"ant and dec" > wrote in message
...
> 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?
> ==============================
Like you, I have no idea where the fruits and veggies I eat come
from specifically. I know that much of it is imported, very
little is actually local, and that it requires lots of processing
and transportation. Now, as to the beef I eat, I know exactly
where it comes from. Not more than a few miles away. Is
completely grass-fed, never goes to a feedlot or fed any grains,
never given any hormones, and is not given anti-biotics as a
standard practice. It goes to a local slaughter house, and then
to my freezer. The whole process occurs completely without
minutes of my house.



>
>>
>>
>>>> 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?
========================
What a coincidence, neither can usenet vegans....
>