View Single Post
  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Seeker
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

(11/22/1869 - 02/19/1951)
"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Seeker wrote:


> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>>>"As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider
>>>>using animals in research without their consent as unethical
>>>>are the same reasons they consider the use of humans
>>>>without their consent as unethical. You agree with the principle."

>
>>>>If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not
>>>>in ALL cases?

>
>>>It is true as a general principle, but extreme situations
>>>cannot be used to define general, normal situations.

>
>
>> YOU are the one who introduced the extreme situation. It did not help
>> your case.

>
> You are trying to move from one example to another. The question of the
> ethics of using animals for food in extreme circumstances (as in the
> Arctic in winter for local subsistence hunters, vs consumers of factory
> farmed meat in a Western industrialized society) was an example of
> AR not being absolute.


It indicates to me that the so-called "principle" behind AR is not coherent.
You have attempted to draw a direct analogy between "using" animals without
their consent and using humans in the same way, thereby extending the
principle of self-determination from humans to animals. Yet I can't kill and
eat a human no matter what the circumstances. If humans are not permitted to
kill animals to eat them *by moral principle* then there must be no
exceptions. People in the Arctic must move south. Furthermore, you you have
chosen two extremes, Arctic hunters and factory farmed meat, what about
hunters who are not in the Arctic but who make an economic decision to
supplement their diet by hunting or fishing? Where do you draw the line?
What about an urban dweller who consumes meat that is *not* "factory
farmed", such as organic grass-fed beef?

> The issue of using animals in research is
> different: it never involves an absolute necessity to use *this* animal
> at *this* time,


Actually it does, animals are used in medical research because there are no
adequate alternatives.

> and it never has a *direct* effect on the survival of
> any individual human or animal. Its potential benefits, if any, are
> always hypothetical; its direct harm is always real.


The benefits of using animals in research are evidenced in every safe,
effective medication and medical procedure in existence. The fact that they
are immediate is not relevant.

>> Gary
>>>Francione covers this well in his _Introduction to Animal
>>>Rights:Your Child or The Dog_ The situations where human
>>>interests genuinely conflict in life-or-death ways have
>>>almost no relevance to the situation in everyday life, where
>>>there are many other options.

>
>> Stop hiding behind quotes from sophists and use your own reasoning.

>
> It's good to demonstrate that authorities in the field support
> my own view.


I would hope that you are able to think the idea through from start to
finish without resorting to the "logic" of people like Francione.

>>>Asking "Which would you save if
>>>your ship were sinking and you had to choose between a stranger
>>>or your mother" is not really relevant to questions about how
>>>you should treat either a stranger or your mother in everyday
>>>situations.

>
>> Actually there is a direct correlation between the two situations, the
>> difference is only in the extremity of the circumstances.

>
> That is what you would like to claim, but you are wrong. In an
> extreme case, one must make an either-or choice: if one person
> or being is saved, the other must be killed, and *all* his
> interests sacrificed in favor of the other. This is extremely
> uncommon in real life situations.


It's not uncommon at all. Every day I am faced with the moral dilemma,
should I spend my money on unecessary items for my family like vacations,
Branded clothing and I-Pods, or should I spend it on strangers who are
starving. The world is a metaphorical sinking ship for many, many people,
and for the most part, I choose my family.

> In most real situations, such
> as buying products in our society, the interests of all can be
> respected by making limited modifications in behavior.


That's where you're dead wrong, by choosing different products you are not
respecting "the interests of all", you are choosing a different group of
victims. Some vegans choose cotton over wool because the object to the
exploitation of sheep, but cotton production has all sorts of deadly
consequences, and arguably has a greater impact on animals than wool. So
what it boils down to is a misapplied political principle, not a genuine
concern for animals.

For
> instance, the major interest of a cow or chicken in her life, or
> her major interest in welfare, can be respected by not buying
> meat at all, or by not buying factory-farmed meat. The interest
> of the consumer in avoiding starvation is completely respected,
> at the very minor cost of choosing a somewhat less attractive
> form of food, or one slightly more inconvenient.


You can't draw any conclusions about that equation unless you measure the
impact of the food you substitute in place of the meat. Every calorie you
consume has a price.

>>> I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,

>
> No, but the issue is different if one is starving and has no
> other food source.


No it isn't, I still can't eat my neighbour.

> There are also differences between members
> of our own species and/or community (herd, pack, flock) and
> members of other species.


Yes! Keep that thought. This whole idea that all animals are "equal" is pure
nonsense, it's politics and ethics gone right off the rails.

> Most higher animals have stronger
> inhibitions against killing members of their own social group
> than members of other social groups or species. That is a
> function of biological survival.


Not if I'm starving, in that case the opposite is true.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>>There is a difference between
>>>someone who violates general ethical norms in extreme
>>>situations, and someone who deliberately kills others and
>>>eats them when there are many other options available to him
>>>living in the middle of normal human society. That is part of
>>>why ethics are not absolute in the real world.

>
>> So are you saying that you would not be morally permitted to kill and eat
>> an animal even if you were starving?

>
> It would not be ethical,


It would not be ethical to kill an animal and eat it if I were starving.. I
find that a disturbing statement.

> but it would be less unethical than to
> kill one for convenience when other options are available.
> That is not a choice anyone posting on the newsgroup is likely to
> face.


You are killing animals indirectly by using the hydro grid to run your
computer, something completely unecessary. That may be an extreme example,
but there are many more that are more obvious. Every product and service you
consume beyond what is absolutely necessary for your survival should be
considered unethical by your formula. There is no rational reason to single
out meat or other "animal products" in this respect.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>
>> Not at all, what is absurd is to say that it is unethical to use animals
>> without their consent. Animals cannot give consent, it's a foreign
>> concept to an animal.

>
> Which is a major reason why it is unethical to use them in
> research (other than observation in the wild, which does not
> usually harm them).


That is begging the question. You have not established that consent is
necessary in order to use animals.

>> You may as well say it's unethical to pick flowers without their consent.

>
> Flowers are not sentient or conscious, so they have no interests
> as individuals,


Plants have mechanisms to survive and propagate that are similar to those of
animals.

> and also picking a flower does not permanently
> harm the plant.


Weeding does.

>>>>If you want to toss insects in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle
>>>>explaining your support for commercial farming.

>
>>>I don't support commercial farming at all.

>
>> Of course you do, you buy groceries don't you?

>
> I don't support commercial farming at all.


Where do you get your food? Where do most vegans get their food?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information?

>
>>>A variety of sources: books, documentaries, personal
>>>observation, government data (always suspect).

>
>> As am I, and I conclude that mistreatment of animals is the rare
>> exception, not the rule.

>
> You conclude incorrectly. I conclude mistreatment of animals in modern
> farming is almost universal and very severe.


Your conclusions are extremely biased by your misguided belief in the
incoherent principles of "AR".

There are some studies here of "factory farms"
http://www.grandin.com/survey/2004.r...nt.audits.html

Those are objective reports, they include some disturbing indivdual reports
of individual cases of abuse, but the statistics clearly show that the vast
majority of animals are handled humanely. There is a lot information on that
site.

>>>>>>Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in
>>>>>>nature?

>
>>>>>Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical
>>>>>obligations not to abuse it.

>
>>>>The power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every
>>>>species since the big bang has had it.

>
>>>Well, not true.

>
>> Ipse dixit.

>
> How would a worm kill other animals?


By digesting them. Did you think that soil was not jam-packed with animals?

>>>But we are the only species capable of
>>>domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping
>>>them in large numbers

>
>> You have not given a coherent reason why that is necessarily immoral.

>
> It is a violation of their individual freedom in the larger
> sense, according to AR theory.


You can't use "AR theory" to support your claim, that is circular reasoning.
"AR theory" is what you are trying to defend.

> By itself, it may not be a
> a violation of their welfare, but it usually is in modern
> farming.


You haven't shown that either. Grandin reports show that 71% of factory
farms have better than a 99% rating in animal handling, and 100% have a
better than 90% rating. Contrast that with the suffering of animals left to
rot or die of poisoning in grain fields.

> Note: you asked why humans should *respond differently*
> than other animals, not why what they do/did is immoral. I
> answer that they should respond differently because they have a
> unique amount of power over other animals, and an ethical sense
> which is probably unique in the animal kingdom.


That's quite true, we are moral beings, but that does not mean that AR is a
rational set of ideas. We still live in a real world where our actions have
all sorts of necessary consequences whether we like it or not. Those things
must be factored into our thinking.

>>>to be killed at our convenience.

>
>> Convenience is not necessarily immoral, neither is killing.

>
> Agreed. That was not the issue either in your question above.


Then don't use "convenience" or "necessity" in your arguments, because they
are very subjective terms

>>>We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented
>>>weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds.

>
>> Neither of those things change of the essential nature of what we do.

>
> They do. It is a difference in degree which is so great it
> becomes a difference in kind.


No it doesn't. If you kill an animal by shooting it, clubbing it, or running
over it with a tractor it's still dead. There reason you do it, the pursuit
of food, is the essense, and that does not change.

>>>>People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded
>>>>than children of omnivores.

>
>>>They may begin so. I was speaking of people who grew up in
>>>omnivore families and became vegan, which is more common.
>>>Even so, vegan children usually become aware they are
>>>different as soon as they get to know non-vegan children.
>>>Then they must consider the basis of their veganism. If
>>>they are omnivores surrounded by other omnivores, the issue
>>>often does not come up at all.

>
>> It comes up if they are exposed to vegan children, or veganism or AR are
>> reported in the media, as it often is.

>
> It may. It may not.
>
>>>>>You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is
>>>>>completely closed.

>
>>>>That's incorrect, his mind is OPEN, yours is closed. He already knows
>>>>all the explantions that you are likely to come up with. He is a strict
>>>>vegetarian by the way, he's just not hypocrite about it.

>
>>>Bravo for him, if true. I commend him for that, and wish him
>>>well in continuing.

>
>> Yes, Bravo for him indeed, he came here with the very same set of
>> misconceptions that you have, but he had the intellectual integrity to
>> listen and question his assumptions.

>
> I listen; I do, and have, questioned my assumptions. I have modified
> my beliefs and my behavior. What I have *not* done is conclude
> the basic philosophy of AR is incorrect. You give no credit for
> any intellectual questioning which does not lead to complete surrender
> to your views.


I have not seen any evidence yet of any intellectual questioning of views on
your part. I'm hoping it is going on in the background.

> I credit anyone who is a strict vegetarian with advancing animal rights
> and welfare in practice, whatever his philosophical or health reason
> for doing so.


Those are two different issues, you should keep them separate.

> If everyone became strict vegetarian, and bought produce
> with a low level of CDs, but no one, or only a few, accepted the
> philosophy of AR, I would be happy. The practical result would
> be similar to that which would exist if everyone accepted AR. I am
> primarily interested in the effect on the animals, not bludgeoning
> everyone into intellectual conformity.


The issue I am raising is that AR does not address cds in any way, and as it
is presently structured it cannot because AR/vegan adherents would lose much
of their motivation to continue.

>>>>Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy
>>>>for, but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue,

>
>>>First, PETA is no longer a strictly animal *rights* group;
>>>they are primarily a "hard welfare" group.

>
>> The basic philosophy of PeTA is AR/veganism, it's as clear as day on
>> their site. It is obvious however that welfare causes generate the most
>> response and hence the most donations, so they are heavily focused on
>> those issues.

>
> The basic philosophy has been considerably diluted over the years.
>
>>>Second, I did not
>>>say animal rights groups "own" the issue of animal welfare.

>
>> I know you didn't, but the rhetoric of ARAs like you tends to assume
>> ownership of the issue, as if by mentioning welfare abuses in agriculture
>> you are advancing your own argument.

>
> We are, because there is a relationship between the ethical status animals
> are given and they way they are treated. The argument has
> been explored extensively in various books on AR such as Francione's
> _Animals, Property, and the Law_. The reason dogs are generally seen
> differently than pigs has to do with the property status of animals.


I don't quite agree, but I must go...

>>>AR and non-AR groups can and do work together on specific
>>>animal welfare issues, and that is good.

>
>> I would agree.

>
> That's encouraging.


--
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide