Another Point About Eating/Torturing Animals

[David Sklansky]

Before making my point, I would first like to say that the biggest reason I like Lestat is that he is just about the only one here who actually is willing to learn and possibly even change his behavior based on the arguments presented to him. The latest example is his readiness to become a vegetarian if he deems the points for it logically insurmountable. Very laudable. And this post might add reasons for him to do that. Despite the discomfort it cause him.

So to alleviate that discomfort to some degree I want to point out to him that he can still eat fish. Since it is highly unlikely they actually suffer. I'm saying this seriously.

Anyway this post is spurred by Chris V making the distinction between animal sufferring being incidental to food making and it being the actual reason to do something, like conduct dog fights. They both cause pleasure but only the first is OK in his book.

Here is the problem. Chris V admits that it would be preferable to avoid the suffering if possible. Thus it would be preferable to prepare animals in a way that doesn't make them suffer. But that admission has implications. If he didn't make that admission there wouldn't be a problem. And those who view animals as the same as insects and plants don't get caught in it.

But once you admit that it is better for animals not to suffer you must admit other things. Such as that there is something wrong with you if you enjoy watching that sufferring. But isn't there also something wrong with you if you DON'T MIND that the animal suffers. Suppose you could prevent an animal from suffering by snapping your fingers? Wouldn't there be something wrong with you if you DIDN'T? What about if you had to give up a piece of a Hershey Bar?

The thing is that once you admit that an animal's suffering is in any way worse than a worm's or a plant's (or probably a fish's), then you have to judge yourself based on the lengths you will go to stop it. I don't think many would claim that your family's nutrition should suffer. Or maybe even that you should deprive yourself of a major food source that you are very uncomfortable giving up.

On the other hand if you won't pay the nickel more for a brand that is much more humane, or if you insist on a food that is only very slightly preferable to an alternative that is less tortuous to an animal, you are being a semi hypocrite when you decry Michael Vick

[chezlaw]

people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?

chez

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But its off the real subject anyway. Which is acts of ommission vs acts of commission. Something we have not seen the last of our debates.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But its off the real subject anyway. Which is acts of ommission vs acts of commission. Something we have not seen the last of our debates.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I wont hijack but something for lestat to consider perhaps.

chez

[Lestat]

There must be a name for this trap I'm in, because I'm having a hard time finding a way out. I think it has to do with a sliding scale of what's reasonable.

I believe it's good to make charitable donations and help others less fortunate out. I am not however, willing to go broke myself doing so. I'm not even willing to lose my house, or even have my child lose her dance classes. I choose what seems reasonable to me. So if I'm not willing to let my children sacrifice a dance class, does this mean that in order to be logically consistent, I shouldn't give to charity at all?!!

Since I have allowed that humans have a "right" to eat animals, I think I adequately seperate myself from a vegan mentality. I realize that in order to eat an animal, it will probably have to suffer some. I have no problem that my ancestors used individually hand thrown spears to hunt down the animals they ate. In fact, I'm glad they did so, since I wouldn't be here if they didn't. No doubt the animals they hunted via this method suffered for thousands of years. But that's ok, because I recognize that humans are above animals in the food chain.

Why aren't I ok with saying that I'm against the "senseless" suffering of animals? If I opt for steak instead of fois gras (because fois gras is a crueler means of getting a meal), isn't that consistent with my stance? If I opt for chicken from farms that do a better job of treating those chickens, haven't I made a contribution to my position?

Again, I acknowledge that humans are omnivores. We didn't claw our way to the top of the food chain to consist on a bunch of lettuce. I'm simply saying that "senseless" *abuse* of animals is abhorent to me (stepping on Fido's tail for kicks). Where am I being inconsistent?

[PLOlover]

I think everyone would agree that food animals should be slaughtered as humanely as possible.

from what little I know, on a family farm type thing the neck artery is severed which leads to loss of consciousness in 2 seconds or something, and industrial cattle farms basically they use a bolt gun type deal and blow the cattles brains out, which is of course instant death.

so my point is that that is pretty humane way of killing.

now if you're talking about veal raised in a box or something, I would agree that is probably torture and we shouldn't do it, and we shouldn't subsidize it by eating veal and that kind of thing. Interestingly this argument also applies to dairy cows and their conditions (industry only, not family farm), thus we should boycott milk and I guess cheese and stuff.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Where am I being inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me started !
What consistency connection of any merit could there be between stepping on a dogs tail and eating a chicken.
cheeeeesh.

luckyme

[foal]

DS,

[ QUOTE ]
I want to point out to him that he can still eat fish. Since it is highly unlikely they actually suffer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you mind elaborating on this?

chez,

[ QUOTE ]

people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?


[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

L,

[ QUOTE ]

If I opt for chicken from farms that do a better job of treating those chickens, haven't I made a contribution to my position?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. I will also add that even though I'm a near vegan I see a difference between indifference to where one's food comes from and hurting an animal out of sadism. I think we as humans have a natural distaste for sadistic actions. I would also expect someone who enjoyed hurting animals to be more likely to enjoy hurting humans and I would not want such a person babysitting my kids.

Other guy,

[ QUOTE ]

I think everyone would agree that food animals should be slaughtered as humanely as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]
If this is true then the majority of people have little awareness of what factory farming conditions are like, because they aren't anywhere close to as humane as possible. However people protesting this are generally seen as animal rights nuts or hopelessly idealistic.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
There must be a name for this trap I'm in,

[/ QUOTE ]

Imperfect duties, Kant

[van_exel_fan]

I think a lot of vegetarians are forgetting (although they may have never known) exactly how delicious meat is. I don't get why no one tells lions to stop ripping open deer flesh with their sharp teeth or wolves to stop hunting for the neighbor's missing poodle...

With our ability to evolve and reason we have decided to no longer kill buffalo with spears and shotguns...we try to lower the suffering as much as we can.

Eating meat is part of the human diet and it is inhumane to suggest that we should not act human.