If you want to whine about one word in my post, while ignoring the actual meaning of what I wrote, go right ahead.
The rest of your post is unconvincing, poorly chosen rhetoric. You make unwarranted assumptions which you flag with words like “obvious.” You use companion animals like dogs and cats as your examples; this is nothing but an appeal to emotional sorts who are invested in their "fur babies. What is “needless” pain?
Happy now?
Are you referring to this:
The reason why animals should have fewer rights than humans ought to be equally obvious. Most of the rights that humans have, animals are incapable of understanding.
To me it is obvious that human rights such as the right to vote, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trialy by jury, and so forth, could not be understood by any animal. If it’s not obvious to you, c’est la vie.
I brought up cats and dogs only to mention that most people agree that torturing cats and dogs is immoral and should be illegal. This is true, and the law in this country says as much, because that’s what people want. If you think that the only people who feel that way are “emotional sorts”, that’s your opinion, but then we apparently have a whole lot of emotional sorts.
I emphatically believe animals are property and should be treated any way the owner wishes. Animals are not people and they have no rights. But something makes me feel oogy about causing them prolonged suffering. So I regularly experience cognitive tension as to whether animal cruelty ought to be illegal & to what degree.
Killing them and eating them, though, I have no problem with as long as it is humane and sanitary practices are followed. There are environmental problems with farming and we should try to address these, but the same is true of lots of sub-optimal practices that I can’t and won’t live without.
I have said it before and I will say it again: my feelings of uncomfortableness are not reliable guides for social policy. I don’t think people should commit adultery and have been cheated on in the past I strongly sympathize with anyone this happens to but this is not sufficient to make me desire to make cheating illegal. I love animals and I can’t even watch the animal cops shows because of how bad I feel for some of the mistreatment I see, but I don’t think this means we have to outlaw animal cruelty or design elaborate social practices around reducing suffering of animals.
Doesn’t that hurt? 
The entire case the OP tries to make fails to stand on its own merits. The case is shut rather than open.
Beef - it’s what’s for dinner.
Plants do not have a brain to imagine yourself as or a central nervous system to experience pain. Even if they did suffer (which they do not), we have to produce 5-7 times as many crops to feed the animals so this causes more suffering regardless.
The form of the golden rule that I have always heard has been to treat others as we would want to be treated. This is a elementary form though. The important part is the ending where we treat others how we would want to be treated if we were them.
I would like to pretend that I am smarter than a cheetah and have the ability to make rational, ethical choices. I can’t speak for the cheetah.
I would have to disagree and say the golden rule is one of the best rules that applies to 99% of the choices we make on a daily basis. The only exception is more complex choices that require Utilitarian choices (preferably Christ-like, self-sacrificing for the greater good choices) . If we had followed these three ethical principles we would never have considered slavery of humans as even a remote option. It is not the eating of flesh that is necessarily wrong. If meat grew on trees, I would be all for it. There would be no ethical dilemma. If we were starving to death and needed to eat meat, there would be no ethical dilemma. If we ate cultured meat, there would be no ethical dilemma. Wolves are not capable of expressing as advanced features of ethics and empathy as we are.
Utilitarianism is difficult since it requires thinking about very high level, complex outcomes. That is for sure. Simply because something is complex though, it does not make it useless. The problem with your pig example is that you are forgetting the concepts of justice and free will that go along with Utiliatarianism. If you are breaking free will of a living being, we better have a damn good reason for doing it.
As demand for conventional meat lowers, less and less animals would be artifically inseminated. We would eventually have places like Farm Sanctuary where the life of an animal is respected for what it is worth.
If every animal in existence lived out a natural life and was painlessly killed for us, then we would be able to argue whether involuntarily taking the life of an animal is justified. However, the two choices are not even remotely close since our current system causes probably the most suffering in the world to an unbiased observer when you take into account the effects on both humans and non-humans.
These arguments do not apply to plants since they do not have a brain to imagine yourself as or a central nervous system to experience pain. The very clear line is at plants. Insects most likely do not feel pain, but I certainly try not to step on them if I can. We must study the animals and see how they suffer. It is blatantly obvious when a pig is screaming for its life that it wants to live or when a cow is getting its testicles cut off that it is in pain.
None of these rules only apply to animals since animals suffer just as we do. Not to mention that we are simply further along on the scale. Of course animals are not humans in the traditional sense. All you are proving is that humans are worth more than animals. Take an example. If I have the choice between saving only the life of either a white child or an old black man and I choose to save the white child, does that make me a racist? Of course not. The life of a child is probably the most precious of all life. Similarly, if I have the option of saving an animal or saving a human, if I save the human, does it make me a speciesist? Of course not. The life of a human is more valuable. Am I incredibly sad that someone would have to die? Hell us. Should I do everything in my power to make sure that no one has to die? Hell us. The key point is that we look at the situation as if we are everyone in the situation. We look at the science of what it would be like to be that child and that old man. We look at the science of what it would be like to be that human and that animal. None of them want to die. But we choose the option as if we WERE all parties involved.
So first off, let me be clear that PETA is like Malcolm X. Sure they make some positive changes, but I certainly do not agree with their philosophy. As to who the Martin Luther King Jr. is in this fight for equality, I am not sure. But we desperately need someone like him. I can’t speak for PETA, but I can speak for myself after having thought this through completely. I am not saying that animals deserve rights like us and should have the right to free speach and to hold public office. What I am saying is that animals deserve a single right; the right not to be property. You might be saying to yourself that this would mean that there are no more pets. If you adopt a child into your family, are they your property? Or are they a member of the family? Similarly, if you adopt a pet into your life, they are not your property. They are your family. It is our duty to get away from our current exploitation of animals. We need to find alternatives. Many times these alternatives are much better. Some people cling to the horse drawn carriages and refuse to move to cars though. Change is refused while suffering is ignored.
Let me be clear that I could care less about judging anyone else. This is not aboug judging. This is about following what is right and following justice. The animals in factory farms could care less why they are suffering. They just want it to stop. If we were worried about offending others, we would never make any positive change because there is always someone who will be offended.
This is a good point. I would strongly argue that taking the life of someone involuntarily is unethical. However, this does not even play a factor yet since over 99% of farm animals are raised in factory farms (according to Farm Forward using USDA statistics). Either way you put it, there is no way to separate the suffering when we exploit others.
I can easily come to terms with the fact that I will die. I would rather not have someone come and make me suffer or kill me because they had control over me.
Link to a thread which has a link to a thread about somebody who was voluntarily cannibalized and a Doper knew him!!!
And cows do not have significantly advanced brains to comprehend suffering or enjoyment as we know it. You are drawing one line, and the rest of the people in the thread are drawing it somewhere else. You haven’t made a compelling case for why we should accept your line.
If I don’t recognize all suffering as being equivalent then your argument still fails.
The bottom line is that you are assuming equivalence where there is no consensus. Go back and explain why we should care if a cow suffers because you haven’t made your case.
Largely, though not exclusively, this is why I don’t consider them in ethical codes. Rabbits’, cows’, and cats’ inability to reciprocate means the golden rule as a universal dictum cannot apply. If you choose to apply it anyway, in spite of this, I guess all I can say is “enjoy,” but leave your own predilections to yourself.
Animals cannot reciprocate.
how do you know what the animal is seeing/feeling? They don’t have human perspectives or understanding.
Says who?
I dunno. I don’t like the way “factory farms” are run, but I just last night watched a bunch of nature clips where larger predators like lions took down a zebra, and while one clamped its neck the other lions simply started eating while the zebra was still struggling to get free. Or the crocodiles plucking off antelopes while they crossed a stream; the crocs were simply grabbing antelopes and tearing them to shreds between them. I fail to see how what we do is any worse.
see above. You’re claiming we have to be held to a higher standard (which you conveniently define) because we should be held to a higher standard.
You have yet to explain why we should have to follow your ethical principles.
You mean the same way we look at past civilizations and consider them barbaric?
you are why people scoff at vegetarians/vegans. you’re taking a moral absolutist stance that your ethics are the only possible right way to live. Don’t expect too much adulation other than from people who already agree with you.
Obviously we reign supreme in this world. This does not make it ethical to treat others any different than how we would want to be treated if we were them, however. We are given a special place to be good stewards to animals.
I certainly do not deny that we have evolved to eat meat. I would strongly argue that meat is not very beneficial to our health and can mostly be detrimental to our health, but regardless, the point is clear that we have this ability. The question is still, are we ethical in doing it? It almost seems like you are denying all ethics in general. Suffering of animals is not a question of ethics? I can’t really follow that line of thinking.
I am certainly not saying a mouse should be equated with a human. I am saying we should put ourselves in the mouses shoes…er… feet and ask what we would want if we were them. Obviously this is not as easy as knowing what another human wants (though this can sometimes be tricky itself), it is certainly not impossible to gain this knowledge. There are not that many high level situations you need to consider when you involve other living beings in your ethics. It is not nearly as hard as you make it sound. Certainly not harder than anything else we have done in history.
I understand we want to eat meat. I certainly want to. The question is, is it ethical to? Saying, “it could be worse”, does not really help anyone though.
Thank you.
Like I said earlier. Animals are clearly alive, feel pain and want to live. Insects are clearly alive and want to live. Plants, while “alive”, do not have a brain to even comprehend what it means to live and do not feel pain. The clear line is between insects and plants. And no… insects are not the same worth as animals. Animals are not the same worth as humans. However, they were created. They are worth a hell of a lot in my mind. Regardless of what us humans put their value at.
This is a very old world, Descartes type argument. The reason we care about animal rights in the first place is because we know we are causing suffering to the animals. If there were no issues of suffering, justice or free will we would have no issue. It has nothing to do with how it only effects humans although it should certainly be added onto the discussion.
This discussion is about ethics. It does not matter whether we theoretically think a cow would eat us if they were in our position. A cow has never harmed us a day in our lives. Whether someone wants to kill us or not has nothing to do with whether killing someone is ethical. The Golden Rule is not some social contract you sign. It is a matter of following the empathy you feel for others.
If it is not clear yet, history repeats itself. Every argument we can come up with for why we should keep exploiting animals has already been given 200 years ago. However, in this case, it was for those humans of a different color. Please look at this top 10 list of reasons why we should not abolish slavery.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past/ten-reasons-not-to-abolish-slavery/
You fall in line with number 10:
“10.Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise.”
This argument could then be extended to all crimes. How do you distinguish between those crimes that cause “enough” suffering to those crimes that are just under the bar of suffering? I would argue that factory farms are the single greatest source of suffering in the world.
Please try to add to the conversation. There has been no evidence given of why the golden rule should exclude certain “others” (animals) but include some “others” (humans). This also did not take into account Utilitarianism or the Least Harm Principle.
I reject your false dichotomy.
Ethically speaking, the less harm you do to animals, the better, but there is no hard good/bad line. Imperfection does not equal evil. At some point, major pragmatic considerations outweigh minor ethical ones.
And there are non ethical considerations, such as health, environmental, legal, and psychological.
Also it may seem like nitpicking but the real issue here is the welfare of the animals, not the destination of their remains.
That I do not agree with the idea of human superiority (reigning supreme), in a way of our being more valuable, or more worthy than other living creatures, is what I meant here.
That is my personal belief system, and not one I would force on others.
As a species, of course we dominate, I agree with you, and we fit all the human criterion of superiority.
Many religions preach that we are the highest form of creation, for example Genesis in the bible totally backs this up.
What is also interesting, is how some of the superior human beings, dislike the idea- that they may also be animals, or descendants of animals.
This goes against all scientific knowledge we have. When these animals scream in pain, they are pretending to suffer? Please watch this video and tell me you do not think cows or other farm animals can suffer
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142&hl=en#
Or if you are in a hurry this video
Someone has to do something nice to you before we should return the favor? Does ethics imply that we first receive before we give?
We do not need to receive something in return for us to be ethical to others.
We study the animals to understand what they perceive and feel.
Just because “it could be a lot worse”, does not making something ethical or not. I would rather not lower our intelligence to those of lower animals.
Of course we should be held to a higher standard. If someone has better knowledge than someone else, I would hold them to a higher standard than someone who does not.
Do you believe that slavery is sometimes ethical? That slavery is sometimes okay so that you do not offend others? If so, how do you explain that logic? I am laying out rational reasons for why I believe that it is unethical to eat meat. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. Because I believe something so passionately that I would non-violently give my life for it, it does not mean I think I am better than anyone else. On the contrary, I simply see the mistakes I made in the past and want others to see what I see now.
How do the anti-meat folks reconcile the fact that human beings are omnivores against the morality of consuming animal flesh?
Who counts as “others,” and why? Human fetuses or embryos? Rabbits? Fish? Cockroaches? Bacteria? Rocks? Politicians? Computers that can pass the Turing test?
To me (and maybe, from what you’ve written, to you too) the more important ethical issue is not whether we kill and or eat animals, but how we treat them before then.
Not antimeat person, but nature isn’t a good role model.
Because we are not obligate carnivores, or if we were are we’re smart enough to work around the needing meat. Further human morality generally overrides nature. For example nature has no qualms about rape, but civilized parts of the world are strongly against it.
Getting up for an alarm and driving a car isn’t natural either.
What add? I reject your entire position. You are attempting to apply human ethics to non-human things. Your position is a false one. Why should I follow the Golden Rule in the first place? I’m not a robot - the Three Laws don’t get programmed into me upon creation. Besides, the Golden Rule is stupid. What if the other guy has different tastes than you? Treating him as I would want to be treated may be the opposite of what he wants? It is the height of arrogance to assume that your position on ethics is everybody’s.
In addition, I could give a shit about food and its “feelings.” It’s food, and exists to be eaten. I will not anthropomorphize my sandwich.
On the gripping hand, act-utilitarianism says eating meat is a Good Thing. So bye-bye to your 2nd statement. And your 3rd statement is messy at best. I’m all for humanely slaughtered meat, if for no other reason than it tastes better. Your “suffering” threshold is bogus.
but this argument- like the OP- is stating little more than “we should because we can. And because I say so.”