Rob_86

Right where do I start... are you meaning like how you have the ability to mope around stating your depression, whereas a cow does not? I wouldn't say that gives you a right to kill her and eat her. Or the ability to conceptualise other stuff, like state your 'in love', whilst a pig doesn't? I agree animals don't have these, but any one who understands the physiology of the human brain and that of animal brains, as well as the enirety of recent animal behavioural study will tell you animals do have emotional lives. They don't sit around weeping about stuff, on the whole, but if you think this gives you reason to ignore the rights of those that don't, I suggest you state the reason behind that argument as it seems pretty weak. No I don't think they should be 'equally protected against death and suffering' per se, I simply think they have equal claim in our moral thoughts on grounds of death and suffering. For instance, you might have different reasons for preferring the life of a human over an animal. Fair enough. But that doesn't give much weight to the idea of putting your tastes over that animals life - it is their whole life versus your having to change your tastes. Basic moral thought would balance this issue very much in favour of the cow. No matter how much you could weep about it. Apologies by the way, I don't mean to keep referring to you as a weepy or mopey guy, it's just happened to come out that way.

On the contrary, animals have been shown to have complex emotions, not that someone having 'simple' emotions would mean they should/could killed and eaten because of this. Indeed also there are many people in the world (especially young children) who could be slaughtered without suffering hugely, this isn't an argument as it still isn't right to do so. The 'mistake' is something you have confused. there are plenty of people who do not have capacity for morality, yet we do not eat them, so it isn't about them being able to act 'like humans' in this sense. The only relevance, when it comes to suffering, is the ability to suffer. Similarly the only relevance, when it comes to death, is the ability to consciously exist, and so the ability to die.

of course, it isn't a random event! Trace it back, think about why you do things - it will never come back to 'I have no idea'. and if it does, think about it again!! Humans aren't biblical creatures of random free will, more's the pity we are a species that has evolved with everything coming from somewhere.

Oh yeah the claim was definetely made. I don't know where you would find it other than the elcture I saw, will have a look when I get a minute and try find you a link. As to why it isn't shouted from the rooftops (if true) I would hesitantly bring back the fact that there were for many years a lot of truths involving smoking and cancer risk that were witheld through various different methods. Add to this factors like the low numbers there are researching it etc, it's not hard for their to be sicentific truths these days that aren't well known, especially on things like cancer when there are new stories in the paper everyday claiming something or other - everyone takes it with a pinch of salt.

I can't get why this argument is still ongoing. Realistically speaking, there is no way anyone has ever proved anything a human does isn't instinctive on some level. We like to think our lives are more important etc, but at the end of the day it's all to fulfill our base desires or 'instincts', so why does it matter that we try to do so in a cleverer ways than cows? If aliens appeared who could pursue their desires in a cleverer ways than us, should they be allowed to use us? Surely they would be implored to morally respect our ability to suffer, regardless of our intelligence in seeking our goals.

No but some disabled persons have intellect on the level of cows, hence showing that it isn't a cows mental processes which allow it to be farmed etc. It is an argument used to show that we are in a sense 'discriminating' against some creatures because of physical differences. Few allow the fact that a cow lives a sentient and consious life to penetrate their moral views - and this is a decent analogy to show it.

True. It is an interesting argument and sort of related, but would just be easier to follow if it was in a dedicated thread that's all. Not brave enought to start it on my own, swimming against the tide of norms and all that

Well, sort of yes. There are kinds of products which do 'cause' cancer in a sense. Cigarettes are strongly linked to lung cancer, beef is linked to colon cancer, and now dairy is starting to be linked to breast/prostate cancer. And yeah 'outlawing' meat would save a lot of money in the NHS due to heart disease etc (the UKs biggest killer) but a lot of the economy relies on the meat industry, and the short term downturn would look bad on the current government - i would imagine.

This topic has got a little bit of the topic of animal welfare, and is getting very muddled in the last couple of pages. Would someone not be better starting a thread on 'the ethics of eating meat' or on animal rights or something? Would be much easier to discuss this in the correct context, especially as the theory of animal rights is very different to the theory of animal welfare.

I watched a lecture she did on it (same time as I saw a lecture from the great Colin Campbell actually)- it's not about food curing the problem of the cancer, it's about taking away the promoters which help the cancer to grow in the first place. If the conditions aren't there for it, most cancers won't be able to grow. Anywho, if you look up her books on the matter (I didn't think she was ever a geologist...but I don't know much about her as a person) the science behind it as well as the correlationals are there. I wouldn't pretend that any correlational study on cancer was perfect, all correlational studies have the same flaws. However some are stronger than others (80% of terminal patients recovering is pretty strong), and it's the sciene thats behind it that got me. All be it science is flawed too sometimes in medical issues...I prefer ethics...

The swimming against the tide of social norms thing is one of the few things I thought dawkins was a bit stupid in mentioning - a bit like saing 'look, I'm a coward'. But I don't think this is what you meant lol No I see that you get pleasure from these things. but at the end of the day the way I see it is tastes change. A cow or a pig losing their life is nothing compared to my tastes for cheese, especially given that this taste will most likely change if I try to change it (I mean seriously I used to love cheese, but the smell of it after a year of being vegan makes you wanna puke, it's not a natural food choice!). Anywho, the arguments are clear, whether you wanna do anything about it is your choice so long as law allows it (which will be til the end of my life time I'd imagine).

Not realy mate, but in moral thinking death is considered harm. hence why we view murder of humans negatively.

You make a good point. If the slaves were treated well, it wouldn't make slavery right. Hence why welfare conditions for cows doesn't touch upon the things that are fundamentally wrong which the moral case for animal rights points out - and hence why most in favour of animal rights do not support welfare reform on the whole.

This doesn't sit with logic. Animals do suffer from being killed prematurely, as they are sentient beings. Any thing other than this would require a re-think of our moral view of murder being wrong. And of course it is needless if we don't need to do it, which we don't.

? How??? It makes sense! The slave analogy is used in most of the intellectual debate on the matter, and so long as fits in the relevant ways it wouldn't be 'pathetic'. What an ultra defensive response!!

Crikey, this thread moves along fast... 1. Sure if people can point out flaws in my reasoning I would be very open to it (I hope), hence why I am responding to those arguments as well as putting across my own. And yes people can having opposing views. However if people agree on base moral facts (ie, that needless suffering is wrong) then there is a clear path of logic which can extend this - this is certainly one of those things. If someone didn't agree with me that needless suffering is wrong, then I wouldn't even bother discussing anything else, as there's no shared stance there to work on. 2. Cows of course do experience their lives and for all intensive purposes then are also others. That's a morally accepted fact I think. Not many people nowadays would argue cows don't feel. And eating them for food is causing needless suffering to them if you don't need to do it, which as humans we don't.

Thanks, its good that someone else is getting that 'mentally impaired individual' argument! As for the diet argument, I would draw up another point. I see your point that your research shows that optimum health requires meat and dairy (though I would challenge that given the content of those two things, but back to the point), but isn't there a sense in which you having satisfactory nutrition should step in with ethics? By this I mean, if you are shown you could get all you need from a vegan diet, wouldn't it make sense to stop eating a non-vegan diet by virtue of the harm it does to animals (whether it be direct or indirect). Just a thought, that's sort of where I drew my line on animal rights anyway - though now (through meticulous readings/lectures) I would advocate a vegan diet for health reasons alone to be honest.

What?! I would love to hear what these great views you must have which aren't moved by the arguments are! I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't vegan before I actually researched the philosophy of animal rights at university (I grew up on a farm actually). It's not like many other issues in philosophy, as the arguments against animal rights just don't stand up to logical analysis (mainly because most of them are knee-jerk defensive reactions, rather than thought out arguments). And I know you like to pretend these slavery/mentally impaired arguments aren't relevant, but they are excellent analogies. One's which you haven't provided useful reason against - it's nice that you keep telling us you think they're pish, but if you explained why perhaps I could show you how they aren't

I actually studied this argument in quite a lot of detail before I went vegan (as it was in Philosophy at university) - don't think it poses any problem whatsoever to the issue of animal rights, and hence was one of the very reasons I went vegan (as slowly all my arguments for not being so were disbanded)

Okay I see your point. But the individual cow being forcably impreganted etc, isn't going to be thinking 'well, if it wasn't for me doing this, my kind would be dead'. Individuals should be our concern. If a single category of animals die in the wild, it isn't our job to prevent it (though some might want to). Similarly if a species which exists because of us is going to die out, and the only way to keep it going is through immoral practices - then why should we want to save the species, and not spare the animals? You wouldn't forcibly breed types of human to keep the race going, why do so with types of animal?

Not really. We have moral agency, which other animals don't. But of course there are a good deal of mentally impaired humans who don't either. The reasonable thing is to use our moral agency to deal with individuals, treating them with the respect the moral agency would demand. It seems like a contradiction if we are trying to either say 'we are the same as animals' or 'we aren't the same as animals'. But the truth is that it's somewhere inbetween. We are higher than them in regard to capacity for morality, but we're not higher than them if we don't use it. Same with the way we treat those humans who don't have a capacity for morality - they can't respect my rights (though often happen to anyway, like cows etc would as well), but it doesn't mean I can't respect theirs. If you need to defend yourself from a lion, go ahead, stab him with your pencil. Similarly if you need to eat animals/humans to live, go ahead. But if you don't need to, the obvious answer is leave them alone.

It's not a hard concept at all, I just don't think it's a very informed one and makes little sense as an argument. 'cows as crops' okay. 'slaves as products'...this isn't a viable argument. What are you getting at? Cows are bred as food, slaves were 'bred' as slaves (and still are in some parts of the world), it doesn't make it right to support either though - doing so just provides the demand which it requires to continue.

I would like to see you try and state why humans have desires whilst cows have only instinct. Especially given the nature of evolutionary theory, and the existence of determinism as a counter to 'free will'. Instinct/desire whatever you want to call it - we shouldn't respect your right to live, after all it's just an instinct to survive isn't it? There's no rationale governing it, until you reduce it back to 'instincts' or 'base desires' which are one and the same.

A species has no rights, rights relate to individuals. The only right being denied would (I guess) be the right to re-produce (if there is such a thing). Nature witholds this from many, and we don't see a moral issue with this, so presumably this problem would be solved by letting the animals back into the wild where we no longer withold anything from them. Personally I would prefer the idea of looking after these creatures the best we can, and the denying of their right to procreate (which the more I type, the less I think it exists!) being a neccesary denial. I don't know though, that's a complicated one. Either way, it certainly isn't moral to continue a system of seeing individuals as property to avoid such practical issues - there are better options that that.

Oh sorry, I just took it from what you said before. No I agree there is nothing immoral about eating human flesh if you have to, there is no great moral argument that would stand against that. Similarly that's the point with consuming animal flesh - if we don't need to eat it we shouldn't. For years we were under the illusion we did have to - but nutritional science, and just plain common sense would say we don't need to anymore, so it becomes a similar argument to that against eating humans (if we accept that animals live conscious lives etc).