Rob_86

LINK PLZ. Animals do not have 'complex emotions'. It's like in that Peter Singer link when they warble on about elephants maybe possibly mourning their loved ones. Pish. That's the kind of wooly 'evidence' that Dawkins usually gleefully denounces.

Just trying to cut through your philosophical garble, are you saying that because humans and cows both conciously exist, they should both be equally protected against death and suffering?

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.

We are at the top of the food chain; we can eat whatever we want to eat. For me, there is absolutely no question of morality because we are infinitely superior to other animals. They do not have complex emotions, they are not aware that they are going to be killed and eaten for food. Thus, breeding them for food is not cruel. Nor is it immoral. Indeed, cattle live a more comfortable existence than they ever would in the wild.

Of course I do not agree with animal cruelty or causing animals to suffer for no reason. However, I have no problem with eating meat because I think we have the right to eat whatever we want. If pigs could kill and eat me then they would, without a second thought.

For me, the big mistake in vegan/vegetarian logic is the application of human morality to animals. Animals are not humans, and the rights we grant to each should be very different. Animals are less important than humans. It makes me sick to the stomach when people donate millions of pounds to charities to help re-house cats or provide care for hamsters, when millions of human beings are suffering and dying every single day.

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.

You are telling me that Sky+ exists because of natural instinct? Is that instinct "oh fuck, hope I don't miss X Factor"?

o_O

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.

She is a geologist, a geochemist to be precise, and it's that she's a professor of.

Seriously, this study you're quoting I can't find any evidence of; 80% of terminal patients would be very strong indeed, and would be shouted from the rooftops by researchers world-wide. Just to be clear, prevention of cancer is one thing, but it's an entirely different kettle of fish from causing regression of an existing cancer: I guess I was looking for clarification if you were 100% sure that was the claim that was being made.

I like science, but the veracity of claims are often left unquestioned. Every study has limitations, and one study should not be taken in isolation - it should be viewed in the wider context of accepted, reviewed data. Ethics is much easier to discuss without needing to rely on critical appraisal of evidence.

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.

It's not desire it's natural instinct.

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.

I still don't get this argument. A disabled person is a person. A cow is not a person.

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.

A few of us meat eating heathens have been trying to say things aren't relevant and the thread has been wandering. Would be a fair few pages back now.

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

So you're saying if I have the misfortune to develop cancer I should stop eating and it'll all be fine? The cancerous cells will stop forming due to me missing my ham sandwich at lunch?

Proof please....

Or are you saying that meat is causing cancer? If this is the case then why does the government spend so much on health care when a simple outlawing of all things meaty would save the NHS millions every year?

Again, proof please......

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 seriously doubt Jane Plant was in any way associated with the study you mention - She is a scientist - she's a geologist, albeit a geologist who had cancer and changed her diet, but she's not a clinical epidemiologist. Also, a claim that a change in diet alone could cause remission of 80% of terminal breast cancers also sends my alarm bells ringing. I did some digging on PubMed (an indexed database of published, peer-reviewed medical journals) and couldn't find anything to corroborate this.

However, diet is related to cancer risk, so it is possible that you are referring to a relationship between prevention of cancer and diet, rather than a cure. Even so, claims that a vegan diet alone could prevent 80% of breast cancer would be met with a lot of scepticism unless the study was tighter than a duck's arse in terms of design. That diet and physical exercise are associated with a decreased risk of developing cancer and other diseases is well known, but this is not an exclusive property of vegan diets: Properly planned, balanced diets containing meat and dairy is perfectly fine. Again, we are privilaged (or fucked as a nation, depending on your view point) to have easy access to supplements and any foodstuff we care for; the majority of the world is not in such a position.

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...

If I was satisfied with the nutritional aspects of the vegan life-style and my ability to adhere to a well planned herbivorous diet, I would certainly consider it. Of course it would require swimming against the tide of social norms, which makes life difficult, and I do take pleasure in eating animal produce, cheese especially, so that would require a small sacrifice.

I think you've really got to give a shit, to be honest, and I'm not sure I do and unless it really isn't sitting well with my conscience, I'm not sure that I should.

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).

WTF, are we now plumbing the depths of a bovine seance?

"Moo twice if you suffered at the hands of the slaughter-person who ended your life prematurely...."

o_O

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

I am yet to see one person in this thread condone the suffering of any animal. As long as standards are followed for the most humane slaughter as possible, I and many others don't see an issue with breeding and killing animals like crops.

I think I see where you are going with the mentally challenged person thing, but I'm not convinced that cows have an equal cognitive function to even the most handicapped person.

The slavery thing I can't get on board with, because slaves were treated like utter shit, forced to work against their will, then set free. For the most part in proper, licensed farms and slaughterhouses, cows are given a decent life, free of suffering and are then killed and eaten. Unless lot of black slaves fell victim to cannibals and heaps of people never heard about it, then I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion.

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.

1. Most people have agreed on the needless suffering bit. But it's not needless suffering to kill an animal bred for food humanely. That's what they are ultimately there for.

2. We do need to do it. For the humans who are happy to eat animals bred for food.

Dressing up your arguments around lofty philosophical theories isn't going to change this.

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.

That must be the worst thought out argument ever. Seriously, it's even worse than the pathetic slave analogy.

? 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!!

1. People on this thread are seeing flaws in your reasoning, presumably it's OK to do that? Why not just accept that people have an opposing view that is equally as valid as yours?

2. Cows aren't 'others'. And it isn't 'needlessly', it's for food. For those who are quite happy to decide that breeding animals for food isn't morally wrong.

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.

Which is exactly my philosophy, as a meat and dairy eater, since I determined from study that I will attain an optimal diet with some consumption of animal produce. Why would I ever harm an animal for other reasons? I even chuck spiders out.

I would not refer to animals as people, personally, but I see the grey area you drew, with regard to the mentally impaired, as a good point. I wouldn't refer to them as animals, after all. This would be unnacceptable in our society.

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.

But we are not breeding them to keep them going. Them being around is a by-product of the fact that they are bred as food. We are not being immoral in breeding cows for food, I am yet to see a shred of convincing evidence that proves this. All we get are neat side-steps of points you can't explain away, and regurgitation of the same slaves/mentally challenged pish that has been pedalled countless times throughout this thread.

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've mentioned that approach to it before in this thread and conveniently it gets sidestepped by the people it's directed to as there is no answer to it that furthers their argument.

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)

Then what do you suggest? We should just stop farming cows and slowly make them extinct by preventing them from re-producing?

I don't understand your argument. Cows, as we know them today, would not exist if it was not for the interference of man. A "slave" is not another species. It's still a human being. An individual might be forced into the life of a "slave" from a very early age, but that's completely different and not a fair comparison.

The cow has evolved in order to farmed by man. This is not something it is forced into - quite the opposite. If it was left to its own devices and not cared for by man then it simply wouldn't survive. This is what I'm trying to get across.

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?

If we accept that animals do live conscious lives then why should we view ourselves as any different from them? If they're carnivores or omnivores they prey on other animals with indifference to the pain and death it causes. Surely arguments in support of vegan lifestyles, claiming people can rise above the instinctive feeding habits of our animal past, contradict the assertion that animals are people, since they cannot.

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.

But cows are bred as food.

As previously mentioned by Chris, you should direct this pent up anger at fisherman who remove wild animals from their natural habitat, as opposed to cows being farmed for the purpose of being food.

I don't think it is a hard concept I'm getting at - cows as crops. Would a photoshop of some wheat to give it black and white splodges help?

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.

This is a silly comparison. A cow does not have "desires". It has instinct and that's about it. It certainly doesn't have a desire for freedom (try leaving a gate open to a field full of cows - you won't find them suddenly stampeding out mooing "Freedom!" You'll be lucky if then even notice you've opened it).

And if the were to be given freedom then they would likely die. Cows need people way more than people need cows.

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.

Exactly. Or if not food, we'll at least keep them for milking and/or breeding.

I think it is worth reminding people that all domesticated animals would struggle to survive without some degree of human care and supervision. So for those of you who would like to see an end of farming cattle then you would be also be inadvertently denying their right to survive as a species. Is that moral?

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.

Errr, i did qualify it by saying it depended on the circumstances. I'm not out with a steak knife on a nightly basis offing people to fix a habit. If there was a scenario where human flesh was the only option i wouldn't have a problem eating or killing to get it. That doesn't mean i think that people should be subjected to needless harm. What sort of skewed logic led you to make that deduction?

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).