I have heard the same, and concede the point.
Yep, that has been my experience.
On a species level, “might makes right” is the entire basis of our meat supply. It’s the basis of predation.
Might may decide who eats and who gets eaten. But as I’ve said throughout this thread, I don’t feel we’ve established there is a right (or a wrong) in predation. The gazelles are not the good guys and the lions are not the bad guys (or vice versa).
More personal info: I have seen chicken farms, and I grew up next door to a free-range turkey farm. The turkeys were in a very large pen, properly fed, taken good care of, and were probably healthier and happier than their wild cousins. Especially because the farm variety of turkey probably could not survive in the wild anyway…
Chickens in cages… I honestly cannot tell if they are “unhappy.” I don’t have the tools to assess whether they are “suffering.” It looked bad to me: spending one’s entire life in a really tiny cage. But the chickens were eating and pooping, clucking, fluffing their feathers, showed no signs of disease, and weren’t displaying self-destructive behavior, the way rats will when caged too tightly. I just can’t judge the chicken farms I’ve seen. Mammalian standards just don’t apply to chooks.
Hmm. People set up systems and those systems are enforced by might. Now, most civilizations have moral codes that exists as a facade over the fundamental reality.
But let’s take the point of view that reducing suffering is the basis of morality. That leads to the conclusion that it’d be best just to eliminate all animals as the aggregate suffering over time would then be reduced to zero.
I’ve heard that “empty set” argument regarding negative utilitarianism before. It’s cute, but vacuous. Yeah, if we kill everyone, there’d be no more human misery. (Except for the ENORMOUS spike in human misery during the period when we’re killing everyone!) Anyway, it isn’t what real negative utilitarians believe.
A short term spike sure. But billions of years of zero suffering.
That is the matter up for debate but I was adressing specifically the content of that post where you’re saying “might makes right” systems fail. My point was you were only looking at intra-human situations. Might makes right has always been the food system. Vegetarians question why we accept “might makes right” in inter-species questions. Is it only because animals are never going to group up against us?
I was talking about both, and you didn’t make it clear that that part of your post was just addressing cows specifically.
Your original point was that animal suffering was a misrepresentation or exaggeration on the part of PETA, and that there is no such thing as “factory farming” (a term I didn’t use).
Now you’re conceding that chickens may suffer but you’re not willing to engage on the actual data in scientific journals on practices like forced moulting, only saying you haven’t physically been there to see it yourself so can’t rule it out. Well congrats, that position is data-proof.
And you’re also now using the term “factory chickens”.
In terms of the OP, I’m not sure it’s worth splitting hairs on whether all farmed animals suffer. Virtually all non-vegans eat battery farmed eggs at least some of the time (like puzzlegal I also buy free-range when buying for myself, but in a restaurant, catered event etc, that’s not always going to be the case), so the ethical issue is there, even if we accept that cows are happy as larry.
Quite right. And equally billions of years of zero happiness to offset the foregone suffering.
Reminds me of the old joke:
In partial scores this afternoon, New York 17.
Huh? You need both sides of the equation to make a decision. I know you know that; your comment was just succinct enough for me to tag off from.
I feel the relationship is the other way around. The fundamental reality is the ideology and force is only used in support of this. What you believe can motivate you far more than what you fear.
Too Buddhist for me. I’ve always preferred a positive philosophy which seeks to make things better over a negative one which seeks to avoid things getting worse.
My view has always been it’s better to spend resources on “fixing problems” than on “making things better.” If given the choice, I’ll invest in a firehouse before a symphony orchestra. I also believe in moderation and balance, and this isn’t my only moral guideline, just the principal one.
To keep this from being a total highjack…if I believed animals were seriously suffering in the food-making industry, I would want to make changes. At this point in time, I think we’ve done a lot in that direction, and that’s great.
Full disclosure upfront: I have long had an uneasy relationship with the morality / ethics of this, but not to the point of altering my behavior.
But here’s an interesting (to me) thought experiment.
How much meat would you eat if you personally had to kill the critter & disassemble it? Given that somebody else will provide you the tools and training to do the job with ordinary skill and safety for yourself.
Certainly many rural folks did/do/will do that with chickens regularly, and with larger critters too. I’m suburban through and through but have participated in a couple of cow kill-and-disassemble ops. Rather a messy and (at first) queasy business. But one I could readily incorporate into my life, given space, equipment, and some practice.
IMO if you’re willing to kill your dinner you’re a lot closer to being morally entitled to eat it. But if you’re only willing to pay someone else to do your dirty work … well, you’re standing on much thinner moral ice.
My point was about your experience as the killer, not the animal’s experience as the killee. And in that sense is very different from what others have said upthread. But ISTM it’s one of the threshold issues on the way to moral justification, though hardly the only such threshold issue.
Continuing to the next point …
Certainly the killing of the animal is only the last moments of a life spent entirely at human hands. It completely ignores the entire remaining life experience of the animal. Which, ref some posters upthread, is often pretty cushy compared to similar prey animals in the wild, but is at other times with other species pretty grim and flagrantly exploitative.
Interesting topic, and clearly not a clear and obvious one.
No, they have a backyard for that. Pet door, they can go out whenever they want.
I certainly see the point, but I have to disagree with it. Different people have different talents, capabilities, and, more to the point, levels of squeamishness. It isn’t “morality” that prevents me slaughtering my own meat, but pure wimpiness. I couldn’t be a plumber for a similar reason.
It only remains to ask, is the job, itself, immoral?
That is the term we are using, there’s also no such thing as a “assault weapon” either, but in gun control debates one has to use the term the other side does.
Ok, so we know all farmed animals DONT suffer. Ours did not and mhendo indicated his didnt, and all the evidence submitted so far here shows that few, if any cattle do, sheep dont, pigs maybe and I will concede that probably some chickens are not leading a happy life- altho I am not sure if “suffer” is the right term.
So we have gone from all or most to some percentage of one animal- chickens, and I am sorry if my biases against those stupid critters leave me with little sympathy for them. I do hate to see animals mistreated or deliberately hurt, and of course even the “factory” chickens are not being deliberately mistreated or hurt, those few callous owners are just going for the fast “buck” if you will.
That’s a pretty big leap from “most” are suffering.
I doubt that would change how much meat I ate. I’d eat more necks and shanks and less steaks, though, if I obtained my beef as whole cows.
I once worked in a lab and killed mice. There is something disturbing in watching that spark of life leave the body, because you’ve just killed the animal. But I continue to believe that the research I did was worth doing and it is moral to kill mice for that sort of thing. And not all squeamishness is morally based – I also found it hard to take my infants to get vaccinated. You can’t explain to them, it hurts them when it happens, and then they felt sick for the next day or two. And yet – I have no moral qualms at all with having gotten my kids vaccinated for DPT.
Yoiks. You’re comparing killing mice for our benefit to short term discomfort to your children that personally benefits them? That’s some deep down “might makes right” thinking.
I am comparing “situations that make me squeamish”.
Yes, I realize there is a moral question regarding the mice that isn’t there for the vaccinations, which were, of course, for the benefit of the children being vaccinated. But I don’t think “squeamish” is a good moral compass.
In as far as squeamishness reflects our empathy, it’s certainly part of where morality comes from.