Martin Willett wrote:
> 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 buy your food from the supermarket? Do you know or particularly
care where it comes from?


>
>
>>> 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.
>

What prompted this rethink?

Your lack of response in other threads in interesting. - Perhaps you're
more suited to 'debating' with a sycophant.

What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on your
want to kill and eat a species?

Do you *know* that a pig can not differentiate between right and wrong?