Another Point About Eating/Torturing Animals

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why no one tells lions to stop ripping open deer flesh with their sharp teeth

[/ QUOTE ]
they need it to survive?

[ QUOTE ]

or wolves to stop hunting for the neighbor's missing poodle...

[/ QUOTE ]
wolves hunt poodles...?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This couldn't be further from the truth. http://www.factoryfarming.com/

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

[/ QUOTE ]
It's inhumane to suggest that we don't do everything our ancestors have done? I shouldn't need to point out why this is a poor line of reasoning.

[carlo]

When an animal dies its like you cutting your fingernails. As an example, the bee hive.Aquinas , in his writing, discusses the "souls" of animals and in this the concept of the "soul" of an animal is that supersensible entity which experiences the world as we do via the senses. The "soul" of the bee is in the nest and the individual bee in its appendages So we have the "soul" of the animal which is earth bound as our individuals souls are on the earth. the total species of bee "ego" is not on the earth and in this we see what we might call instinct but is an indicator of "intelligence". Bee hives and bees throughout the earth are a physical manifestation of that "ego' of the bee species through which all the intelligent movements(building the hive,producing honey,and and the individual movements are the movements of the "ego" which is not on the earth. Only the individual human has an "ego" which is on the earth.

The individual movements of all animals such as a lion is a manifestation of this supersensible "ego" which is the "real lion" and in this we can understand how a beaver can build a dam or a wasp build its nest.This can give us an understanding of the "group ego" or the "group soul". Man does not have a "group soul" or "group ego".

So what happens when one tortures an animal is contained within the moral movement of mankind in which each individual can decide on. If one is repulsed by the torture of a dog this very experience rebounds to the individual and freely becomes part of his moral movement.This in no way implies that killing a cow for food is a logical concomitant of the torturing.


On a physiological basis, some people cannot become vegetarians and one sign of this is a short digestive tract. These peoples have an inability to obtain proper nourishment from the earth without the animal and in an instinctual(heredity) manner cannot be a vegan. A culture which espouses vegetarianism will most likely have longer digestive tracts and be able to proceed on this course.

One is not morally bankrupt because one eats meat. The Indian(India) Warriors of old were meat eaters and in eating meat there is a small measure agitation/anxiety which aided their war like activities while the Brahmins were vegans and in effect were more sedate as their particular position in the culture requires.

[luckyme]

[ 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 ]

Are there really such things as 'acts of omission'. I think not, but I'm listening.

luckyme

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. Most people are entertained when a fight breaks out in the streets and they are able to watch from the balcony of the restaurant they are eating at. There is nothing wrong with them. There are countless other examples that are normal. Maybe I'm missing your point. There is only something wrong if the entertainment is sadistic and linked directly with the amount of suffering, which is obviously not the case with people that eat meat. I think this conversation started indirectly after some Michael Vick discussion, so I'll add that if there were a youtube video of one of those dog fights, I would watch it, and would most likely be entertained.

Anyway, I agree with the point you make after that. We should be willing to make minimal effort to ease large amounts of animal suffering. Most of us do when the opportunity is provided.

I think Michael Vick is scum, but I don't think I'm being the least bit hypocritical here.

He provided minor amounts of entertainment at the cost of a very large degree of animal suffering. Furthermore, he profited on that suffering, money that he did not need. Therefore, you could argue he provided very little entertainment. I'm sure many of the people that paid for dog fights have debated on whether to watch a movie with their money, or pay for a fight. In other words, the dollar per entertainment value they received could have easily been matched without any animal suffering being necessary or at least come close enough to make the animal suffering not worth it.

The fact that Michael Vick is a rich celebrity, and had very little to gain (yet much to lose) from this endeavor only makes me think less of him.

I think your last paragraph is obviously true, and should be obvious even without the explanation above it.

However, I don't draw the link to vegetarianism. It's another case where immense amounts of health and pleasure result from minimal (if any) animal suffering. Would fewer cows be killed if I became a vegetarian? How many on average would I save with an entire life of vegetarianism? 0.2? Maybe?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But once you admit that it is better for animals not to suffer you must admit other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think not.
Admitting X would typically have little or no implication on any other situation until we have a very clear understanding of WHY you admitted X.

I never read ( or perhaps don't remember) Chris's comment, so I'm just going by your report that he said something like -
"I think it is better that animals don't suffer."

There are no major spin-offs from that until we get a lot more info on that.

luckyme

[van_exel_fan]

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]
It's inhumane to suggest that we don't do everything our ancestors have done? I shouldn't need to point out why this is a poor line of reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]


Lol, I was joking.

But there still is no denying that humans are omnivores and to change our diets to become herbivores would alter the way that the human species evolves in the future...

Plus, there is so much history and tradition revolving around food (with meat in it) that it would be difficult to change things even if most people thought vegetarians were doing the right thing.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
But there still is no denying that humans are omnivores and to change our diets to become herbivores would alter the way that the human species evolves in the future...

[/ QUOTE ]

I deny that.

Evolution will become a moot point as far as the human species is concerned due to the transhumanist movement.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a distinction needs to be made here between public and private morality. I don't consider cheating on your partner generally OK morally, but nor do I think it is the business of the state to prosecute people for doing those things. The line I was drawing between incidental and purposeful suffering doesn't mark the line of my own morality, it marks the line at which I believe that the state is justified in forcibly stopping people engaging in those activities. You can argue that that position is arbitrary, but I think it is at least consistent. I interpreted your original "Fido" question as a question about this, i.e. why we are justified in stopping other people setting up dog fights. If you were asking why I personally would not step on a dog's tail if I enjoyed doing so, then the answer is that if I was the kind of sociopath who enjoyed doing that, then no doubt my morality would be such that I wouldn't have a reason not to.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of this. I do make a point of, for instance, not eating foie gras and buying free range eggs and chickens where possible. I would also pay extra for pig products where the pigs were treated humanely if it were possible to determine the provenance of the products. However, I don't think it's my business to tell others to do this, just as I don't believe it's my business to intervene if my friend cheats on his wife.

Note that I'm not absolutist about the non-interference thing; I might support legislation to force pig farmers to treat their animals more humanely. But only if I were sure that the effect would not be to force farmers out of business or to price pig products outside the range of consumers.

[van_exel_fan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there still is no denying that humans are omnivores and to change our diets to become herbivores would alter the way that the human species evolves in the future...

[/ QUOTE ]

I deny that.

Evolution will become a moot point as far as the human species is concerned due to the transhumanist movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

[AlexM]

Ethics 101

Eating free range > eating meat > vegetarianism

Obviously, it's better to eat animals that were well treated than those who weren't, but it's also better to eat mistreated animals than no animals at all. I would much rather see a being have an unhappy life than never be born at all and vegetarianism prevents births. And even if you don't agree with that, the moral difference between eating free range... eating an animal that's had a happy life... and eating vegetarian... preventing animals from being born at all... isn't even remotely close. Eating free range is so obviously morally superior to eating vegetarian that I have a hard time imagining how vegetarians can delude themselves into being vegetarian at all (moral vegetarians anyway). There are certainly health reasons to be vegetarian, but the moral reasons are a joke.