Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The AntiChris · 03-23-2002, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Would cattle be better off never being born, or being raised to be eaten?

Yes, they'd be better off not being born.

Chris

The AntiChris · 03-23-2002, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom Piper:

I am not clear about your answer to the question about painless deaths for non-human animals. If a chicken is killed in a way that is painless, would it then be permissible, by your moral lights, to eat it? Is it the pain and suffering that you take to be present that makes eating meat wrong?

Tom

Yes.

Chris

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 02:18 AM

AntiChris:

Quote:

Yes, they'd be better off not being born.

In other words, cattle being slaughtered bothers you so much that you'd prefer they not exist at all.

The AntiChris · 03-23-2002, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
In other words, cattle being slaughtered bothers you so much that you'd prefer they not exist at all.

Yes.

If the only reason they exist at all is because we choose that they exist for our own gratification and that existence entails unnecessary suffering and distress.

Chris

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 02:37 AM

Of course, I use our gratification to argue that the suffering and distress are necessary. Still, I grew up on a ranch and have seen feedlots, and neither seem all that unpleasant. Is it just the slaughtering that bothers you?

I'd also like to point out that we're only talking about what bothers you, and your judgement that the lives they live don't justify their deaths. To me it seems unlikely that if they could choose (which they can't) they would choose nonexistence. Should I care that it bothers you? I care a little, but not enough to stop eating meat.

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 02:39 AM

Now, say that cattle were slaughtered with no more suffering and distress than going to sleep. Would eating meat be okay then?

The AntiChris · 03-23-2002, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Of course, I use our gratification to argue that the suffering and distress are necessary. Still, I grew up on a ranch and have seen feedlots, and neither seem all that unpleasant. Is it just the slaughtering that bothers you?

I'd also like to point out that we're only talking about what bothers you, and your judgement that the lives they live don't justify their deaths. To me it seems unlikely that if they could choose (which they can't) they would choose nonexistence. Should I care that it bothers you? I care a little, but not enough to stop eating meat.

I'm not sure where you're coming from.

There seem to be a couple of defences of meat-eating emerging (apolgies if I'm being too simplistic):

1) "There may or may not be unnecessary distress and suffering in the maintenance and slaughter of animals for my gratification - either way I don't care".

or

2) "It has yet to be proved to me that animals maintained and slaughtered for human gratification suffer unnecessary distress and I am therefore going to continue eating meat".

I may be wrong, but you appear to be using elements of both arguments?

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Now, say that cattle were slaughtered with no more suffering and distress than going to sleep. Would eating meat be okay then?

I think I've already answered this (see my previous posts).

Chris

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 04:13 AM

Actually, I think it's funny that you think "unecessary suffering" is something that could be objectively agreed upon. I think that what you percieve as unecessary suffering is what I percieve as necessary suffering.

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 04:16 AM

Ah, I didn't notice your response to Tom Piper. I find your position a bit odd - do you qualify it when it comes to humans?

The AntiChris · 03-23-2002, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Actually, I think it's funny that you think "unecessary suffering" is something that could be objectively agreed upon. I think that what you percieve as unecessary suffering is what I percieve as necessary suffering.

In what way is the suffering necessary when we can easily sustain our lives without resorting to eating meat?

Chris

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-23-2002, 02:37 AM	#275
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Of course, I use our gratification to argue that the suffering and distress are necessary. Still, I grew up on a ranch and have seen feedlots, and neither seem all that unpleasant. Is it just the slaughtering that bothers you? I'd also like to point out that we're only talking about what bothers you, and your judgement that the lives they live don't justify their deaths. To me it seems unlikely that if they could choose (which they can't) they would choose nonexistence. Should I care that it bothers you? I care a little, but not enough to stop eating meat.

03-23-2002, 02:39 AM	#276
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Now, say that cattle were slaughtered with no more suffering and distress than going to sleep. Would eating meat be okay then?

03-23-2002, 04:13 AM	#278
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Actually, I think it's funny that you think "unecessary suffering" is something that could be objectively agreed upon. I think that what you percieve as unecessary suffering is what I percieve as necessary suffering.

03-23-2002, 04:16 AM	#279
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Ah, I didn't notice your response to Tom Piper. I find your position a bit odd - do you qualify it when it comes to humans?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.