[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
Special pleading: we are animals.
[/QUOTE]
Special pleading…we are animals as well, therefore it’s not ‘unethical’ for us to eat meat. It works both ways, kimosabe.
-XT
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
As we established on page one or two, just because other animals do it doesn’t make it ethical (naturalistic fallacy).
Well, you and your mouse may have decided this, but it seems pretty obvious that you are attempting your trademark Special Pleading here. You are saying humans are animals on the one hand (when you think it helps your argument, such as it is) and on the other that we aren’t.
-XT
I think it’s entirely consistent to state that it’s permissible to eat animals and include cannibalism under that definition. I also think it’s entirely consistent to state that it is not permissible to eat animals and exclude cannibalism. However, stating that it is permissible to eat animals but not humans when humans are a member of the set animals is special pleading. That wouldn’t be a problem if a logical reason could be given for excluding humans specifically, but appealing to the social contract isn’t a logical reason.
this makes sense (probably, on your planet??)
we eat to survive as a species so let’s eat our own species so our species won’t survive!
never mind the science that shows animals who cannibalize their own kind have a higher tendencies of abnormal cell growth, cancerand diseases. nature seems to have in place a natural deterrentfor exclusively eating one’s own (there are isolated exclusions where singular cases of cannibalism are part of the natural dynamic of some animals, ie baby octopi eating their mother–however their diet does not consist of octopus exclusively or in large quantity beyond this initial sacrificial meal).
i know this is going to give you a brain boner, but what you are doing really is, this time, a logical fallacy.
if animals are meat and humans are animals then we are meat too–and this is true. for bears and sharks and lions and worms and grubs and all sorts of things.
but there’s a inborn mechanism that all species want to propagate their own, so eating their own is naturally abhorred. bringing cannibalism into the debate is just ignorant. mad cow?
kuru?
Ichthyophthirius?
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
I think it’s entirely consistent to state that it’s permissible to eat animals and include cannibalism under that definition.
[/QUOTE]
So?
Again…so? There are several other permutations that would be equally ‘permissible’ as well, depending on arbitrary lines one wants to draw. That has nothing to do with the fact that you are still using logical fallacies incorrectly and don’t seem to have a good grasp on them, even while repeatedly attempting to use them as some sort of fiat winning point. Or something.
Yes…and (I figured 'So? was getting old)? So is saying it’s not permissible to eat humans or animals. Or any of the other myriad permutations.
Neither is an attempt to do special pleading for animals that shouldn’t be eaten do to arbitrary moral or ethical constraints. I have to say that the irony of your post here is pretty much of the scale, and the level of surrealism is making me think I’m having some drug flashbacks from my misspent youth.
-XT
No, saying that if one accepts the premises that 1. animals are capable of feeling pain and that 2. we should avoid commission of that pain and 3. that it is a requisite to cause pain to animals in order to eat them then we should not eat animals is a logical argument.
I cede that drawing the line at the species level rather than any other is not special pleading when considering things like the social contract, where the furtherance of the species is the ideal. However, I can think of instances where cannibalism is preferable for an individual than the alternative.
I don’t accept #3, which is actually a combined statement.
It is not necessary to cause pain to animals in order to eat them.
Painless slaughter is not only possible, it’s routinely practiced and in fact is legally required and has been since 1958:
The law can be strengthened, there can be better enforcement, there can be better methods- all conceded. But the imperfection in pursuit of the goal does not make the goal unattainable, by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore it is false to state that it is necessary to cause pain in order to eat animals. Since your “logical” argument is founded on a false premise, it isn’t really very logical.
Since that is the truth, and it is also true that most people want to eat animals (although they wouldn’t express it like that…), and it is also true that most people don’t want to cause animals to suffer, it looks as though the most effective way to approach solving the problem of animal suffering caused in the course of meat production is to improve the laws, the enforcement, and the methods of humanely raising and killing animals for food, not doggedly pursuing the Sisyphean task of persuading humanity to stop eating meat altogether.
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
No, saying that if one accepts the premises that 1. animals are capable of feeling pain and that 2. we should avoid commission of that pain and 3. that it is a requisite to cause pain to animals in order to eat them then we should not eat animals is a logical argument.
[/QUOTE]
It’s ‘logical’ in the same way that any set of assumptions and arbitrary links that has internal cohesion is ‘logical’ wrt the self contained premise.
The special pleading part is pointing out that humans are animals (true) and then stating that they should live by some higher standard and not act like animals or allow any of our animal nature to dictate their actions. That IS ‘special pleading’.
-XT
Only to the extent that ethics, morality and laws are special pleading (while they may be syllogistically valid, not all the premises will be agreed on).
Which would probably be best achieved by no longer contributing to the industries that currently cause animal suffering. Either that or wishful thinking. Maybe the animals are thinking bad thoughts and are being targeted for that?
Exactly! But not by stopping eating meat altogether, because then you are no longer a consumer and the meat industry doesn’t care what you think. it is done by taking your business to meat producers that do operate in a manner you find acceptable. Which is what McDonald’s did, and thereby changed the industry entirely going forward.
Why do you keep on repeating this canard? Corporations aren’t in the business of caring about consumers, they’re in the business of making their shareholders profits. If it becomes less profitable to use unethical business practices because of reduced sales, they’ll stop using unethical business practices.
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
Corporations aren’t in the business of caring about consumers, they’re in the business of making their shareholders profits.
[/QUOTE]
Gods, that’s hilarious. I haven’t laughed like this since I was a little girl…
Oh…wait. You were serious?? That’s…well, that’s even funnier, to be honest.
Probably because it’s both obviously true and sound and rational action that could potentially have some effect on the lot of animals. Unlike the OP’s projected course which will simply be dismissed as fringe nuttery.
Gods…the irony. You’ve merely restated what Stoid was getting at, after disagreeing with her a sentence before! Classic! I mean, this is comedy gold…
-XT
Yeah, and I pointed that out the last time he said it, so why he’s repeating it escapes me completely. Unless it was to show us that he has no idea what the word “canard” means, in which case it was quite effective.
What is the primary legal obligation of a corporation?
Wrong:
Stoid is just promoting the lesser of two evils, in that consumers swith to an ethical alternative (which she revealed when she assumed free range cattle was a concept). What vegetarians are propounding is the lack of commission of evil.
None of which has anything to do with the fact that if your company makes money by selling things to consumers, making money for the shareholders is acheived by selling those things to those consumers in as great a quantity for as high a price as possible…how you think these things are somehow unrelated is nothing less than bizarre.
You think corporations like Phillip Morris prioritise the pleasure of their customers over their long term profits? It makes not a jot of difference to the bottom line of McDonalds if their customers visit PETA in between consuming their burgers. If they go to Wendys or grow their own produce instead, it starts to make a difference. You have not offered any substantial reason why purchasing meat is an improvement on changing business practices than not purchasing meat.
Corporations prioritize the pleasure of their customers in the service of long term profits. If spending more to do more humane raising and slaughter does not bring in more customers, or get the same customers willing to pay more, then there is no motivation to do so. Will investing in those practices get enough vegetarians to eat their product to offset the cost? No? Then the vegetarians have little impact. Meat eaters who demand humane practices and are willing to spend accordingly however do. The bigger the meat eater the more their impact.
I return however to the issue of global impact. The current increasing level of global demand for meat requires, no duh, greater production. That global demand means that there will be a huge market for meat produced by whatever means are cheapest and legal, or even sometimes not legal. My choosing to only purchase meat produced humanely will do little for that. McDonald’s has clout but even they can push only so far - even with their volume there are other markets if their demands cut too far into profit margins. On a macro level the issue is still supply and demand. Globally increasing demand results in pressures to increase supply, at the expense of other considerations. On that level decreasing demand is, to my read, an ethical good.
Not when there are no regulations in place to even differentiate if meat at the market meets ethical standards. In both instances, they’ll look at their declining profitability and decide to change their practices. I really doubt there’s ever been a significant movement that’s drawn meat eaters away from one distributor and towards another because of their unethical practices.