"Glorfindel" > wrote
>
> 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.

It's incoherent, primarily because AR focuses narrowly on imagined political
rights of 5% of animals and ignores the other 95% of animals harmed by human
activity.

>The same is true in the case of
> ethics related to humans, although they don't usually relate to
> using humans as food.

They never do, and that's primarily what we are talking about.

> There are a wide variety of situations in which
> most ethical systems permit the killing of humans.

The analogy fails utterly, and there is NOT "a wide variety of situations",
in most countries there is one, sometimes two.

>> 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.

That is BULLshit. Moral principles allow rare and unusual exceptions, not
systematic and widespread violations. The killing of animals in every
agricultural-related business is widespread and systematic, yet the only
ones objected to by vegans are the ones that result in animal "products".

>> People in the Arctic must move south.
>
> If they feel subsistence hunting is unethical, so they should.

What kind of moral directive is that? If I feel that it's unethical to
molest kids I should stop? What if I don't?

> Try suggesting that, however, and anti-vegans will immediately
> accuse you of racism or cultural imperialism.

Well cry me a river! Vegans ARE attempting to impose a highly artificial and
poorly thought-out regime on all of us. *I* accuse you of 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.

So what??? FFS! There are plenty of options available to vegans that would
cause less animal death and suffering than their current lifestyles, they
aren't pursuing all of them. Some of those options could include consuming
animal products instead of manufactured meat substitutes.

>> 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.

I eat grass-fed beef and I live in a mid-sized city.

Have you measured how much animal death and suffering is associated with
that a jar of peanut butter?

Then how can you say it is less than the d&s associated with the same amount
of grass-fed beef?

Where do you derive the moral authority to tell anyone that their choices
are unethical when you have not even attempted to measure the death and
suffering that your own consumerism causes? In other words, you have got a
lot of gall.

>>>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.

You are not qualified to make that statement, in fact it is an ignorant one.

>>>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.

Of course it is NOT. Safe and effective are essential properties of medical
treatments, whether they are determined today, five years ago, or next year.

> 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

Then I suggest you abstain from all use of medical treatment. That way your
precious ethics will be safe.

You won't do that though, you will think of some glib, self-serving reason
to take advantage of every possible medical advantage.

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

Very good. I was talking about using your own "logic", not your own morals.
As a matter of fact, take another look at that quote. Veganism in fact
proposes something like an "original morality", certainly more so that the
typical morality that has developed over eons of human societies.

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

Every single frivolous or selfish expenditure we make is made at the expense
of people who are starving to death. That is the reality of living a
comfortable western existence. When you buy vegetables at the local
supermarket you buy the history of that food from the time it's planted
until it appears on that shelf. There is no free lunch. This notion that
"animal products" are evil is an absurd and soul-destroying idea that people
like you propogate, and there are always willing dupes to follow, to make
you feel important.

You disgust me.

>>>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.

How are you respecting the interests of animals that are exterminated to
protect the crops you ultimately consume? The field mice, frogs, toads,
birds, etc etc.. not to mention crickets, spiders, bees, ants. Please
explain.

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

Killing them by the billions to produce, fruit, grains, rice, vegetables,
beans, cotton, etc.. is not a violation of their interests?

Can you understand that I do not attach political significance to the
killing of animals? If they're dead they're dead, that's all that matters to
them, and therefore me. If I kill one animal to eat it, I have done better
then you if you killed two to produce a similiar quantity of food, THAT is a
coherent equation.

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

So you say, but it's just rhetoric.

> A cow has an equal interest in life _per se_ to my
> interest in life.

I disgree, a human being has a far greater understanding of life, of
mortality, the meaning of existence, and has a far longer lifespan. A cow is
a relative automaton with no concept like "I want to live x number of
years", or even that it's life is limited by nature. You may as well say
that a cow has as much life interests as a plant than to say that a human
has as much as a cow.

> A cow does not have an equal interest _per se_
> in a college education to my interest in an education.

*YOU* have an interest in education? That is at once alarming but not
surprising.

>>>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....

No, if I were starving I would have a greater biological interest in eating
a member of my own species than to respect a taboo against it. I may have a
stronger moral inhibition than my biological interest though.

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

I imagine you derive a kind of adolescent gratification from disturbing
people, while feeling that you have attained a moral plateau above them.

>>>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).

Big surprise, yet you still find it within your prerogative to insult good
people by proclaiming that they are unethical for doing what comes naturally
to animals.

> 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.

Yeah, you're a real gem.

> 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.

There are NONE. The excuses I have heard from the likes of you are
sophistry. The reason you single out meat is that it is an easy step you
make without inconveniencing yourself too much, yet it allows you to look
down haughtily on others, something in your makeup finds that satisfying.

>>>>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.

That is begging the question. Look it up.

>>>>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.

Cows do not have the same degree of consciousness as humans either, although
I wonder about vegans...

>>>and also picking a flower does not permanently
>>>harm the plant.
>
>> Weeding does.
>
> You didn't specify weeding.

What are you doing here? Are you just here to waste my time, or are you
genuinely searching for truth?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>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?

Not with a vegan activist website. But even if it were true, the principle
is what we are arguing. What if every farm were like Salatins?
http://www.ecofriendly.com/index.cfm?section=11&page=43 You would still make
your anti-meat arguments. So lets cut the crap and stick to the real issue,
and that is the fundamental AR principle that says it's wrong to farm
animals, and which is mute on the farming of plants with systematic
collateral killing of animals.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>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"

What do you call them? Why is size suddenly an issue? It wasn't an issue
when vegans issued an edict against honey, or silk.

> and worms are not predators.

They kill animal life constantly, so do herbivores. These shifting political
lines you keep drawing around the animal kingdom are irrational, that's what
I keep trying to tell you.

>
>>>>>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.
>

I've been up those step, they lead up a staircase to a door that goes
nowhere. There is nothing inherent in domesticating animals that is immoral.
There are conditions that you could argue are immoral.

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

I wish you would stop once in a while and step back from it, try to look at
it objectively. I know it's unlikely that you are capable of doing that, but
I never lose hope..

>
>>>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.

Biased sources concentrate on instances of abuse. I've shown credible
sources that show that instances of animal suffering are very low. But every
life contains some suffering, it's unreasonable to expect there to be none.

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

No, but you implied that it did.

>> 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.

You haven't factored it in your thinking or you wouldn't be making the
statements that you do.

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

Wrong, we are still predators, our bodies have not changed significantly
since we evolved from apes and began hunting in groups.

> 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.

That's true, but it doesn't mean that veganism is either rational or
necessary to have an ethical life. You're making intimations again that do
not necessarily follow.

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

No it isn't. Animal rights adherents aka vegans abstain from consuming meat,
no matter whether those choices benefit animals as a whole or not. Animal
welfare advocates may or may not consume animal products, and may choose an
animal product selectively over a commercially produced plant-based product,
imported fruit, or grain that may have a worse or roughly equivalent
case-history than the particular meat, fish or fowl. Someone who is simply a
vegetarian will only eat plant products regardless.

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

The reality of cds is a dagger through the heart of AR/veganism as a
philosphy, if that's what you mean.

>
>> 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.

Not according you, now, at this point in your life. For many others it has
been a key that opened the gate to a prison of their own creation.

>They
> are primarily an irrelevant attempt at diversion by anti-vegans to
> avoid dealing with the central issues of animal rights.

I find it amusing that you would call the issue of animal death and
suffering irrelevant to 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.

That's because you're brainwashed, not because the arguments aren't valid.

> So they have
> latched on to an obsessive concentration on the *supposed* effect
> of CDs on animal rights/vegan thought.

I am quite aware that the issue has little effect on many ARAs, but that's
not because it's not relevant.

> It only works on people
> who do not have a firm grasp on the basics of AR theory.

It doesn't work on those who have drunk too deeply from The Chalice, it does
work for people who are sympathetic to AR ideals but maintain a foundation
of rationality.

It will
> not make vegans become meat-eaters; that is against their basic
> principles.

That's not its intent, but that very admission is telling. If I presented a
source of meat that would guarantee of lower death toll than the current
diet of a vegan, they would NOT consider it, because veganism is about the
*appearance* of higher morality, not the achievement of it.

It may encourage vegans to search for better sources
> of vegetables, and that is all to the good.

That'll be the day.

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

How many do you have in your back yard?