View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"Martin Willett" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>
>>>ant and dec wrote:

>>
>>
>>>>But not much respect for the pig?
>>>
>>>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>>>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>>>than not to.
>>>
>>>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
>>>so don't bother pointing it out.

>>
>>
>> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up
>> to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to
>> *not* living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state.
>> This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here
>> who has already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote
>> this idea.
>>
>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
>> There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
>> The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
>> compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in
>> existence may feel that he
>> would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma
>> of existence to argue
>> from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
>> non-existent, he talks
>> nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that
>> of which we can
>> predicate nothing.
>>
>> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
>> "into the world," we
>> cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
>> bargain with him, and a
>> very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by
>> any such quibble, in
>> which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
>> connection, is it necessary to
>> enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
>> there be, we have no
>> reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and
>> thus equally the
>> argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
>> preexistence, or non-
>> existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning
>> based on such
>> comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
>> conclusions.

>
> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards to
> conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise you or do
> you work backwards from the practical policy stances you are most
> comfortable with and in the process discover what your principles "must
> have been"?


I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite capture the
essence of my argument here. In the current context you said about
livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than not to". "Not to"
implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's where the fallacy lies.
If such a state exists, then in order to call it inferior to "living and
dying" we must know something about it, and I submit that we don't. If it
doesn't exist then the statement cannot logically be made. As the author
above says, we make such statements with "the terra firma of existence to
argue from", and a very pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can*
say something quite similar to your statement to summarize the morality of
breeding livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for us,
and we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no person can
fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am getting at? It is the
"ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that contains the valid
moral principle here.

> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?


I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty would
inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others.

I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time since
someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address these
issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your insights.