S. Maizlich wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>
<snips>
>>
>> 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.

Thanks. I can digest that steak pie in peace now.

It doesn't matter if the animal lives or doesn't, and if it lives it
will die no matter whether it was caused to live or just happened to
live. What matters is whether it lives or dies in avoidable suffering.
As long as human animal husbandry does not impose more stress or
suffering on an animal than it would be expected to experience in a life
unaffected by humanity then we have done nothing to be ashamed of. I am
quite confident that good animal husbandry can and often does meet that
test.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org