Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default A question for vegans about meat

If technology advances enough to make in vitro growing of meat
possible (that is meat grown from a cell sample), would vegans have
any ethnical objections to such meat? After all, once the initial cell
sample is taken, no animals would be involved in such production of
meat.

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 18, 2:34*am, Dragonblaze > wrote:
> If technology advances enough to make in vitro growing of meat
> possible (that is meat grown from a cell sample), would vegans have
> any ethnical objections to such meat? After all, once the initial cell
> sample is taken, no animals would be involved in such production of
> meat.
>
> Dragonblaze
>
> - God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -


It depends on the vegan. Here is one view.

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/a...ube-meat.shtml

I myself don't think there would be any serious grounds for making an
objection.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

There's a bit more information he

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...2007-05-15.htm

The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its
stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I
think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would
currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro
steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for
human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless
some major breakthrough is made.

I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter
Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the
end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he
mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it.

I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to
criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it
is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue
about.

I'm asked about this one all the time and my attitude is "Well, of
course, but what is the relevance now? That's not going to happen in
the immediate future".

Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no
longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:

>There's a bit more information he
>
>http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...2007-05-15.htm
>
>The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its
>stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I
>think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would
>currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro
>steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for
>human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless
>some major breakthrough is made.
>
>I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter
>Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the
>end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he
>mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it.
>
>I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to
>criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it
>is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue
>about.


Most likely because you don't really care about the animals
themselves, other than your desire to prevent their existence.
Let's try another one anyway:

Do you think it would be better if the animals could be
raised and grown in a comatose condition, than it is for them
to be conscious and able to experience life? Do you think it
may be better in some cases, but not in others?
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default A question for vegans about meat

"Rupert" > wrote
> Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no
> longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics.


People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's the
nature of the human ego.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 19, 3:06 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
> >There's a bit more information he

>
> >http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...urs-2007-05-15...

>
> >The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its
> >stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I
> >think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would
> >currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro
> >steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for
> >human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless
> >some major breakthrough is made.

>
> >I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter
> >Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the
> >end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he
> >mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it.

>
> >I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to
> >criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it
> >is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue
> >about.

>
> Most likely because you don't really care about the animals
> themselves, other than your desire to prevent their existence.
> Let's try another one anyway:
>
> Do you think it would be better if the animals could be
> raised and grown in a comatose condition, than it is for them
> to be conscious and able to experience life? Do you think it
> may be better in some cases, but not in others?


Dear David Harrison,

I would like very much to give you a detailed explanation of why I
believe your arguments are unsatisfactory but I am currently working
full-time teaching mathematics, and also aiming to re-submit my Ph.D.
thesis by July 31, along with various other projects, and I may not be
able to get around to it any time soon. When my thesis is finished I
plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
the question of whether speciesism can be justified. When I finish the
first chapter I will post a link to it here; that will be my next
attempt to move the debate forward. I may possibly have time to take
up the matter with you then. I am sorry I cannot give you an answer at
this stage.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 19, 3:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no
> > longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics.

>
> People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's the
> nature of the human ego.


Did you read Dawkins' "God Delusion"? And there was a response by a
thelogian who also had some scientific training, called "The Dawkins
Delusion". There's a dispute which will probably keep a few people
busy for a while.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default A question for vegans about meat

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Mar 19, 3:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no
>> > longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics.

>>
>> People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's
>> the
>> nature of the human ego.

>
> Did you read Dawkins' "God Delusion"? And there was a response by a
> thelogian who also had some scientific training, called "The Dawkins
> Delusion". There's a dispute which will probably keep a few people
> busy for a while.



No, I've heard of it though. Generally I think of "religion" and "worship"
as manifestions of the "focus on the finger" phenomenon. If you ever try to
indicate something to a dog by pointing towards it the dog will simply look
eagerly at your outstretched finger, not that at which you are pointing. The
dog lacks the conscious awareness to grasp that your finger is indicating
something beyond itself. That's essentially what people have done with the
messages of awakened spiritual teachers, instead of learning from the
lessons, they deify the teacher, then proceed to distrust and demonize
anyone who does not make the same unconscious error. Instead of moving man
towards higher consciousness, religion has taken man deeper into conflict.

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default A question for vegans about meat

<dh@.> wrote

> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
> if humans did not.


Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, besides, the
sheer number of animals who "experience life" is not important to anyone
with half a clue. What matters to people of good faith is that animals who
are raised by humans are well treated, and that our actions do not cause
undue harm to the environment.

  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:36:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:

>On Mar 19, 3:06 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>> >There's a bit more information he

>>
>> >http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...urs-2007-05-15...

>>
>> >The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its
>> >stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I
>> >think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would
>> >currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro
>> >steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for
>> >human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless
>> >some major breakthrough is made.

>>
>> >I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter
>> >Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the
>> >end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he
>> >mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it.

>>
>> >I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to
>> >criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it
>> >is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue
>> >about.

>>
>> Most likely because you don't really care about the animals
>> themselves, other than your desire to prevent their existence.
>> Let's try another one anyway:
>>
>> Do you think it would be better if the animals could be
>> raised and grown in a comatose condition, than it is for them
>> to be conscious and able to experience life? Do you think it
>> may be better in some cases, but not in others?

>
>Dear David Harrison,
>
>I would like very much to give you a detailed explanation of why I
>believe your arguments are unsatisfactory but I am currently working
>full-time teaching mathematics,


See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not. A very good project would be to get a group
of open minded--NOT!!! elimination minded!--students to decide
which livestock animals they feel have lives of positive value,
and which they feel do not, and compare the numbers. Also,
if they are willing to go the extra mile, let them figure any
improvements they think could be made to certain situations
that would give positive value to lives which they currently
consider to be negative.

>and also aiming to re-submit my Ph.D.
>thesis by July 31, along with various other projects, and I may not be
>able to get around to it any time soon. When my thesis is finished I
>plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
>the question of whether speciesism can be justified.


In all animals, or only in humans? I consider all animals to
be speciesists, including humans, and that as a group they
must be in order to survive. If some members of that group
want to try to pretend they are not, and try to perform actions
proving they are not, it hopefully won't be disastrous to the
group as a whole as long as the percentage of members
trying to do so is not too high. For example people must continue
to work harder and harder to prevent "aras" ie. eliminationists
from having any more negative influence on humanity, domestic
animals and wildlife than they are having.

>When I finish the
>first chapter I will post a link to it here; that will be my next
>attempt to move the debate forward. I may possibly have time to take
>up the matter with you then. I am sorry I cannot give you an answer at
>this stage.


It could get combined with the math project. Animals judged
to have lives of negative value might in some cases be better
of in a comatose condition, like battery hens. But. Other alternatives
might be considered ethically superior, like if hens in cage free
houses are considered to generally have decent lives of positive
it would probably be better to let them experience their lives instead
of never knowing anything about it.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points. Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default A question for vegans about meat

On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote:

> When my thesis is finished I
> plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
> the question of whether speciesism can be justified.


Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
be considered a moral patient.

If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default A question for vegans about meat

Buxqi wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote:
>
>> When my thesis is finished I
>> plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
>> the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

>
> Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
> speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
> harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
> was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
> be considered a moral patient.
>
> If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
> animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
> then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?


My specific point that "ar" is speciesist is not really
based on what we require of human moral patients,
although that certainly reinforces my claim. My point
is that "ar" demands a behavior of moral actors -
humans - based on the fact that humans are uniquely
viewed by most, at least until recently, as moral
actors. It's sort of like requiring your seven-foot
tall neighbor to assist you in getting things down from
or up onto the top shelves of your kitchen cabinets
merely because he is tall.

An interesting development is that some ethnologists or
ethno-biologists now think humans may not be the only
moral actors; there is some scant evidence that
chimpanzees may have some rudimentary moral sense. If
that is the case, and if it eventually comes to pass
that chimps have a limited but identifiable capacity
for moral agency, then are we required to prevent them
from killing colubus monkeys and other animals?
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi > wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > When my thesis is finished I
> > plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
> > the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

>
> Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
> speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
> harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
> was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
> be considered a moral patient.
>
> If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
> animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
> then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?


Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline.

We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific
research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain
knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which
Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research".
We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on
cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to
do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide
some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the
project on the chimpanzees but not the humans.

We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have
untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is
frequently made on this newsgroup.

This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not
currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman
animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some
humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs
to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion.

As to Jonathan Ball's points in his more recent post, well, we might
talk about them later. Sometime soon I'll write the first chapter,
giving a more precise version of the two hypothetical cases above and
stating the aims and scope of the project. In particular, I'll specify
which writers and arguments I'm going to examine. Then you can give me
feedback about whether the writers and arguments I've chosen are a
good selection.
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
> >addressing your points.

>
> You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.
>
> >Your question about whether speciesism can be
> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

>
> Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
> doing it anyway.
>
> >There will
> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

>
> Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
> fact?
>
> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
> >will arrive at.

>
> My guess is that you want to support the elimination
> objective.
>
> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
> >chapter before we discuss the matter further.

>
> That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.


We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. When I
have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
open-minded you feel I am being.


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:

>Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
>include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
>"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
>addressing your points.


You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

>Your question about whether speciesism can be
>"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.


Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
doing it anyway.

>There will
>probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.


Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
fact?

>I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
>will arrive at.


My guess is that you want to support the elimination
objective.

>It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
>chapter before we discuss the matter further.


That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>
>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>> if humans did not.

>
>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,


Close enough would be close enough.

>besides, the
>sheer number of animals who "experience life" is not important to anyone
>with half a clue.


Maybe billions makes no difference than hundreds to people
with half a clue, but it does to people with more than half.

>What matters to people of good faith


Good faith in what?

>is that animals who are raised by humans are well treated,


Some of us can consider that as well as how many experience
decent lives of possitive value.

>and that our actions do not cause undue harm to the environment.


Some people can consider all that stuff. Others of you
apparently can't. As always: If you think your lack of
consideration makes you somehow ethically superior, just
try explaining how. Instead of trying to sneak out if it
like you always do, why won't you just try explaining
how you think you're superior? I know you can't--none
of you ever could--but it sure would be fun to watch
you try.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default A question for vegans about meat

On 20 Mar, 19:25, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Buxqi wrote:
> > On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote:

>
> >> When my thesis is finished I
> >> plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
> >> the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

>
> > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
> > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
> > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
> > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
> > be considered a moral patient.

>
> > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
> > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
> > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

>
> My specific point that "ar" is speciesist is not really
> based on what we require of human moral patients,
> although that certainly reinforces my claim.


I think the example of moral patients is actually necessary
for your charge of speciesm to stick. Sure, you can
argue that if it is wrong for humans to do something than
it must also be wrong for any other species but asking a
lion not to hunt or an ant not to farm aphids or a cuckoo
not to steal eggs from other birds is a bit like asking
volcanos not to erupt or hurricanes to not damage anything.

>*My point
> is that "ar" demands a behavior of moral actors -
> humans - based on the fact that humans are uniquely
> viewed by most, at least until recently, as moral
> actors. *It's sort of like requiring your seven-foot
> tall neighbor to assist you in getting things down from
> or up onto the top shelves of your kitchen cabinets
> merely because he is tall.


The analogy does not convince me. You can only
expect an entity to act based on what it knows.
We have a conception of "right" and "wrong".
The crocodile doesn't know any better.
>
> An interesting development is that some ethnologists or
> ethno-biologists now think humans may not be the only
> moral actors; there is some scant evidence that
> chimpanzees may have some rudimentary moral sense. *If
> that is the case, and if it eventually comes to pass
> that chimps have a limited but identifiable capacity
> for moral agency, then are we required to prevent them
> from killing colubus monkeys and other animals?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default A question for vegans about meat

On 20 Mar, 23:22, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote:

>
> > > When my thesis is finished I
> > > plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
> > > the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

>
> > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
> > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
> > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
> > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
> > be considered a moral patient.

>
> > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
> > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
> > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

>
> Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline.
>
> We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific
> research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain
> knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which
> Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research".
> We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on
> cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to
> do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide
> some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the
> project on the chimpanzees but not the humans.
>
> We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have
> untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is
> frequently made on this newsgroup.
>
> This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not
> currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman
> animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some
> humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs
> to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion.


Personally I think the argument is worth looking at, if only because
any position that is demonstratably guilty of the quality (eg
speciesm)
that it explicitly rejects must be viewed with a certain scepticism.
>
> As to Jonathan Ball's points in his more recent post, well, we might
> talk about them later. Sometime soon I'll write the first chapter,
> giving a more precise version of the two hypothetical cases above and
> stating the aims and scope of the project. In particular, I'll specify
> which writers and arguments I'm going to examine. Then you can give me
> feedback about whether the writers and arguments I've chosen are a
> good selection.


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default A question for vegans about meat

On 20 Mar, 23:25, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
> > >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
> > >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
> > >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
> > >addressing your points.

>
> > * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
> > the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
> > birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
> > with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
> > mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
> > no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
> > comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

>
> > >Your question about whether speciesism can be
> > >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

>
> > * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
> > other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
> > very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
> > doing it anyway.

>
> > >There will
> > >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

>
> > * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
> > we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
> > haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
> > fact?

>
> > >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
> > >will arrive at.

>
> > * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
> > objective.

>
> > >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
> > >chapter before we discuss the matter further.

>
> > * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
> > If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
> > probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
> > any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
> > get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
> > thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
> > who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
> > AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
> > minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
> > to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

>
> We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. When I
> have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
> arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
> open-minded you feel I am being.


In my experience when people say things like
"you are so closed minded" what they really mean
is "Why can't you accept that I am right". I'm sure
your essay will be well thought out, addressing most
of the important points and provide a good discussion point.

>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default A question for vegans about meat

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>>> if humans did not.

>>
>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

>
> Close enough would be close enough.


No, impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food
resource support for 100,000 field mice, but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
about them is UTILITY. You're barking mad, plain and simple.

Thus the rest of your response, like everything you say, is irrelevant.

  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 20, 6:14*pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> On 20 Mar, 23:22, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi > wrote:

>
> > > On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote:

>
> > > > When my thesis is finished I
> > > > plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
> > > > the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

>
> > > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
> > > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
> > > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
> > > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
> > > be considered a moral patient.

>
> > > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
> > > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
> > > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

>
> > Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline.

>
> > We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific
> > research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain
> > knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which
> > Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research".
> > We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on
> > cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to
> > do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide
> > some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the
> > project on the chimpanzees but not the humans.

>
> > We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have
> > untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is
> > frequently made on this newsgroup.

>
> > This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not
> > currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman
> > animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some
> > humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs
> > to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion.

>
> Personally I think the argument is worth looking at, if only because
> any position that is demonstratably guilty of the quality (eg
> speciesm)
> that it explicitly rejects must be viewed with a certain scepticism.
>


If I take the stance "I think an acceptable moral theory must be non-
speciesist" and you can then demonstrate to me that I hold moral views
which are speciesist, then you have shown that I am being inconsistent
and this is certainly a ground for saying that my position as it
stands is not satisfactory. In my writing project, I intend to explore
objections to the effect that nobody sincerely believes in and acts
accordance with a moral theory that is non-speciesist. Carl Cohen has
made objections along these lines, and objections along these lines
are frequently made on this newsgroup. Various facts can be cited in
support of arguments along this line, which are frequently discussed
on this newsgroup. To take just two examples, plant-based agriculture
causes serious harm, in various ways, to large numbers of nonhuman
animals, and it is estimated that electrical power stations in the
United States cause the death of approximately one trillion fish per
year. Gary Francione has attempted some discussion of the significance
of facts like these for his position, but it does not seem to be very
satisfactory. I intend to explore objections like these and try to
form a considered view about what they achieve, and where we should go
from there.

You seem to believe that the argument that you have outlined is
another example of an argument which could be plausibly held to show
that certain moral views accepted by those who identify themselves as
animal rights advocates are speciesist. For me to become convinced of
this I would need further elaboration. First of all, you speak of
being unwilling to lock up a predator animal in order to prevent that
animal from doing harm. Let us suppose that a lion had escaped from
the zoo and was roaming through a densely populated city. One reading
of what you are saying is that you are suggesting that many who
identify themselves as animal rights advocates would be unwilling to
take measures to prevent the lion from doing harm, which may involve
confining the lion (at least temporarily). If this it what you are
suggesting, I would be interested in seeing any citations you can
provide in support of this view. On the other hand, you may be
alluding to the fact that we are unwilling to intervene in predator-
prey relationships among nonhuman animals living free in the wild.
This is indeed an important point which will require some discussion.
It is mentioned by Carl Cohen, it is mentioned by Jonathan Ball
sometimes on this newsgroups, and it has received some discussion in
the literature. I will certainly do some discussion of that. On the
other hand, perhaps I am still confused about what your main point is
here. Maybe you could give some more specific real-world examples of
people being willing to confine a human who is a moral patient, but
not willing to confine a nonhuman animal who has the potential to do
harm, just to make clear which examples you had in mind.

You must realize the following:

(1) I am attempting to embark on this project without any
preconceptions about what conclusions I will arrive at
(2) It is indeed quite possible that I will come to the conclusion
that I have identified some serious deficiencies in certain views
widely accepted by those who identify themselves as animal rights
advocates. However, there is also some possibility that I will come to
a similar conclusion about those who identify themselves as
"welfarists". We will have to see.
(3) Dutch complains that DeGrazia's concept of "equal consideration"
is vague, and that no coherent definition of "speciesism" has been
offered except definitions which would imply that there is simply no
such thing as a non-speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find
acceptable. In response to this complaint I would like to attempt a
clearer statement of what a non-speciesist ethical theory is, and
investigate the question of whether it is possible to formulate a non-
speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find acceptable. If I
come to the conclusion that that is not possible, then it seems to me,
for reasons I'll elaborate on in my project, that this raises a puzzle
in the methodology of ethics which needs to be explored further, and I
will want to see if I can say anything about that.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 21, 6:44*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 6:14*pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Mar, 23:22, Rupert > wrote:

>
> > > On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi > wrote:

>
> > > > On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote:

>
> > > > > When my thesis is finished I
> > > > > plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
> > > > > the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

>
> > > > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
> > > > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
> > > > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
> > > > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
> > > > be considered a moral patient.

>
> > > > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
> > > > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
> > > > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

>
> > > Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline.

>
> > > We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific
> > > research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain
> > > knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which
> > > Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research".
> > > We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on
> > > cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to
> > > do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide
> > > some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the
> > > project on the chimpanzees but not the humans.

>
> > > We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have
> > > untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is
> > > frequently made on this newsgroup.

>
> > > This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not
> > > currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman
> > > animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some
> > > humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs
> > > to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion.

>
> > Personally I think the argument is worth looking at, if only because
> > any position that is demonstratably guilty of the quality (eg
> > speciesm)
> > that it explicitly rejects must be viewed with a certain scepticism.

>
> If I take the stance "I think an acceptable moral theory must be non-
> speciesist" and you can then demonstrate to me that I hold moral views
> which are speciesist, then you have shown that I am being inconsistent
> and this is certainly a ground for saying that my position as it
> stands is not satisfactory. In my writing project, I intend to explore
> objections to the effect that nobody sincerely believes in and acts
> accordance with a moral theory that is non-speciesist. Carl Cohen has
> made objections along these lines, and objections along these lines
> are frequently made on this newsgroup. Various facts can be cited in
> support of arguments along this line, which are frequently discussed
> on this newsgroup. To take just two examples, plant-based agriculture
> causes serious harm, in various ways, to large numbers of nonhuman
> animals, and it is estimated that electrical power stations in the
> United States cause the death of approximately one trillion fish per
> year. Gary Francione has attempted some discussion of the significance
> of facts like these for his position, but it does not seem to be very
> satisfactory. I intend to explore objections like these and try to
> form a considered view about what they achieve, and where we should go
> from there.
>
> You seem to believe that the argument that you have outlined is
> another example of an argument which could be plausibly held to show
> that certain moral views accepted by those who identify themselves as
> animal rights advocates are speciesist. For me to become convinced of
> this I would need further elaboration. First of all, you speak of
> being unwilling to lock up a predator animal in order to prevent that
> animal from doing harm. Let us suppose that a lion had escaped from
> the zoo and was roaming through a densely populated city. One reading
> of what you are saying is that you are suggesting that many who
> identify themselves as animal rights advocates would be unwilling to
> take measures to prevent the lion from doing harm, which may involve
> confining the lion (at least temporarily). If this it what you are
> suggesting, I would be interested in seeing any citations you can
> provide in support of this view. On the other hand, you may be
> alluding to the fact that we are unwilling to intervene in predator-
> prey relationships among nonhuman animals living free in the wild.
> This is indeed an important point which will require some discussion.


Yes. That's the fact I was alluding to.

> It is mentioned by Carl Cohen, it is mentioned by Jonathan Ball
> sometimes on this newsgroups, and it has received some discussion in
> the literature. I will certainly do some discussion of that. On the
> other hand, perhaps I am still confused about what your main point is
> here. Maybe you could give some more specific real-world examples of
> people being willing to confine a human who is a moral patient, but
> not willing to confine a nonhuman animal who has the potential to do
> harm, just to make clear which examples you had in mind.
>
> You must realize the following:
>
> (1) I am attempting to embark on this project without any
> preconceptions about what conclusions I will arrive at
> (2) It is indeed quite possible that I will come to the conclusion
> that I have identified some serious deficiencies in certain views
> widely accepted by those who identify themselves as animal rights
> advocates. However, there is also some possibility that I will come to
> a similar conclusion about those who identify themselves as
> "welfarists". We will have to see.
> (3) Dutch complains that DeGrazia's concept of "equal consideration"
> is vague, and that no coherent definition of "speciesism" has been
> offered except definitions which would imply that there is simply no
> such thing as a non-speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find
> acceptable. In response to this complaint I would like to attempt a
> clearer statement of what a non-speciesist ethical theory is, and
> investigate the question of whether it is possible to formulate a non-
> speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find acceptable. If I
> come to the conclusion that that is not possible, then it seems to me,
> for reasons I'll elaborate on in my project, that this raises a puzzle
> in the methodology of ethics which needs to be explored further, and I
> will want to see if I can say anything about that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default A question for vegans about meat

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:56:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>>>>> if humans did not.
>>>>
>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,
>>>
>>> Close enough would be close enough.

>>
>>No,

>
> Yes, it sure would.
>
>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food
>>resource support for 100,000 field mice,

>
> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?


Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

>
>>but who knows? The good thing is
>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
>>exist,
>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
>>about them is UTILITY.

>
> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.


That's a lie and a diversion, selfishness is not an issue. I don't care if
cattle are born or if the natural resources are left to support wildlife
like mice, or any combination of the two, except inasmuch as I want the
small amount of organic beef I occasionally consume. Causing cattle to be
born to consume grass and grain and water is not *good* or *better* in any
objective sense, apart from our desire to use those animals to produce meat
and other products. You're wasting your breath with this fool's argument.
The only allies you have are a couple of AR clods who share a common foe.

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:56:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>>>> if humans did not.
>>>
>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

>>
>> Close enough would be close enough.

>
>No,


Yes, it sure would.

>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food
>resource support for 100,000 field mice,


Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

>but who knows? The good thing is
>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never exist,
>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
>about them is UTILITY.


As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:

>On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
>> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
>> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
>> >addressing your points.

>>
>> You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
>> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
>> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
>> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
>> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
>> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
>> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.
>>
>> >Your question about whether speciesism can be
>> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

>>
>> Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
>> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
>> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
>> doing it anyway.
>>
>> >There will
>> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

>>
>> Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
>> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
>> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
>> fact?
>>
>> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
>> >will arrive at.

>>
>> My guess is that you want to support the elimination
>> objective.
>>
>> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
>> >chapter before we discuss the matter further.

>>
>> That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
>> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
>> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
>> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
>> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
>> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
>> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
>> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
>> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
>> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

>
>We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen.


Wow. Have there really been two other people who can
appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of
possitive value?

>When I
>have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
>arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
>open-minded you feel I am being.


Please include what you consider to be significant quotes
if you're going to use some.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi > wrote:

>On 20 Mar, 23:25, Rupert > wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>> > >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
>> > >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
>> > >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
>> > >addressing your points.

>>
>> > * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
>> > the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
>> > birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
>> > with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
>> > mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
>> > no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
>> > comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

>>
>> > >Your question about whether speciesism can be
>> > >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

>>
>> > * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
>> > other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
>> > very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
>> > doing it anyway.

>>
>> > >There will
>> > >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

>>
>> > * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
>> > we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
>> > haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
>> > fact?

>>
>> > >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
>> > >will arrive at.

>>
>> > * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
>> > objective.

>>
>> > >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
>> > >chapter before we discuss the matter further.

>>
>> > * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
>> > If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
>> > probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
>> > any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
>> > get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
>> > thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
>> > who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
>> > AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
>> > minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
>> > to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

>>
>> We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. When I
>> have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
>> arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
>> open-minded you feel I am being.

>
>In my experience when people say things like
>"you are so closed minded" what they really mean
>is "Why can't you accept that I am right".


Probably because people say that to you when you're
wrong and they don't want to hurt your feelings too much
by saying it directly.

>I'm sure your essay will be well thought out,


Why? "Well" for what?

>addressing most
>of the important points and provide a good discussion point.


May be.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
> >On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
> >> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
> >> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
> >> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
> >> >addressing your points.

>
> >> * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
> >> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
> >> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
> >> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
> >> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
> >> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
> >> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

>
> >> >Your question about whether speciesism can be
> >> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

>
> >> * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
> >> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
> >> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
> >> doing it anyway.

>
> >> >There will
> >> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

>
> >> * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
> >> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
> >> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
> >> fact?

>
> >> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
> >> >will arrive at.

>
> >> * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
> >> objective.

>
> >> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
> >> >chapter before we discuss the matter further.

>
> >> * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
> >> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
> >> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
> >> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
> >> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
> >> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
> >> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
> >> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
> >> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
> >> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

>
> >We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen.

>
> * * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can
> appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of
> possitive value?
>


Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good
thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of
"positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R.
M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a
look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I
can find the original reference for you one of these days.

> >When I
> >have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
> >arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
> >open-minded you feel I am being.

>
> * * Please include what you consider to be significant quotes
> if you're going to use some.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 23, 6:15*pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
> > >On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
> > >> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
> > >> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
> > >> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
> > >> >addressing your points.

>
> > >> * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
> > >> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
> > >> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
> > >> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
> > >> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
> > >> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
> > >> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

>
> > >> >Your question about whether speciesism can be
> > >> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

>
> > >> * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
> > >> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
> > >> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
> > >> doing it anyway.

>
> > >> >There will
> > >> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

>
> > >> * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
> > >> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
> > >> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
> > >> fact?

>
> > >> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
> > >> >will arrive at.

>
> > >> * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
> > >> objective.

>
> > >> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
> > >> >chapter before we discuss the matter further.

>
> > >> * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
> > >> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
> > >> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
> > >> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
> > >> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
> > >> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
> > >> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
> > >> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
> > >> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
> > >> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

>
> > >We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen.

>
> > * * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can
> > appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of
> > possitive value?

>
> Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good
> thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of
> "positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R.
> M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a
> look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I
> can find the original reference for you one of these days.
>


You might find it profitable to look at Part IV of Derek Parfit's
"Reasons and Persons". That is an exploration of some issues about the
ethics of decisions which involve bringing individuals into existence
who would not otherwise have existed. Parfit explores theses issues
and discusses some paradoxes which he does not know how to solve. Also
of interest might be Appendix G to that book, "Whether Causing Someone
to Exist Can Benefit This Person". That might give you ammunition in
your debate with Jonathan Ball.

I would suggest that reading these parts of Parfit's book, and maybe
some of the literature which that part of the book has generated,
would help you to think more clearly about these issues and strengthen
your arguments for your views (assuming you still retain them, another
possibility is that exploring the literature might lead you to change
your views).

The objection I usually raise against your views is "Do you
distinguish between the human and nonhuman cases, and if so on what
grounds?" I have never really managed to get clear on what your answer
to this one is. I think you need to do more to clarify this issue.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>>>>>> if humans did not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,
>>>>
>>>> Close enough would be close enough.
>>>
>>>No,

>>
>> Yes, it sure would.
>>
>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food
>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice,

>>
>> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

>
>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.


Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

>>>but who knows? The good thing is
>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
>>>exist,
>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
>>>about them is UTILITY.

>>
>> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

>
>That's a lie

.. . .
>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
>of organic beef I occasionally consume.


LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.


  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default A question for vegans about meat

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>>>>>>> if humans did not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,
>>>>>
>>>>> Close enough would be close enough.
>>>>
>>>>No,
>>>
>>> Yes, it sure would.
>>>
>>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
>>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
>>>>food
>>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice,
>>>
>>> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

>>
>>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

>
> Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
> not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?


>
>>>>but who knows? The good thing is
>>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
>>>>exist,
>>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
>>>>about them is UTILITY.
>>>
>>> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
>>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
>>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
>>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

>>
>>That's a lie

> . . .
>>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
>>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
>>of organic beef I occasionally consume.

>
> LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
> Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.


You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to your
position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they
don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is an
obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
actually thinking about your own appetite.



  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Mar 25, 6:34*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com...
> > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

>
> >><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4ax .com....
> >>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

>
> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message
> m...
> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

>
> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote

>
> >>>>>>> * *See if you and some students can calculate how many more
> >>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
> >>>>>>> if humans did not.

>
> >>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

>
> >>>>> * *Close enough would be close enough.

>
> >>>>No,

>
> >>> * *Yes, it sure would.

>
> >>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
> >>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
> >>>>food
> >>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice,

>
> >>> * *Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

>
> >>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

>
> > * *Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
> > not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

>
> >>>>but who knows? The good thing is
> >>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
> >>>>exist,
> >>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
> >>>>about them is UTILITY.

>
> >>> * *As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
> >>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
> >>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
> >>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

>
> >>That's a lie

> > . . .
> >>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
> >>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
> >>of organic beef I occasionally consume.

>
> > * *LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
> > Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

>
> You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to your
> position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they
> don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is an
> obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
> actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments
is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly
get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default A question for vegans about meat

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com...
> > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

>
> >><dh@.> wrote in
> >>messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4 ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

>
> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message
> m...
> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

>
> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote

>
> >>>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
> >>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
> >>>>>>> if humans did not.

>
> >>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

>
> >>>>> Close enough would be close enough.

>
> >>>>No,

>
> >>> Yes, it sure would.

>
> >>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature,
> >>>>one
> >>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
> >>>>food
> >>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice,

>
> >>> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

>
> >>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

>
> > Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
> > not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

>
> >>>>but who knows? The good thing is
> >>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
> >>>>exist,
> >>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to
> >>>>care
> >>>>about them is UTILITY.

>
> >>> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
> >>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
> >>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
> >>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

>
> >>That's a lie

> > . . .
> >>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
> >>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
> >>of organic beef I occasionally consume.

>
> > LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
> > Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

>
> You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to
> your
> position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they
> don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is
> an
> obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
> actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments
is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly
get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it.


It wasn't an assumption, it was a directive. It is true however that it was
largely rhetorical, I know he can't or won't do it.


  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Condemning meat (was: A question for vegans about meat)

who cares... stop crossposting this crap to alt.satanism...

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:31:22 -1100, dh@. wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, the Goober lied:
>
>>Goo****wit places *no* value on animals' "getting to
>>experience life".

>
> We know that's a lie Goo. We also know and
>have proof that YOU are guilty of what you so
>dishonestly accused me of:
>
>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>whatever" - Goo
>
>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>
>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock
>"getting to experience life" - Goo
>
>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo
>
>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>
>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>their deaths" - Goo
>
>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>
>It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in
>other words - if humans kill animals they don't need
>to kill, i.e. not in self defense.
>
>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>
>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>
>"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
>is the ethically superior choice." - Goo


--

`We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:

>On Mar 23, 6:15*pm, Rupert > wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>> > >On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
>> > >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>> > >> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
>> > >> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
>> > >> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
>> > >> >addressing your points.

>>
>> > >> * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
>> > >> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
>> > >> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
>> > >> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
>> > >> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
>> > >> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
>> > >> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

>>
>> > >> >Your question about whether speciesism can be
>> > >> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

>>
>> > >> * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
>> > >> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
>> > >> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
>> > >> doing it anyway.

>>
>> > >> >There will
>> > >> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

>>
>> > >> * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
>> > >> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
>> > >> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
>> > >> fact?

>>
>> > >> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
>> > >> >will arrive at.

>>
>> > >> * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
>> > >> objective.

>>
>> > >> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
>> > >> >chapter before we discuss the matter further.

>>
>> > >> * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
>> > >> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
>> > >> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
>> > >> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
>> > >> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
>> > >> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
>> > >> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
>> > >> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
>> > >> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
>> > >> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

>>
>> > >We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen.

>>
>> > * * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can
>> > appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of
>> > possitive value?

>>
>> Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good
>> thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of
>> "positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R.
>> M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a
>> look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I
>> can find the original reference for you one of these days.
>>

>
>You might find it profitable to look at Part IV of Derek Parfit's
>"Reasons and Persons". That is an exploration of some issues about the
>ethics of decisions which involve bringing individuals into existence
>who would not otherwise have existed. Parfit explores theses issues
>and discusses some paradoxes which he does not know how to solve. Also
>of interest might be Appendix G to that book, "Whether Causing Someone
>to Exist Can Benefit This Person". That might give you ammunition in
>your debate with Jonathan Ball.


For the most part Goo's side of the debate is no more than
lying about things. The only thing about it I'm aware of that
may not be a lie is his claim that things don't benefit by
actually coming into existence, but even if they don't the
Goober still can't explain how that could prevent them from
benefitting from lives of positive value after they do. In other
words: Goo has nothing.

>I would suggest that reading these parts of Parfit's book, and maybe
>some of the literature which that part of the book has generated,
>would help you to think more clearly about these issues and strengthen
>your arguments for your views (assuming you still retain them, another
>possibility is that exploring the literature might lead you to change
>your views).


My views are based on what I've learned from life itself.
If there are some in that book that you feel are particularly
significant then I'd be interested in reading them if you
want to present them, but it's not worth the effort for me to
hunt down and obtain the book and then try to figure out
what you find significant myself.

>The objection I usually raise


Right. You need to find it and present it, not suggest
that I try to do it. You could probably find enough of
whatever you have in mind already online that you could
just copy some of it and present it that way, if you don't
feel like trying to hammer it out yourself.

>against your views is "Do you
>distinguish between the human and nonhuman cases, and if so on what
>grounds?" I have never really managed to get clear on what your answer
>to this one is. I think you need to do more to clarify this issue.


There are a number of ways to think about it. Maybe
we can sort of chart it out or something.

Consideration for the potential humans:

- Would they rather be raised by other humans than have
no life at all? I've never heard of human slaves refusing to
have children. Even if they sometimes did, it obviously was
not the general way to feel. I've never heard of mass suicides
among slaves. Even if there sometimes were, it obviously was
not the general thing to do. So, even though the people
suffered from the knowledge that they were slaves, it appears
that they would rather be slaves than have no life at all at
least in the vast majority of cases. From there we can see that
not raising humans as slaves is not necessarily always out of
consideration for the potential slaves.

Consideration of livestock in comparison:

- They don't know they are being raised by humans and
therefore don't suffer from the knowledge as human slaves
do. From their position it's easy for some people to feel that
it would be in the animals' best interest to provide livestock
with decent lives of positive value.

Consideration of our own interests:

- Most of us have grown up believing human slavery is
wrong and we accept that as being the case regardless
of whether the slaves would have lives of positive or
negative value. That means even if we think the slaves
would rather exist if given the choice, we would still be
opposed to it because we personally don't like the idea.
That part has nothing to do with consideration for the
potential slaves. The same is true for people who are
opposed to raising animals for food, etc.

- The slaves would cause such competition with
working free people that it would change our society
completely. I saw a documentary about modern slavery
in which men were trying to *become* slaves because
the slaves lived better than the free laborers could.
That doesn't mean they lived well, it just means that
they weren't dying of starvation.

Practicality

- It would be much more impractical to raise humans
than it is to raise the animals we are raising. It would
also be much harder to provide humans with an
environment that would give them lives of positive
value, than it is to do so for the livestock we raise.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>>>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>>>>>>>> if humans did not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Close enough would be close enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>No,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it sure would.
>>>>
>>>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
>>>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
>>>>>food
>>>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice,
>>>>
>>>> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?
>>>
>>>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

>>
>> Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
>> not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

>
>>
>>>>>but who knows? The good thing is
>>>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
>>>>>exist,
>>>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
>>>>>about them is UTILITY.
>>>>
>>>> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
>>>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
>>>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
>>>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.
>>>
>>>That's a lie

>> . . .
>>>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
>>>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
>>>of organic beef I occasionally consume.

>>
>> LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
>> Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

>
>You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to your
>position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist


That's true ONLY if you are incredibly inconsiderate of
others, like you continually prove yourself to be.

>or they
>don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is an
>obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
>actually thinking about your own appetite.


The purity of your selfishness prevents you from having
any consideration for the lives of billions of animals.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:00:44 GMT, Boo wrote:

>"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 25, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com...
>> > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

>>
>> >><dh@.> wrote in
>> >>messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4 ax.com...
>> >>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

>>
>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>> m...
>> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

>>
>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote

>>
>> >>>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>> >>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>> >>>>>>> if humans did not.

>>
>> >>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

>>
>> >>>>> Close enough would be close enough.

>>
>> >>>>No,

>>
>> >>> Yes, it sure would.

>>
>> >>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature,
>> >>>>one
>> >>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
>> >>>>food
>> >>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice,

>>
>> >>> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

>>
>> >>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

>>
>> > Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
>> > not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

>>
>> >>>>but who knows? The good thing is
>> >>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
>> >>>>exist,
>> >>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to
>> >>>>care
>> >>>>about them is UTILITY.

>>
>> >>> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
>> >>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
>> >>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
>> >>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

>>
>> >>That's a lie
>> > . . .
>> >>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
>> >>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
>> >>of organic beef I occasionally consume.

>>
>> > LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
>> > Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

>>
>> You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to
>> your
>> position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they
>> don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is
>> an
>> obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
>> actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
>Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments
>is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly
>get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it.
>
>
>It wasn't an assumption, it was a directive. It is true however that it was
>largely rhetorical, I know he can't or won't do it.


The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock. The "it" you're completely incapable of is providing
a decent reason why anyone would, other than to support
the elimination objective. You suck so bad at this that you
openly support consideration for the lives of mice, at the same
time that you oppose consideration for the lives of cattle.
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Condemning meat (was: A question for vegans about meat)

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, the Goober lied:

>Goo****wit places *no* value on animals' "getting to
>experience life".


We know that's a lie Goo. We also know and
have proof that YOU are guilty of what you so
dishonestly accused me of:

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock
"getting to experience life" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in
other words - if humans kill animals they don't need
to kill, i.e. not in self defense.

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default A question for vegans about meat

<dh@.> wrote
> The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
> livestock.


Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except
that they are more useful? They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
life".

  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default A question for vegans about meat

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
>> livestock.

>
>Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except
>that they are more useful?


I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
but I kill mice when they come in even so.

>They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
>that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
>life".


Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
experience life?

If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

If so, then try explaining why you think that same
consideration should not be applied to all animals.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 23-08-2016 02:01 AM
84% of vegetarians and "vegans" resume eating a normal(meat-including) diet Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 21-08-2016 10:08 PM
If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans - Ultra Spiritual Life episode 35 Ophelia[_14_] General Cooking 5 19-05-2016 12:12 PM
Scott Fiore has a question about vegans and weight training [email protected] Vegan 1 14-02-2008 06:57 AM
Scott Fiore has a question about vegans and weight training [email protected] Vegan 0 13-02-2008 04:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"