arbitrary lines where their comfort level exists and don’t attempt to re-define things like The Golden Rule(tm…aar, Truth) nor attempt to throw THEIR personal, arbitrary lines in terms of ethical verse unethical behavior…something you attempted to do from the very OP and have, rather erratically, attempted to maintain throughout the thread.

I think Stoid has come closest to my own take on this, and also come closest to a realistic view of what real world actions could be taken to alleviate animal suffering. Sadly, you’ve not really grasped what she is trying to say, nor the more fundamental point that your arbitrary lines are simply that…YOUR lines. This may very well be an ethical question TO YOU, but that’s simply because YOU ARE CHOOSING WHERE THE LINES ARE DRAWN BASED ON YOUR OWN WORLD VIEW. A world view not shared by the majority of humanity. Granted, that doesn’t make it any less real or important TO YOU…but it does rather highlight your attempt to portray this in a broader question of ethical verse unethical behavior.

I think that ethics come from within, but they also come from our broader society. In India, killing a cow is frowned upon widely, and could and probably would be considered ‘unethical’ behavior. In some Asian countries, eating dog or monkey doesn’t even draw a raised eyebrow, while it would be frowned upon in the US (especially the dog part…or, say, a cat). Cultural differences abound, and different cultures look at such things differently. But for the vast majority of humanity, killing an animal for food is not seen in the light of ethics, nor is it generally frowned upon as an across the board (well, except in some undefined valuations of animals based on vague feelings or discomfort) prohibition. More like pirate rules…

I can respect someones individual ethics, even while disagreeing with them…or, even when I don’t see it as an ethics question. Someone burning a Bible or Koran, or having a child out of wedlock is not going to really touch on ‘ethics’ from MY perspective, because I don’t see those things in terms of ‘ethics’. But I acknowledge that they are MY arbitrary lines and much of it is only meaningful to me. You seem unable to do this, sadly.

-XT

363

Does that mean that it isn’t an ethical question?

I’m going to have to disagree here, as I did in your other thread on the matter. Pork producers care about what their shareholders want (namely, profit). If demand retracts due to what the public perceives as unethical business practices, shareholders will be unhappy and vote for slightly more expensive ethical practices. The customer and other stakeholders exert relatively little influence over the actions of the board of directors, their influence is mostly indirect. You pointed out in the other thread that they’ll dismiss letters from ex-customers unlikely to ever purchase from them again, but why shouldn’t they do likewise for customers that continue to give them patronage despite their continued unethical practices?

364

AKA consumers stop consuming.

This is what’s known as a distinction without a difference. Good grief…

365

I’m having a little trouble grasping your point of contention then. Why is vegetarianism a poor response to the lack of ethical practices in the industry while ethical omnivorism is a good response? Each has the same goal (reduction of unethical practices due to lowering demand), each uses similar practices (refusing to purchase from corporations that use what consumers see as unethical practices) and each has the same effect (corporations with unethical practices see a marginal decrease in profitability).

I don’t see the “lousiness” of vegetarianism there. I don’t see the strictures of vegetarianism as absolute (I’ve already expressed that artificial meat is absolutely fine, as is carrion - I’ve had moose roadkill sausages before) nor as arbitrary (refusing to aid an unethical industry in its operations by contributing to their profit - the ethics of a perfectly raised and executed animal are more contentious, but not germane to the market as it stands).

366

Then I guess the 19 different ways I’ve said it failed. Oh well. Bummer.

367

Speaking of anthropomorphising…

368

hey Stoid–

(and whoever else has contribution to this question)–

i might regret asking this, but i’ve been thinking…
if animals lack the capacity of contemplative suffering, aka associating a device with their own impending doom, how does that translate in mechanistic relationships like a lion and a gazelle?

what i mean is, gazelles are all hanging out, being all gazelle-y, and one sees the head of a lion poke up from the tallgrass.

gazelles equate this with impending doom, panic ensues.

i realize there’s going to be a very difficult delineation between instinctive response vs a rationalized decision, but in at least the predator/prey mechanism, animals seems to be able to associate somethings with future suffering…?

or do i have this wrong…?

369

To be strictly accurate, we don’t know absolutely anything because we can’t get inside the brains of other animals and experience their thoughts and feelings.

But we have lots of good ways of making very good guesses.

In the case of prey mammals, they are born scared, for one thing. Anyone else runs, they run. Anyone else is scared, they’re scared. So teasing apart how much they are learning things vs. how much they are responding to their fellows vs. responding to their own experience… I don’t know. But what we can be pretty certain of is that none of their response is a sequence of thoughts that go:

“There is a lion… if he catches me, I will die. I don’t want to die. Therefore I must flee in order to go on living.” It’s simpler than that, more along the lines of “Kitty! Bad! Flee!” Comprehension is superfluous, reaction is all that matters. That’s kinda bred into the bones, because the animals that react live long enough to reproduce. The animals that don’t get to be breakfast.

370

Please provide a rational explanation for why we should not take into consideration those who are aware of the world. In post #356, I try to break down the argument for taking animals into consideration in very simple terms. Do you have a logical explanation for why you can simply choose to ignore the consideration of animals? My dividing line is based on logic but it seems you want to create a dividing line based on convenience and then claim ethics is a personal thing that cannot be discussed.

371

They’re decidedly less panicked by a lion lazing around under a tree. I don’t know how many nature shows you’ve watched, but animals mostly ignore each other unless there’s a good reason. “Lioness exists” is not a good reason. “Lioness stalking me in the grass” is a very good reason. I’m not saying they’re always hanging out shooting this shit but lionesses don’t have to go very far to get a bite to eat if you know what I mean.

372

Please provide a rational explanation why you ignore so much of what people say to you and repeatedly accuse and insinuate that people have said, believe or think things that they have never indicated.

Please provide a rational explanation for why you think you are not being understood when the problem is that you are not paying attention to anyone else.

Please provide a rational explanation for why people should continue to try and have a rational conversation with you when you don’t seem at all interested in even acknowledging anything that doesn’t fit into the story you’ve attached yourself to about how people are acting and thinking and how the world works.

Please provide a rational explanation of why you say plain, uncomplicated things (about animal fear, wanting, equalness..) and then seem confused when people take what you say to mean what it means in normal English speech?

373

Pretty much what Stoid said. However, to go into a bit more specifics:

[QUOTE=Trust]
Please provide a rational explanation for why we should not take into consideration those who are aware of the world.
[/QUOTE]

Gods know what you were trying to say here, or what you meant. I’m unsure if even YOU really know what the hell your point is in most of this. However, since I never said anything remotely like ‘why we should not take into consideration those who are aware of the world’, and honestly don’t know what the hell you meant there, nor why you quoted all of my post with such a question, I’ll just leave it there. If you would like to try and actually read what I said, and then have a rational discussion about it…or, better yet, read what others have said much better than I and have a rational discussion with them that actually pertains to what was said rather than whatever you seem to want to discuss in spite of what was actually said, then feel free. I would appreciate, however, that if you want to discuss what I’m writing that you actually make some attempt at discussing what I wrote, however. Granted, I’m not exactly the most coherent poster on this board, especially when I’m writing on the road and on my iPad, but if you are confused I’m always willing to try and rephrase if necessary.

Yes, I read it. In that post you drew your own arbitrary lines for various aspects of what is obviously your worldview on things. There are a number of assumptions you make to tie it all together…again, this is no surprise since it’s YOUR world view and your arbitrary lines. No problem…I give you the same slack I give a theists expounding on some religious point. It’s no skin off my nose if someone wants to make their own assumptions, use them to create their own internal ‘logical’ and draw their own arbitrary lines of moral/immoral, ethical/unethical, good/bad epistemology. Whatever floats thy boat, blows up thy skirt or makes thy bunny jump…I’m a live and let live sort of guy. It’s only when someone attempts a preemptive strike on the moral high ground that I start getting a bit tense.

Well, I’d have to start with ‘I don’t’, and then perhaps go to ‘why are you incapable of reading what I actually write??’ with perhaps an eloquent segue into ‘huh?’. I, personally, don’t ignore ‘the consideration of animals’. I haven’t said that I do, nor have I indicated that I do in word or deed. I’ve acknowledged that there is a sliding scale of ‘consideration of animals’ that is very real…but one that isn’t a hard fast line that can be drawn across our entire species. As anyone with half a brain acknowledges since different cultures have different attitudes and draw different lines about different animals and how they fit into out human world view. Sadly, again, YOU don’t seem to grasp that this is the case, and you attempt to project YOUR world view, assumptions and ‘logic’ onto others, which is both silly and futile. You attempt to justify your assumptions and arbitrary lines by trying to take the moral high ground, which is, frankly, laughable, considering that whatever the hell your wildly changing stance is on this, it’s a vastly minority view…at a guess, limited to yourself and maybe a few other fringe individuals wrt to your redefinition of the Golden Rule(tm…aar, Truth).

No, your dividing line is based on your own arbitrary take and assumptions. There is nothing ‘logical’ behind it, except the same internal ‘logical’ that a theist or 9/11 Truther believes to be ‘logical’ and ‘true’.

-XT

374

I have responded to every single post I have seen directed toward me. Provide examples of what I am ignoring so I can respond to it.

I am saying that there is no rational explanation for choosing to ignore the interest of those who are aware of the world.

You keep accusing me of drawing arbitrary lines, yet you provide no rational explanation for why you disagree with those lines. Of those points, 1 through 12, which do you disagree with? Once you answer that, we can get down to actually discussing the logic behind it.

So here is the major point of contention. You say that you have a sliding scale of ‘consideration of animals’. I have no sliding scale of ‘consideration of animals’. You need to logically describe why there should be a sliding scale of consideration.

There is certainly a sliding scale of pain or a sliding scale of intelligence or a sliding scale of value. This is quite obvious throughout this thread when we say that insects do not feel pain, yet animals do feel pain. Or that pigs and dogs are not as smart as humans. Or that animals are more valuable than insects and humans are more valuable than animals.

But what is the rational explanation for having a sliding scale of consideration? By definition, if you are choosing to ignore the considerations of others, how are you being ethical? It seems we would agree that ignoring the consideration of other humans because they are different from us is unethical. So why is this any different with the animals? This is no different than when we had the Three-Fifths Compromise saying that slaves were only worth 3/5’s of a person. We devalue the worth of others so that we can continue to exploit them.

Explain how making the dividing line at anyone who is aware of the world is an arbitrary dividing line. It is a completely rational dividing line because it takes all parties who are capable of experiencing the world into account. **How can we determine the rightness of an action if we ignore some of the parties involved or use a sliding scale of consideration based on what benefits ourselves? **

375

If you are like me and you spent some time coming up with ridiculous excuses for why we should keep using the current sytem, here is a good link that explains the phychology behind it

http://news.change.org/stories/does-eating-meat-mean-living-in-denial
It was easier at first for me to change my beliefs than to change my behavior to align with my ethics. Another reason why vegan/vegetarianism is only a small part of the needed answer.

376

Done it. Repeatedly. You get stuck in certain grooves and things that dont’ fall into those grooves don’t exist for you. I dont’ have time to ignored or have my statements misrepresented so you can respond the way you want.

yeah, so what. When you find someone in this thread who has said they are choosing to ignore animal suffering (which is what you are driving around the back to get to, DUH) you be sure to let us all know, because no one except you has noticed anyone taking that position.

No he doesn’t. Most people dont’ need it explained to them. That you have personally chosen to have, well, not NO sliding scale, but a much less flexible one, puts no burden on anyone else at all to explain their different choice. No one is asking you to approve their ethical choices, you know, why do you keep stating things as though you are the Decider of What is Genuinely Ethical?

By definition, there’s no one in this thread choosing to ignore consideration of others. Also no one choosing to “choosing to ignore consideration” (choosing not to consider) animals, either. Again, when you locate someone who is doing that, let us all know.

Because other people’s ethics aren’t yours, Decider of Ethics for Everyone (in your own mind)

Cuz the animals are different. They’re animals.

Of course its different. Slavery was about human beings. Human beings are different than animals. <<<<<------------(one of the main things you just ignore so you can repeat the argument you like. Wanna ignore it again? I bet you do…)

Animals aren’t parties.

Animals aren’t people.

People (especially the ones you are talking to in this thread) aren’t ignoring animals, so it would AWESOME if you would stop saying it! I mean AWESOME! We could throw a party to celebrate the awesomeness of you refraining from saying things that have nothing to do with what anyone else is saying or doing! Wheeeeeeeeee…

And everyone determines their ethics for themselves, and it’s pretty clear that boatloads of people do it differently than you. And they are justified in doing so. Think you can handle it?

377

[QUOTE=Trust]
I am saying that there is no rational explanation for choosing to ignore the interest of those who are aware of the world.
[/QUOTE]

Who are ‘those who are aware of the world’, exactly? By merely repeating your assertion it does not provide additional illumination of whatever point you think you are making here.

I have attempted to explain this to you multiple times in multiple ways, with others attempting the same thing. It has been a vain hope that any of it would get through to you. No…I’m not going to go down your 12 point list in a point by point discussion, as it would do no good, since the basic point seems to elude you. Essentially, Stoid’s ‘Cuz the animals are different. They’re animals’, ‘Animals aren’t parties’, ‘Animals aren’t people’ and ‘Of course its different. Slavery was about human beings. Human beings are different than animal’ suffice. When you can grasp the basic concept that the lines you are setting are arbitrary, that they are meaningful to YOU, but are neither transcendental nor absolute across the board of culture, society or individual world view, and that this point matters in any discussion about ethics or morals in such gray area questions, then perhaps there could be further discussion. For now, you ain’t gettin it, kimosabe, and the discussion resembles a hamster running on a Dali-esque wheel through an Echer landscape. We are getting no where fast, and it’s getting really, really weird up in this thing.

Read this sentence you posted here.

Then read this one. Warning…reset your irony meter to shields up and on full, with all auxiliary power poured in along with as many hamsters as you can get running.

In case you missed it, you DO have “a sliding scale of ‘consideration of animals’”, it’s not really a ‘major point of contention’, except where the arbitrary lines are drawn. It IS pretty funny though.

Rationality is also arbitrary and depends on ones viewpoint and world view. For instance, you obviously feel you are being rational in this thread, while I fundamentally disagree. Ethics are another one of those touchy spots, as well attempts to equate humans with other species on the one hand while later acknowledging that, well, really we aren’t all equal, and in fact that some species need to have their ‘considerations’ respected, or something, while others don’t. All arbitrarily set by you, of course, as the yard stick that we all should simply accept and acknowledge to form the basis of what is or isn’t ethical. Or something. Echer. Dali. Hamster.

How can I explain something so fundamental an obvious to someone who refuses to get it? How can I put something in terms of rationality when someone has thrown their rationality out the window in this discussion? How can I lead a horse to water while attempting to change to another horse midstream AND beat it to death while trying to check it’s teeth to see if it’s a good deal as a gift?? Why do fools fall in love?

But on a serious note, and I am only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated beverages on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing. Try and keep that firmly in mind, ok? And be safe out there little cow hand…it’s getting a bit weird.

-XT

378

So, ya wanna drop some acid and go to the zoo and bond? Cool…

379

With you? Any time and twice on Sunday. With the OP? Never in life…would be too strange, even for me. Plus I hate guilt.

-XT

380

Special pleading: we are animals.