Martin Willett wrote:

> 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,

Right. But it's especially important to understand
that rationalizing one's meat consumption on the basis
that "at least" the animal got to live is a nasty
sophistry. Not only that, it's needless: no such
rationalization is necessary. To me, the biggest
problem with such rationalization and sophistry is it's
attempting to play the "vegans'" game on their terms,
and as their entire ethical motivation for playing the
game in the first place is morally disgusting, it puts
one in an ethical swamp where one needn't have gone in
the first place. The Logic of the Larder when advanced
by meat eaters as a rationale for their meat eating
always has an unserious quality to it; as if those who
advance it really are just trying to pull a rhetorical
trick, a fast one, on their "vegan" opponents.


> 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'm not even sure this last is a requirement, simply
because the animals we raise domestically for our
consumption never *would* exist unaffected by humanity.
All that's needed is good-faith effort to keep the
amount of suffering low, and always to be seeking ways
to reduce it further.


> I am quite confident that good animal husbandry can and often does
> meet that test.

Of course it does.