Pyrrho

So, you believe that we should use the actions of non-human animals as a guide to how we should behave?

Pyrrho

You are very much mistaken in your factual claims. What do you think the farm animals have been eating? They have been eating plants, which are grown for them to eat. If you eat the plants yourself, fewer plants will need to be grown, because it is inefficient to grow plants and feed them to animals so that one can eat the animals.

There are, of course, many additional factors involved, as the plants involved may be different for animal feed than human consumption, but raising animals requires that land be used for feeding the livestock rather than native animal species.

So, if you are concerned about land being used for human purposes rather than being left to nature, you should be a vegetarian to minimize land use.

Pyrrho

If non-human animals are amoral, it does not follow that how we use them is a matter that is amoral.

Human infants appear to be amoral as well. Does that mean that how we treat them is not a matter of moral concern?

Rusting Car Bumper

This is utilitarian moral argument and it fails on strict ground. First, I am not mistaken factually as much ranching occurs non-airable land. That point, however, is not the point. Let's keep focused onthe topic which is applying the problem of evil to animal rights.

Second, you are claiming to maximize eaten plants and thus minimize farming. However, this fails to note that when one creates a farm where there is none before that NECESSARILY native species are kicked off the land in favor of the species the farmers wants to allow ont he land.

Thus, the choice is being made that the suffering of one animal is of greater importance than another. Note, I am not claiming that such a judgement is wrong or right. I am noting that it is a fact of the case that the decision is at least implicitly made when supporting a farm where there was none before.

The point was to show that in supplying human needs there are conflicts of interest which arise and in many cases those are intractable.

Now, we need to re-emphasize the nature of the problem of evil. That is, the problem of evil is a problem for (1) a monotheistic entity and (2) the simultaneous "omni" properties stated in the previous message.

In making these dietary choices you are none of these. You neither have ultimate control, ultimate knowledge, ultimate goodness, and further you are in competition with others on the planet.

No. I'm just concerned about the application of the problem of evil to animal rights that you posed. You are trying to change from the problem of evil to a utilitarian argument. I'm sorry I don't see that you can do one without adandoning commitment to the other. If you change to a utilitarian argument then you are implicitly admitting that your problem of evil approach isn't acceptable.

DC

JusticeMachine

1. Human infants have the potential of becoming a full grown human with all of the abilities and morals there of.
q. I value the potential of a human infant over what it is what it happens to be in its current state of being.

2. I believe in survival of my species, so I value a human infant over that of other animals.

JusticeMachine

No, I don't believe this. I was argueing for the view of all life being equal. I one believe all life is of equal value, then it is just as evil for a pack of wolve to brutally murder an innocent, cute fawn (who was just trying to make it's way thru this big world and be happy) as it would be for me to kill a deer, skin it, save it's meat in my freezer for future use, maybe use the pelt for furnature or clothing and put the rest in my compost heap.

I however do not believe that all life is equal.

People say they do, but there actions always prove them a liar. Because they (selfishly) take life so that theirs will not be extinguished.

Pyrrho

There is a very significant difference between the actions of the wolves and you in this scenario. The wolves either act that way or they die. You, on the other hand, do not have to kill other animals in order to live.



Very few people do.



If two lives are equal, then it if the choice is that one can save only one life, but not two, then there seems to be no reason why one may not prefer one's own life to another. If all were truly "equal", then, morally, it would seem either one would be as good as the other, so one may as well base one's decision on personal preference.

Pyrrho

The point was NOT that one may not have a preference; the point is that in dealing with something that is itself "amoral", one may still have moral obligations.

JusticeMachine

No there isn't, I will die if I don't eat. The only diffence is choice, they eat what they have the opportunity to catch, I don't.

What does it matter if I eat a plant verses an animal. Something has to die.

Why treat something morally that doesn't have morals. That does not infer that we not use animal responsibly, just not impress our morals upon them.

This is a question I posted earlier
This is a hypothetical question, but if we could synthetically reproduce mass quantities of muscle (meat) in a lab/factory, should we, in the idea of eliminating suffering, separate and control the environment in such a way as to keep pretatory animals from hunting there prey and feed them ourselves.

Off subject question to vegitarians: if we had synthetically grown meat, would you eat it?

Pyrrho

The point of my post to which you were replying was to correct a factual error in your previous post. It was not to provide any argument regarding the original post.

You had indicated that farm use would increase with people being vegetarians, and this would result in non-farm animals suffering more. In fact, raising animals for food results in more destruction of habitat for indigenous species than does farming for food. Here is a link to a set of links regarding the environmental impact of eating meat:

http://www.planetvegan.org/environment/default.asp

From one of the links there:

http://www.llu.edu/llu/vegetarian/diet.htm



As I stated in my original response in this thread:

"In my opinion, you are responsible to the extent that you have the ability to prevent it. Thus, with an omnipotent being, the responsibility is absolute, because the ability is absolute. In your case, you are responsible for the products you buy, and therefore, when a reasonable alternative is available to you, if you select the product that involves more suffering, you are responsible for that suffering. This applies to more than just cruelty to animals, as shoes and other products have frequently been known to be made with extremely poor, inhumane conditions for the workers."

I freely acknowledge that one's lack of ultimate control means that one is not responsible for everything everyone does in the world. But one is responsible for the choices one makes, and one may justly be blamed for those choices.



First, I did not propose the application of the problem of evil to animal rights; that was done by ashe who started this thread. Second, I suggested that such an argument would be limited in its application to humans, as humans lack the qualities that are attributed to "god" when the problem of evil is applicable.

In the particular post to which you responded, I was merely pointing out the fact that eating animals requires more land than eating plants, counter to what you previously claimed.