sleepy_

I have a question that Gnostic's post inspired me to write.
My sister is hardcore animal rights and is totally against eating meat of any kind. I proposed a question to her that she still can't answer well.

If she were to succeed in destroying the meat industry, she would thereby greatly lower the population of farm-raised animals like cows and chickens. Now I understand that chickens have a pretty crappy life, but for cows... most that I see are just standing around in fields all day with very little concern, so you can't really say that you are bringing them into a world of suffering (especially considering how starvation is related to evolution).
If the meat industry were obliterated, the cows that would be born as a result of the meat industry will no longer be given the opportunity to live because noone is going to eat them. So, technically, by this homeocentric obsession with the elimination of suffering, there has arisen a deprivation of life. She would still be selfish because she is determining whether a cow should live or not live because of how she feels about suffering.
True?

avianwing

If the meat industry were obliterated, the cows that would be born as a result of the meat industry will no longer be given the opportunity to live because noone is going to eat them. So, technically, by this homeocentric obsession with the elimination of suffering, there has arisen a deprivation of life. She would still be selfish because she is determining whether a cow should live or not live because of how she feels about suffering.
True

Firstly I doubt if cows will be phased out by the end of the meat industry because the primary fuel for the cow population at least in India is the milk industry. And it is quite possible that if and when AR activists achieve their ends in ending the meat industry , they will look after all the remaining cows (without allowing them to reproduce)till they die out and may be keeping a few in zoos just to preserve the cow species. So perhaps this could be your sister's goal.
Perhaps not.

engly-saxo

If meat production ceased, why would cattle need to be exterminated? Or chickens for that matter?!

Cattle (as you state) would be content by living in a field, eating and chewing the cud, etc. Chickens evolved as birds who would scavenge for food. They would be living 'naturally' too, if left alone.

sleepy_

I am not saying that cattle would need to be exterminated. I am saying if the meat industry continues, in fifty years 100n cows will exist. If it was discontinued say 5n will exist. Though these numbers are arbitrary, we would be left with a difference of 95n. These cows that would have existed because of the meat industry now will not. You are depriving these individual future cows of their life because of what you view as natural and right.

I would then assume you to mean that how we are living right now is unnatural. But I still don't see how anything that has or will happen can divert from naturalism, since it includes everything. This idea that the world is no longer natural because of human interference is bogus because humans are themselves natural.

Gawdzila

My personal thoughts on the matter:
Humans are omnivores. We evolved as such. For me, eating a cow is
as "immoral" as a lion eating an antelope... that is to say, not at all. It is
the way of nature.

That being said, I don't believe that we have the right to torture animals.
This is cruel and unnecessary. I think that one can have reverence for
life even if one eats meat. Using other animals as a food source is simply
joining in the cycles of nature as they have always existed, while infliction
of suffering has no use at all other than to show our ambivalence towards
the creatures that share the planet with us.

R.M.S.

Morals arise from concerns about current living things, something that doesn't exist has not only no voice, but no interests as well. A future cow doesn't "want" to exist. Such an idea would be nonsensical.

On top of that, the interests of most animals are direct with little view of the future. This caused Peter Singer (you know, the guy from "Animal Liberation") to declare that animal treatment requires a hedonistic utilitarian perspective (don't know if that is the term he uses), while human ethics require desire/preference utilitarianism, i.e. you can't kill humans but you can kill animals as long as you don't inflict pain in the process. Not that you would have to agree with his position, I'm merely noting it. It can be a worthwile distinction even if utilitarianism is not your cup of tea - I know it ain't mine.

There might be (prescriptive) reasons for humans to think of the continuation of the human species as a duty, but that's not not because of the inherent value of future (!) life. Likewise, conservation of endangered species might be a noble goal, but not because of the inherent worth of the species 'being'. - Inherent worth is a difficult concept anyway.

R.M.S.

Naturalistic fallacy. Google it.

sleepy_

On what basis is what gawdzilla said a naturalistic fallacy?
Thanks for the response. I retract my argument. Though, I still think it is homeocentric to say that:
prevention of suffering > life being lived
even though I would rather die than live in constant suffering (like chickens and farm pigs). I would, however, prefer to live carefree like a field cow with only a few moments of suffering at the end. But I admit, I can only say these things because I already exist whereas future cows, in actuality, do not.

Wallener

Any unsustainable form of agriculture is immoral. Modern meat raising practices - especially those in the US - are so far outside the bounds of sustainable that they border on being an outright abomination. As far as that goes, I wish your sister well.

However, I see nothing wrong with eating a suitably-raised animal and in fact have a freezer full of organically raised beef and lamb.

Gawdzila

If a lion kills antelope for food is this immoral, or amoral?
If a human kills a cow for food, is this different? How?

Perhaps my argument was a naturalistic fallacy, but
this does not necessarily make the conclusion false.
I simply don't see the inherant difference between us
and the lion, so long as we are not being cruel to the
cow.