Dutch wrote:
> "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.
>

From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise
animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, I
have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I know
that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel. It can become cruel
if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to reduce the standards
of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the banks and supermarket
buyers that are determining how cruel farming is.

I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just because
some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I think drink driving is
a terrible thing but I don't see how going teetotal myself and whingeing
on about it to anybody who will listen (while making out that I'm not
trying to portray myself as morally superior) is the best way to prevent it.

If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is an issue
with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should be addressed
directly and I will have no problem in paying more for food as a
consequence.


>> 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.
>
>
>

I like the cut of your jib.

(In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the origin is
nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.)

I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better than
the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has the
same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as a
hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or contribute
to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that animal is clearly
capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have given me explicit
permission.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org