Seeker wrote:

> "Glorfindel" > wrote

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

>>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.

It is coherent, but not absolute. The same is true in the case of
ethics related to humans, although they don't usually relate to
using humans as food. There are a wide variety of situations in which
most ethical systems permit the killing of humans.

> 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.

That is not reasonable. Real life *always* includes exceptions to
general principles in certain situations. Ethics is not an
absolute science, and always includes gray areas.

> People in the Arctic must move south.

If they feel subsistence hunting is unethical, so they should.
Try suggesting that, however, and anti-vegans will immediately
accuse you of racism or cultural imperialism.

> 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?

Not ethical under most circumstances, because other options *are*
available.

> 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?

Not ethical. A jar of peanut butter provides many meals and good
levels of protein, and is certainly cheaper and more convenient
than tracking down the semi-mythical "organic grass-fed beef" which
is as rare as the unicorn in most urban areas.

>>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.

If there is no alternative, they must still not be used, any more
than humans. The "no alternative" claim is always suspect, in any
case.

>>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.

Of course it is. The benefits are never certain, and they never are
direct or apply directly to any existing person. We can never be
sure that some other solution would not have been found if use of
animals had not been allowed. The benefits are always hypothetical and
potential; the harms direct, real, and specific. Not a good ethical
trade-off

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 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.

All of us develop our ideas from existing ideas available in our
culture. As C.S. Lewis once noted, a completely original
morality would be highly suspect.

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

>>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.

Again, it is not a specific life-or-death situation; it is hypothetical
and partial. You can send some money to an organization to help
starving people elsewhere, reduce your vacation plans somewhat, and
still avoid starvation for your family, while respecting the interests
and rights of others. Real life is compromise, not absolute either-or
situations in the vast majority of cases.

>>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.

You can still respect the interests of all.

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

>>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.

Certainly, but one must make choices on the basis of one's ethical
principles and choose the best balance of interests on that basis
as one sees it. It is not black-and-while or absolute. I consider
farming of animals for food to be a major evil, a major violation of
my ethical principles, and so I choose options which avoid that.

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

>>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.

Beings are equal (as a general principle) insofar as their interests
are equal. A cow has an equal interest in life _per se_ to my
interest in life. A cow does not have an equal interest _per se_
in a college education to my interest in an education.

>>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.

If you were starving, your species would have a greater biological
interest in you killing a human to eat him than in you killing
a cow to eat her? Hmmm....

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

>>>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.

No doubt.

>>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.

To a degree, that is true. We should try to live as simply as
possible, but few of us do so ( myself included). I admire
St Francis, but even beggars depend on the unethical actions
of those who give them food and clothing in the way those
people acquired enough surplus to give some away.

There is no rational reason to single
> out meat or other "animal products" in this respect.

There are many rational reasons, most of which you know already.

>>>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.

It is an established principle of ethics that humans cannot be used
without their consent. If animals are also beings with rights and
moral standing, neither can they.

>>>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.

They are not conscious, so they do not have interests as individuals.

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

> Weeding does.

You didn't specify weeding.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>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".

Yours are biased by your misguided belief that AR principles are
incorrect and incoherent. According to Farm Sanctuary, more than 90
per cent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are raised in factory-farm
confinement cages, More than two-thirds of sows in the U.S. are
confined in factory-farm crates, A report on farm animal welfare
can be obtained from them at www.farmsanctuary.org. Dueling
statistics, anyone?

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

>>>>>>>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.

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

>>How would a worm kill other animals?

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

Aw, come on Tiny organisms in the soil are not what we think of as
"animals" and worms are not predators.

>>>>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.

No, it's not circular: it is the reason. We can proceed to examining why
that is part of AR theory, but that is something else. Take it in steps.

> "AR theory" is what you are trying to defend.

Yes.

>>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.

I've suggested sources of information which show it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>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.

It does not mean AR is not.

> 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.

Certainly. I do not deny that. I have done so in my own choices.

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

>>>>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.

However, the methods we use as a society, as a species, have changed in
ways which are so different from other animals that we cannot be
compared with them. An animal predator only interacts with another
individual prey animal at the moment of hunting; the other animal's
whole life is under his own control at all other times. Humans control
their domestic animals from before birth to after death. Predator
and prey species do affect each other under natural conditions, but
they do so without much ability by individual animals to change
conditions, while humans have tremendous ability to modify conditions
for both themselves and the rest of the environment. We have a unique
amount of power over other animals and unique abilities to decide
how to use it.

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

>>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.

The effect is similar in the case of strict vegetarians, no matter
what the reason.
>>>>>>>>>


> The issue I am raising is that AR does not address cds in any way,

It does -- and you and others have noted that it does by claiming
CDs affect AR.

> and as it
> is presently structured it cannot because AR/vegan adherents would lose much
> of their motivation to continue.

The motivation is not affected in any way by the issue of CDs. They
are primarily an irrelevant attempt at diversion by anti-vegans to
avoid dealing with the central issues of animal rights. Over the
years, anti-vegans have indeed seen that direct attack on animal
rights theory gets them nowhere. They cannot refute AR principles
in ways that animal rights supporters or ethical vegetarians find
convincing. They certainly have not convinced me. So they have
latched on to an obsessive concentration on the *supposed* effect
of CDs on animal rights/vegan thought. It only works on people
who do not have a firm grasp on the basics of AR theory. It will
not make vegans become meat-eaters; that is against their basic
principles. It may encourage vegans to search for better sources
of vegetables, and that is all to the good.

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

Have a good Thanksgiving and think about sponsoring a rescued turkey.