“…following what is right and following justice.” sounds like a recent convert to a new religion, gung ho to convert others.
Follow what is right and just for yourself.
My daughter went the route of becoming a strong and dedicated animal rights activist, and I was always respectful, and supportive of her choice to do what she had to do…even when I was bailing her out of jail.
But, I also taught her to respect the right of people to have different viewpoints, and that we cannot expect everyone to believe and think as we do, unless we want to become like nazis.
[QUOTE=florez]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Well, how are you setting relative value? Is a human as valuable as, say, a cockroach? A chipmunk? How do you determine value? If I’m, say, holding a gun to a small child and, say, a dolphin, which would you be more upset with if I pulled the trigger? What if the animal were a rat? A pig? A donkey? A rhino? Would you be equally upset, or would you be more upset by my shooting of one over the other? How would you decide the relative value?
What if I’m holding the gun to YOUR head and that dolphin? Would you take the bullet for the dolphin, or choose otherwise? How about that rat? What if it were your father/mother/brother/sister/SO/child? The same relative value then as well?
Well, that’s good…because most people would choose for me to pull that trigger on the animal instead of the child, or any other human being. I am hoping that your belief here is more along the lines of pirate guidelines than hard fast rules, because if not then it’s a bit scary, to be honest.
And, as a member of that species, our natural valuation (well, most peoples) is going to be for members of our own species over those of other species. It’s pretty ingrained in most mammal species.
Um…talk about coming out of left field. Who cares what many religions preach? What’s that got to do with this discussion? I’d guess most non-crazy atheists are going to pick that human child over the rat as well. Because it’s pretty much ingrained in us as a species to favor our own species over other species.
Why is that interesting? Because religious people think whacky things isn’t even vaguely interesting. Nor does it have anything to do with THIS discussion. It’s not even a very clever attempt to muddy the waters or shift the goal posts.
Any thinking person pretty much knows we ARE animals. We eat, breath, mate, shit (either in or out of the woods), and do all the other, normal ‘animal’ type thingies. And we are still superior to all other species on this mud ball, mainly because of that thing between each of or ears…and no, I don’t mean the wax.
-XT
[QUOTE=Trust]
This does not make it ethical to treat others any different than how we would want to be treated if we were them, however.
[/QUOTE]
I assume by ‘others’ you mean ‘other species’. My question is…how do you figure that? Why SHOULD we treat creatures of other species, especially non-sentient species the same way we treat each other??
No…we, unlike EVERY other species on this planet, TAKE that task onto ourselves. No one has ‘given’ it to us…and no other species gives a flying fuck about doing the job.
The reason we, as a species are here is BECAUSE we started eating meat. Several million years ago, so that’s quite a lot of dead animals. I’d say that ‘ethically’ (whatever that means), it’s obviously ‘ethical’ that we as a species have consumed meat…otherwise we wouldn’t be here, and there would be no sentient species about to ponder silly questions like this. Or, if there were, they would probably be eating meat, possibly including our non-meat eating ancestors who would still be living on the savanna scrounging for snacks.
Why should we put ourselves in the mouses shoes? The mouse eats meat as well, after all…is THAT ‘ethical’? Should we put ourselves in the shoes of every species on the planet? To what end? For what purpose? They aren’t putting themselves in our shoes after all. 
Though I bet they wish they were the dominant and sentient species on the planet, and we were the pets, or food, or test subjects. That is, if they COULD wish and grasp the concepts we are discussing here, which, sadly, they can’t.
I didn’t say that, however. And I have no idea what these ethics are, or what ethical even means in the context of this discussion. We are what we are. We evolved to be what we are. We are still here, through numerous trials as a species because of what and who we are. We are omnivorous. We are adapted to eat meat. Q.E.D. it’s ‘ethical’ for use to eat the stuff. It’s damned tasty as well!
-XT
Well no, it’s just an acknowledgement of the fact human moralss aren’t governed by nature, but themselves.
All morals ultimately stem from an arbitrary assertion. We don’t murder each other because murder is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it is 
You can’t prove it’s wrong the same way you can prove heliocentricism. You can make an appeal for charity and compassion, you can make an appeal for self interest, but you can’t objectively prove murder is wrong. C’est la vi. Murder is wrong because I said so.
Some people feel causing suffering in animals unnecessarily is wrong.
So first off, these animals are sentient. I have no idea how you could argue they are not aware of the world or do not suffer. But your question is why should we follow the Golden Rule and treat others how we would want to be treated if we were them? Well, we feel good when others treat us well. We feel bad when others treat us bad. We feel good when we help others. We feel bad when we treat others bad. If we all followed the golden rule, we would be damn close to heaven already.
We are the most intelligent species, correct. There is no doubt that we have eaten a lot of meat. The question is not what did we do in the past. The question is what are we doing now? Do we need meat to survive? No. It actually makes our health worse. What others might be doing has no impact on whether something we are doing is right or wrong. If Hitler kills millions of people but we only kill one, is it automatically ethical now? Of course not. Why are you so concerned about what animals relying only on instincts are doing? Should we not be concerned with what we are doing?
The mouse does not have a higher level of consciousness to be able to make ethical decisions. We do not need to receive a reward before we treat others ethically. I am terming ethics as following the golden rule, utilitarianism and the least harm principle. We all want to be treated how we want to be treated. We all want the greater good to win (assuming we are looking at this from an unbiased viewpoint) and we all want to cause others as little harm as possible.
You act like a factory farm is on the borderline of the good/bad line. This is not some pin prick. This is intense suffering.
You are correct in the fact that I have not even really discussed the negative consequences on humans that has occurred as a result of our treatment of animals. Humans suffer in many ways from our current system as well and will continue to until something changes. Anyone can research the devastating effects this is having on the environment, health and the world. While it is certainly a huge consideration, I am confident that even without those incredibly large issues that are going to come back and effect each of us (and especially our children), this would still be unethical.
By recognizing that while we are capable of doing many things, many things we do can also be unethical.
“Others” is anyone that you are capable of imagining yourself as. With human fetuses or embryos it is difficult to know what they experience though we could certainly look into the science behind it. Rabbits, fish and cockroaches are certainly aware of the world so you can imagine yourself as them. Bacteria have no brain and don’t experience pain. Rocks are obviously inanimate objects so the golden rule does not apply. Politicians are a grey area (kidding of course). Computers have no brain (conscious) and do not experience pain.
Are you claiming that human ethics should not be applied to cats and dogs? It is impossible to treat animals ethically because they are non-humans?
You make a good point about the golden rule but this is an elementary definition of the golden rule. The extended, almost implied definition, is that we treat others how we would want to be treated, if we were them. The important part is “if we were them”. This of course takes into account different tastes.
No one is anthropomorphizing. If we were, we would scream bloody murder anytime someone steps on an ant. But we don’t. Because we recognize that there are various levels of suffering, free will and injustice.
You did not seem to evaluate and show how Act-Utilitarianism would produce a greater good by eating meat than not eating meat. We always see the side of the equation that benefits us. We almost never see the side of the equation that the animals go through. If we did, we would not be having most of this conversation.
I am not sure where I said anything along the lines of you should believe me because I said so.
If trying to have people treat others how they would want to be treated is a religion, then sure. I have no issues with others being different from me. I have no issues with others having vastly different beliefs than me. What I do have an issue with, is when those beliefs turn into actions that cause suffering to the innocent.
No, but clearly animals cannot do unto others. When humans fail to live by our ethical standards, we cease to treat them as ends in themselves and take away their freedom, or in some places, their lives.
That is correct. I absolutely agree. In fact I treat my cat well even though it knows no better when he digs his claws into me. I consider him a full member of the house and if you are in my house he should be treated that way. But we do not organize society around the needs of cats, we organize it around the needs of people. Cows can’t vote, cannot attend school, and receive no social assistance. They’re cows. We eat them. Cats cannot argue cases in court or sign contracts. They’re pets. We keep them.
Oh, well then, it must be invalid. :rolleyes:
Yes, exactly as I said. We care about animal rights because we know they suffer, and that makes us sad. It’s not the suffering; it’s the knowledge. Absent that knowledge, humans wouldn’t care about animal rights at all.
And as you said, it’s about following the empathy I feel. I feel no empathy toward delicious animals. Not a bit.
The point is that we don’t value animal suffering as much as we value our own, and the fact that they feel pain doesn’t invalidate that. Sentient is a concept that has many nuances, and the fact that animals display some aspects of sentience doesn’t mean they are owed all the rights and respect of humans.
I don’t hesitate for a second when I swat a mosquito, any more than I would when I eat a mushroom. There is a continuum of reactions to animals as they approach something more human-like (for lack of a better term) but it doesn’t make me hesitate to eat meat any more than I would hesitate to ride a horse.
Genetic fallacy / appeal to nature. If our ancestors didn’t eat meat, we wouldn’t be here. If our ancestors did not murder, rape, lie, cheat and use whichever devious methods they could in order to spread their selfish little genes, we wouldn’t be here. Humans are omnivorous to the same extent that humans are rapists or murderers or pilots.
No. I can only hope that my own morality is logically consistent. It is based on the ideas of consent, social contract and utilitarianism. In my morality, where an entity can feel pain but not consent, any actions by a sentient individual to cause it pain should be avoided.
Humans are animals.
Argumentum ad baculum.
Indubitably correct. Keep in mind that humans are members of the set animals, though. Psychopaths provide empirical support for this reasoning.
What if meat were to be grown in a factory by taking some cells and culturing them (and this process was affordable)? Would this still count as being unethical? After all, it would (ideally) be identical to meat from an animal, except it would only be meat by itself, no other organs (including the brain). Or, what if we bred (or genetically modified) animals to have no brains (or anything outside the brain stem and basic body functions, they’d need machinery to feed them)?
gamerunknown, could you perhaps attribute quotes to the person you are quoting? Some of your responses are to stuff I wrote, some seem to be to others, and it’s all jumbled together.
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
Genetic fallacy / appeal to nature. If our ancestors didn’t eat meat, we wouldn’t be here. If our ancestors did not murder, rape, lie, cheat and use whichever devious methods they could in order to spread their selfish little genes, we wouldn’t be here. Humans are omnivorous to the same extent that humans are rapists or murderers or pilots.
[/QUOTE]
So what? We are omnivorous and we murder and rape. Plus we pilot ships and planes. And? We are still what we are, and that means we are meat eaters by nature and general inclination as well, which means…it’s ‘ethically’ appropriate for us to eat meat.
Nice faux-philosophical horseshit, though I’d say you were doing one of those tu quoque logical fallacy thingies.
Yeah? And? We are animals as well…so what?
(though I keep hearing ‘I am not an annnimmmalll…I am a HUMAN’, in ringing tones, for some reason)
Dodging the question behind an appeal to your 1st year philosophy course. Phear ME!
Another tu quoque thingy, but again you are quoting someone not me and I don’t know what the context was.
-XT
So, what is the basis for your actions?
It would depend on the basis of one’s ethics, I presume. If one’s ethics are based on never altering the course of nature, then yes. If they’re based on the pleasure principle, then no. Such a scenario would increase the pleasure of those that desire to eat flesh without causing harm (as demonstrated by pain avoidant behaviours) to other animals.
Gah!
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
So, what is the basis for your actions?
[/QUOTE]
It depends on the action, I’d say. If you hit my knee with a small hammer, it would be reflexive for my leg to move. If I eat a burger, it would be hunger that is driving my actions…that, and my own dietary inclination (I’d want cheese and perhaps bacon as well…and if I could taste the fear, with perhaps a flame broil, that would simply make it perfect. Well, perhaps with some mustard and a few onions tossed in as well). Other, more complex actions would depend on my own worldview and outlook, molded by my cultural and philosophical mores and upbringing, and controlled by my own intellect and conscience.
-XT
Is there an ethical difference between eating meat and rape? If rape were generally permitted, would you engage in it because it brought pleasure to you?
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
Is there an ethical difference between eating meat and rape?
[/QUOTE]
Um…yeah? One is an ethical choice, and one isn’t? You’ve managed several of those logical fallacy thingies in this one post, which is fairly ironic.
I don’t need to rape to live. I have to eat to live. What I CHOOSE to eat is a matter of, well, choice. I don’t even have to fuck to stay alive, let alone rape. Are you getting the ‘one of these things ain’t like the other’ point yet, or should I continue?
Have you stopped beating your dog yet?
-XT
By the same standard of relative value, are humans all equally human as well as being superior to animals in value?
According to you, are all members of the human species entitled to equal moral consideration, or do some have more relative value that others?
You say that we are superior to other species on this mud ball because of what is between our ears and you don’t mean wax.
So then it would be the mental capacity of a human being that would entitle one to their level of relative value?
So, by this logic- do the humans of greater mental capacity have more relative value then the humans of lessor mental capacity?
What about severely cognitive disabled individuals? Are they lower in relative value?
If I am holding a gun to the heads of two humans, one of higher, and one of lower mental capacity,
which one do you decide gets the bullet?
Maybe you did not mean that I should compare two species like this,
because even an animal with a higher cognitive ability than a specific human being,
still has less relative value than any human?
Also, God forbid conferring the benefit of personhood over to another species!
It is incommensurable.
So, instead of answering your theoretical relative valuation questions,
I will say that I trust in my capacity to figure out the thing to do in a given circumstance.
I have a conscience, and a common sense morality.
At one point we were obligate omnivores in that we had to consume animal matter in order to survive. So at what point in human history did eating meat become immoral?
Given the OP’s trio of golden rule, utilitarianism, and do no harm, it seems like it was always immoral. I see no way the OP’s position can find a way for a human to kill an animal for food.
A question for the OP If we assume it is unethical to kill fish/birds/mammals.
Do you eat 100% organic?(otherwise, animals are killed by pesticides)
Do you *carefully *harvest by hand everything you eat?(lots of animals are killed in mass harvesting)
Do you avoid travelling by boat or plane? (lots of critters are caught in the turbines)
Do you make sure you don’t distrupt the local ecosystem?(distrupting the ecosystem could cause many cute critters to starve)
Do you carefully watch where you step and where you drive/cycle? (otherwise, the small birds and mice you hit quickly add up)
If you do all of the above, all the time, then you might be able to call us omnivores unethical. might
See this really pisses me off. You took a quote fragment out of context so it’s meaning changes.
The argument was eating meat is natural. The counter argument I made was human behavior isn’t governed by “natural”.
People used to have no qualms about raiding, raping, and pillaging the neighboring village. What changed? Nature certainly allows it. It’s a natural behavior to humans.