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

Martin Willett wrote:

> ant and dec wrote:
>
>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>
>>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>>>>>>> posted by the author
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the
>>>>>> consumption of meat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A troll.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you make that out?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was wrong. It is a diatribe. Humour is often used as a mollifying
>>>> device for mental conflict, perhaps caused by your recognition of
>>>> your own hypocrisy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat
>>> anything smarter than a pig,

>>
>>
>>
>> How convenient for you, and inconvenient for the pig. Why have you
>> drawn this seemingly arbitrary line at pigs?
>>
>> unless I really have to. Fortunately that rule
>>
>>> doesn't restrict my diet very much. I have a lot of respect for the
>>> intelligence of pigs.

>>
>>
>>
>> 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.


No, that's illogical thinking. When you compare two
things, the things must exist in order for the
comparison to make sense. It is patently absurd to say
that existing (no matter what the quality of life) is
better than never existing.

What does it mean for something to be "better" for some
entity? It means that the entity either must perceive
itself to be, or objectively seen by others as being,
better off THAN IT WAS BEFORE. That is, the entity's
welfare must have *improved* from what it was before.
But prior to existing, there was no entity, and so
there was no welfare of the entity. Thus, we see that
is is plainly absurd to talk about existence, per se,
making the entity "better off". Existence is what
establishes an entity's welfare; it does *not* improve it.

This false belief that it is better to exist than never
to exist leads to an infamous bit of illogic called the
Logic of the Larder, taken from the title of a famous
essay on this very topic. It leads someone to conclude
that he is doing a domestic animal he kills and eats
some kind of "favor" by causing it to exist. But the
person who wishes to eat meat cannot justify his meat
eating by saying he made the animal better off by
having caused it to exist. It is obvious that a person
who attempts to engage in this illogic harbors some
kind of doubts over the ethical justice of eating meat,
and is frantically trying to rationalize his diet by
making some aspect of it seem "other-directed". But
it's a dead end.


> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
> so don't bother pointing it out.


No, the qualifier is irrelevant. It is the *entire*
concept that is flawed.


>
> Death is unavoidable, humane slaughter is not the worst death a pig
> could face, very few wild pigs die in hospices surrounded by their
> loving families with large quantities of euphoria-inducing pain-killers.


And therein lies the *correct* justification for eating
meat: there is nothing inherently wrong with killing
an animal. Predators do it all the time, and there is
no moral dimension to their doing it. As long as one
isn't intentionally inflicting needless suffering on
animals, no rationale for the basic act of killing them
to eat them is needed.