FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
> >>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
best-known
> >>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
> >>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
Killing
> >>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
but
> >>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
existence
> >>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
every
> >>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
into
> >>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
its
> >>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
> >>>> Nozick 38).

The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
to never having existed.

> >>>
> >>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral
right to
> >>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid
justification for
> >>>killing it.
> >>
> >> No justification is needed.

You CLEARLY seem to feel one is needed.

> >> Regardless of that, billions of animals are
> >> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those
same
> >> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to
eat.
> >
> >That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to
point it
> >out.
>
> It is consideration for animals which

It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary "benefit"
they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from living,
compared with never living at all.

> >>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
> >>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including
humans) are
> >>>"brought into being".
> >>
> >> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it
does ANY
> >> other set of circumstances...
> >
> >There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where
we
> >factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.."
>
> That fact applies to all situations where it is true, including
humans, pets,
> etc...

Gobbledygook.

>
> >when assessing the morality of killing them.
>
> That's because food animals are in a unique situation, but you
still
> want everyone to "think" of them as YOU think of everything else.

Food animals are not in a "unique" situation when considering the
morality of whether or not they are born to begin with. Life is not a
benefit to them.

>
> >NONE, ZERO.
> >
> >>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals
for food
> >>>is needed,
> >>
> >> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you
"ARAs"
> >> want
> >> people to consider.
> >
> >It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one.
> >
> >>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
> >>>Rights" basis in their thinking,
> >>
> >> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having
any life
> >> at all.
> >
> >So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights"
position
> >that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think
their
> >getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights
position?
>
> I don't believe any animals have rights.

You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.

> >>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
> >>>
> >>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
> >>>> pig "logic

It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.

> >
> >Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock
for
> >some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry,
and you
> >don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse.

Exactly right. It IS sophistry, and he obviously isn't intelligent
enough to appreciate it.

> >>>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
> >>>> The Logic of the

Causing pigs to be born is not conferring any benefit upon them. If
one wants to eat pork, and if one feels a need to justify killing pigs
to obtain pork - and you CLEARLY feel the need for such justification -
it is absurd to think causing the pigs to "benefit" from having lived
is a suitable justification.

> >>>
> >>>They are capable of some of them,
> >>
> >> Not even one of them.
> >
> >I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>
> I don't believe that.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.

>
> >by nature they are
> >very clean animals.
>
> I don't believe that either.

It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.
You believe LOTS of unreal things.

> >>>but it's irrelevant.
> >>
> >> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer

What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
moral justification for killing them.

> >
> >No fantasy.
> >
> >>>The talking pig is
> >>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a
human/animal
> >>>moral relationship.
> >>
> >> No, it's much more than that.
> >
> >Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
> >
> >> The author is very obviously trying to
> >> persuade people to feel that

that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for killing
them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He does a
good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it that you
can't even begin to address it, preferring instead to mischaracterize
it.

> >> which apparently it is to you and you
> >> want it to be for other people. The influence it could have on
other
> >> people is what you like about it, and what I don't like about it.
It is
> >> an impressively large number of fantasys which do not apply to
reality
> >> in the case of pigs, but for whatever reason(s) you want people to
> >> side with the fantasys. Why Dutch?
> >
> >Your level of comprehension is lower than your morals.
>
> Then explain extra clearly why you want people to side with the
fantasies.

He wants people to side with logic, and logic dictates that causing
pigs and other animals to live is not any kind of valid moral
justification for killing them.