August Spies

no. I could just as easily say "don't you believe that human babies have rights? aren't you concerned about the welfare of children? okay then if you a pro-choice its just an issue of DEGREE not kind"

even if this is right, its irrelevant and not proving anything and just obscures the issue. As for it being about god... no its not. Nor is abortion just about a "mythical god"


How can fondness be irrational? It's impossible.

is this an argument?

LordSnooty

No, it's a rebuttal.

Paul

99Percent

There is a general concern for the possible cruel nature of men. Even we as human are sometimes shocked to see how animals seem to act cruelly in nature until we check ourselves and recognize that animals are acting that way out of their pure instincts.

But when we see a fellow human act in a way that is clearly cruel (say barbequeing live kittens) then we become concerned because that same cruelty could very easily be caused to other humans. It shows a lack of empathy for PAS (pain and suffering).

However all this does not mean that animals have the same natural rights as humans. This is because animals are not moral beings because they in fact act entirely out of pure instinct as mentioned earlier, not out of free will.

Therefore we are entirely morally entitled to kill any other species that is not human, for our benefit as long its done in a humane way - not intending outright cruelty meaning to cause unnecesarry PAS. In other words, we are entitled to cause PAS in animals for economic utility, not for pure enjoyment.

This brings up the case of the mass slaughtering of animals where efficiency is paramount. In these cases there is clearly no intention of causing PAS although it is mostly unavoidable. But that is not an issue because there is no real intent to cause PAS anyway, it is just a necessary consequence of economic efficiency.

LordSnooty

This is something I'd like to see evidence for, if any is available.

I don't think all animals act out of pure instinct. Many animals can form emotional attachments, and they are capable of carefully considering problems. Pigs are accomplished problem solvers (in some tests, they come off better than chimpanzees). I don't think instinct alone would account for that.
I don't see how it follows that because something 'acts on instinct' it deserves to die.

Animals aren't unfeeling robots. They are our evolutionary cousins. Many, many species have ideas, personalities and emotions. Many even dream like we do. This isn't me ascribing human characteristics to animals like a senile old grandmother. This is what they actually are. You may choose to look at them as unthinking lumps of walking meat, but that's simply not doing them justice.

The fact is, they have a lot in common with us. And they don't deserve to die because they lack our brainpower. It's a dreadful conceit that leads the intellectually superior to kill the mentally feeble.
So because it's just a 'consequence of economic efficiency', that excuses it? I doubt it'd be any consolation to a crippled and lame calf that'd just had been hung upside down and had it's throat cut.

Paul

Valmorian

Of course it is! It's based upon emotion, not reason.

My fondness for everything I'm fond OF is based upon emotion and feelings, not reason.

Valmorian

Empathy is based upon emotion, not reasoning. I don't feel sorry for someone because I've thought it out, I feel sorry for them because of an emotion.

It's not really any different than the Christian who feels sorry for you because you're not saved, and he/she wants you to feel what he/she does. Does that make their stance rational? Or simply emotional?

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate that you feel empathy for animals. I feel empathy for animals myself. I simply don't feel empathy for them to the same degree that I feel empathy for a human.

Just because someone enjoys meat and has no compunctions about killing animals for food doesn't mean they have no empathy for animals. I think you'll find most meat eaters would not like to see animals tortured.

Kachana

Therefore we are entirely morally entitled to kill any other species that is not human, for our benefit as long its done in a humane way - not intending outright cruelty meaning to cause unnecesarry PAS. In other words, we are entitled to cause PAS in animals for economic utility, not for pure enjoyment.[/quote]

I don't understand on what basis you derive this conclusion. Even granting that animals act as you say, how do you get from "Animals are not moral actors" to "we can kill any (non-human) species as long as it's humane"? That seems like a non sequitur to me, why not conclude that we can kill them non-humanely, or not at all?

And how about humans that are deficient in the moral sphere? Psychopaths that totally lack empathy? Autistic children that lack a theory of mind? Patients with damage to the frontal lobes? Babies that have not developed a moral sense? I'm assuming we cannot kill them for our benefit (as long as it's humane) under your system; why not?

Finally, on a factual rather than theoretical point, animals do not act purely out of instinct. An instinct is an innate behavioural response that occurs in all members of a species, most usually as a result of environmental stimuli. Whilst many animals act largely instinctually, many do not. If all (non-human) animals act, as you say, entirely out of pure instinct, then how come we have taught chimps to converse using sign language developed by humans? Clearly they are not born with that ability. Furthermore, animals as lowly as pigeons and rats have been found to think rationally and conceptually, that is, in a cognitive fashion, rather than simply instinctually, or by following reinforced patters of behaviour. Rats can solve the syllogism [A implies B; B implies C; therefore A implies C], this is not instinctual behaviour.

Overall, I don't understand why the ability to make moral decisions, assumedly out of free-will, is a non-arbitrary line of demarcation that divides those beings we can kill from those we can't. And furthermore, why those non-moral beings must be killed humanely; why doesn't their lack of free-will and morality entitle us not only to kill them, but kill them in a painful manner if it suits us?

99Percent

Kachana: You ask some keen questions.
The difference is intent to cause PAS and cruelty. We can kill any animals as long as we don't show the intent that we are doing so for pure pleasure. For example, if I my house is infested with roaches, I simply go ahead and kill them all with a roach bomb even though subjectively such a measure will probably cause PAS to these poor roaches, but my intention is not to cause PAS but to get rid of the damn little critters in the first place. If PAS were to be a standard of which I must somehow uphold, then I would have to individually hunt each cockroach, no matter its size or development, inject some anesthetic before killing him. This is clearly a ridiculous proposition.
Well, its a matter of being able to communicate with the moral agents in turn. If you cannot, then there is in fact no moral issue involved. You can in fact kill them. However, it depends on the intent too. If other rational humans perceive an intent to kill for pleasure, or even economic gain (in the case of humans), regarding animals or other humans you are unable to communicate with, then you are in trouble. Deep trouble, because these same humans will be extremely wary of you in the future. Specially regarding the intent to cause PAS with other human being because its very doubtfull you can gain an tangible economic gain in relation to pleasure in the killing of them. Other fellow human rational beings, will in effect avoid you like the plague or maybe consider you fair game for the immoral purposes you initiated.This can be resolved rather easily in fact. Try to communicate with a chimp or any other animal, using sign language or whatever means, this very same discussion. You can't. There is a specielogical barrier that unable us to relate to these beings morally. So we have to leave them out of our moral picture. There are no or, buts about it.It would be great if we could somehow incorporate these species to our society, but alas, it does not work. For example, a rat cannot be an economic or an accountant consultant (despite Dilbert ) in the level that we can compensate this rat accordingly with money which in turn he can reciprocate by participating in our economy. This in turns invalidates them completely out of our moral picture despite our best humane intentions. However, on the individual basis, some animals, for example dogs that guide particular blind people that are extremely invaluable to these people perse, but they are still merely machines for them, and therefore property that must be respected, in the level of the owner of this animal.
Objectively speaking we should be able to kill any animal in any way that suits us, individually, for pleasure or for economic gain. However, the idea that you have the intent of killing an animal out of sheer pleasure, can be, and will be upsetting to other fellow human beings because of the possibility that you might be apathetic to PAS, of any being capable of PAS itself. I wouldn't recommend it.

The key fundamental presupposition of the above argument lies in the philosophical idea that human beings have intent and purpose in their actions arising out free-will. If you do not accept this (and you are entirely free to reject it) then admitedly the whole argument fails.

I am saying the latter just so we can avoid the unnecessary PAS that might arise from this discussion, out lack of fundamental philosophical assumptions

Pee Pee Poodle

The AntiChris

Valmorian

You may not have explicitly equated the two, but it was certainly implied. In any event, you go on to do precisely the same again:

The clear implication of this statement is that the reason you do not have "moral compunctions for eating them" is because you "don't grant the same rights to animals that I do to people".

As far as I'm aware the vast majority of ethical vegetarians do not argue for animals to be given the same rights as humans. Whether or not you intended to imply that this was the case, your statement certainly gives that impression.

Intended or not, it's an example of the misrepresentation of the majority ethical vegetarian position.
Well, I find it amusing that you believe it is quite reasonable for people to be "outraged at being referred to as immoral" whilst you personally are not offended. Is this because you're endowed with a particularly resilient character or are the others over-reacting?
I assume this is directed at my "touching a nerve" comment. I guess I'd better explain and show you that your analogy is incorrect.

It has been suggested that meat-eaters have less empathy for animals than ethical vegetarians. Whilst I don't doubt that we're all born with varying capacities for empathic feelings, it's not the whole story.

It's quite clear that social and environmental conditioning will also affect how we respond to our natural emotions but, more importantly, we have the ability, both consciously and unconsciously, to control our responses to to these emotions and there are sound reasons why we do. If this weren't the case, we'd quite literally be slaves to our emotions.

Now it's clear that most meat-eaters are empathic to non-human sentient animals and most are genuinely concerned about animal welfare. However, unless the meat-eater believes that the food he eats is produced totally without suffering to the animals involved, his meat-eating must inevitably involve a degree of conscious or unconscious suppression of his natural empathy. For practical reasons we simply do not allow feelings of empathy for food animals to surface.

In my experience, when meat-eaters encounter ethical vegetarianism, some will simply shrug their shoulders confident in the choice they've made, others, although unpersuaded, will admit to varying degrees of unease about the treatment of the animals they eat and a not insignificant minority will respond initially with mild derision which occasionally turns to open hostility.

The reaction of this latter group could be attributed to outrage at being perceived as 'immoral' although I strongly doubt it (unless you believe that an implied lack of concern for animal suffering is equivalent to an accusation of immorality - I've seen this reaction many times in situations where morality has never been mentioned). I think a more likely explanation is that it's a defensive reaction to the discomfort of being reminded of the inevitable emotional 'compromise' that is necessarily entailed by meat-eating.


Then presumably you'd accept that the theistic comparison is equally valid when applied to your own "irrational" concern for animal welfare.

Chris