Animal Welfare

[Rob_86]

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.

[Guest Hobo]

Again, bears scant relation to the morality of meat-eating. Life's easier when you keep slaves, murder your opponents etc etc etcNow this bears scant relation to the morality of eating meat

Eating meat is not currently a necessity.

Even scant relation is some relation so you must obviously see where i'm coming from. Come on it comes from the whole 'in the past thing'

Cows aren't slaves they are livestock, bred for the purpose of supplying the growing human population with food. We do not murder them we slaughter them.

See what I did there?

[Monster Zero]

Yes, it does matter. One is a measured thought out process (desire) and the other is a natural response (instinct).

Also that U2 song would have been far less catchy had it been 'Instinct'....the chorus would have been rubbish.

[paranoid]

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.

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.

[Monster Zero]

He doesn't have a reasoned argument at all. It's all buzz words and glossy magazine bullshit used to elevate himself above the rest of us.

I feel suitably humbled that I haven't studied philosophy, ha ha. Apparently that makes me of primary school intelligence. I mean, I have never laid claims to being the smartest cookie on earth but I thought I was at least secondary school level....

[KimyReizeger]

Yes, it does matter. One is a measured thought out process (desire) and the other is a natural response (instinct). You can bend interpretations round your argument all you like but they aren't correct interpretations.

.

'Desire' from Homepage | Dictionary.com

longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment

The desire for food when you're hungry, sleep when you're tired, respite from pain when you're in pain.

Desire can categorically go against natural instinct

.

To be honest I think this argument is totally diffused because I've never once heard an expression such as this, nor have I heard these two concepts pitted against one another. . The definition of desire above is pretty conclusive in presenting how a cow may want something, but if you guys want to continue suggesting that a cow's need to halt pain is not valid enough to not subject a cow to pain in the first place then go ahead.

[Guest droid]

I don't think I've ever heard of a cow having a personality.

My mate who grew up on a farm had a pet pig,it had to be put down at the end of it's life and wasn't eaten.Twas like one of the family.

[Monster Zero]

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.

We do. For food. For those who choose to eat meat. That's logical to me. Sorry if it doesn't match your view.

Maybe we should consult with Spock. He'd know.

[paranoid]

This doesn't sit with logic. Animals do suffer from being killed prematurely, as they are sentient beings.

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

[Monster Zero]

My mate who grew up on a farm had a pet pig,it had to be put down at the end of it's life and wasn't eaten.Twas like one of the family.

To be fair the pig was probably too old to be decent eating anyway.

[paranoid]

'Desire' from Homepage | Dictionary.com

The desire for food when you're hungry, sleep when you're tired, respite from pain when you're in pain.

.

To be honest I think this argument is totally diffused because I've never once heard an expression such as this, nor have I heard these two concepts pitted against one another. . The definition of desire above is pretty conclusive in presenting how a cow may want something, but if you guys want to continue suggesting that a cow's need to halt pain is not valid enough to not subject a cow to pain in the first place then go ahead.

Where is the instance of huge amounts of pain being felt by cows? 98% are stunned as they should be, and killed while knocked out. Animal slaughter is probably handled better than the death penalty is in many places throughout the world.

[Monster Zero]

"longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment"

Out of interest how on earth are these feelings determined from a cow?

[Alkaline]

'Desire' from Homepage | Dictionary.com

The desire for food when you're hungry, sleep when you're tired, respite from pain when you're in pain.

I see it differently: You need food when you're hungry (instinct), you need sleep when you're tired (instinct), you need respite from pain when you're suffering from it (instinct).

All those are natural responses to what your body needs not what you want. Desire is reserved for passion felt for a women/man, a dvd/game/cd or other physical object where it isn't an absolute life or death necessity to have it.

To be honest I think this argument is totally diffused because I've never once heard an expression such as this, nor have I heard these two concepts pitted against one another. . The definition of desire above is pretty conclusive in presenting how a cow may want something, but if you guys want to continue suggesting that a cow's need to halt pain is not valid enough to not subject a cow to pain in the first place then go ahead.

No, it's conclusive as to what a cow needs to survive (instinct) not to what it wants (desire). And there you go again by being patronising and putting words into people's mouths.

[Le Stu]

Humans recognise the brutal nature of the animal kingdom, the indifferent attitude of the lion to the zebra, and attempt to rise above it. In what other realm of life would you compare and justify yourself by reference to an animal? Animals have relatively low mental activity, lick their balls and eat their own shit:

I was actually challenging the notion that humans and animals are comparable.

Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are biologically evolved from omnivorous primates. This is not a play to nature, this is a fact. You may be convinced that a vegan diet is optimal for human health but I myself am not.

A lot of people seem to be stumbling on the idea that we consider ourselves as both superior to animals, yet also as equals (such as when they've been referred to as 'people'). Well, you probably consider yourself as superior mentally to a mentally disabled person. However, certainly mentally-disabled people shouldn't have their right to not be interfered with, abused and subjected to suffering reduced on the basis of their disability.

That a cow or disabled person is not aware of these complex philosophical arguments does not give you the right to subject said being to pain.

Yes but the cow is for eating and the mentally disabled person is not, from a human dietary perspective. As I previously stated, cannibalism is not widely known in humans.

[Skubbs]

To be honest I think this argument is totally diffused because I've never once heard an expression such as this, nor have I heard these two concepts pitted against one another. . The definition of desire above is pretty conclusive in presenting how a cow may want something, but if you guys want to continue suggesting that a cow's need to halt pain is not valid enough to not subject a cow to pain in the first place then go ahead.

Right so you're saying desire cannot go against instinct? Well since you're so happy to put cows and humans on the same level what about the example of self harming? Humans self harm through a desire for a "release" but this would obviously go against instinct which is to stop causing pain to yourself... Cows and Humans are different, Humans have desires and don't rely on instinct as much nowadays

[Rob_86]

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.

[Rob_86]

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.

[KimyReizeger]

I was actually challenging the notion that humans and animals are comparable.

It sounded as though you had invoked the 'indifference' found in hunter to prey in nature as a justification for humans breeding and slaughtering cows.

We are biologically evolved from omnivorous primates. This is not a play to nature, this is a fact. You may be convinced that a vegan diet is optimal for human health but I myself am not.

.

I'm not a vegan and have never lived without meat. I'd have to think hard before becoming vegetarian. I think what you said earlier is really accurate, that bit about not feeling sufficiently bothered by the prospect of pain at slaughter to stop eating meat. I'm the same: the pain felt by animals at slaughter does not currently weigh sufficiently upon my conscience for me to quit meat.

That said, I'm not going to be fool enough to suggest pain doesn't exist in animals, or that it's not relevant because they're less intelligent than us, that cows don't feel pain and don't want it to end, or that the fact that meat tastes nice is a moral argument for eating it!

[nullmouse]

But moreover my concern nutritionally is with the problems of vegan and non-vegan diets (as both could fulfil nutritional requirements with perfect balances). Vegan diets are low in Vit B12, which is something non-vegan diets are often low in too though - the only two folk I know who suffered from B12 deficiency (one was hospitalised) were avid meat eaters. However the non-vegan diets seem to have more disadvantages. Our intestines don't digest meat particularly well as they are too long, hence the presence of beef for prolonged periods etc, which is what they think causes colon cancer (though this isn't fully researched I stress, it's pretty convincing). The links between dairy and breast/prostate cancer are pretty strong (not like your average sensationalised news story), in fact I think Jane Plant did studies in which 80% of terminal breast cancers go into remission on vegan diets... And obviously there is heart disease caused by cholesterol, which you don't find on a vegan diet. This is of course based on excess, but any cholesterol is going to clog up your arteries which isn't particularly nice, and it will have some effect on your health wouldn't it?

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.

[paranoid]

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.

But you are in agreement that if animals were mistreated throughout their lives, the situation would be entirely unacceptable, but as it stands, we are making a concerted effort to ensure the animals are safe and well before they are killed. Surely that is a big thing and displays that most human of traits - compassion.

[Skubbs]

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

But we do view abuse of animals negatively, the argument the members on here are trying to get across are that cows are killed in as humane a way as possible. There will be no one way that satisfies everyone.

It's not as if we're letting the animals stand in their own filth, starve and beating them... Animals get taken off of people all the time, and people get charged and banned from having pets if they're seen as abusive owners.

It's not as if the members on this page are saying hurt and kill all animals. Yes kill the ones we eat but we're hardly going to eat them when the bloody thing is still walking around!

You keep mentioning slavery, well what is having a pet seen as? We claim ownership over another animal, so are you opposed to people having pets? As pointed out before, keeping an animal for food is seen as slavery no matter how well treated the animal is, so what about pet ownership?

Should animals just be left completely alone?

[KimyReizeger]

Right so you're saying desire cannot go against instinct? Well since you're so happy to put cows and humans on the same level what about the example of self harming? Humans self harm through a desire for a "release" but this would obviously go against instinct which is to stop causing pain to yourself... Cows and Humans are different, Humans have desires and don't rely on instinct as much nowadays

Cows want pain to end. Whether or not this is instinct or desire is irrelevant. You're just toying with words.

[Rob_86]

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).

[Alkaline]

That said, I'm not going to be fool enough to suggest pain doesn't exist in animals, or that it's not relevant because they're less intelligent than us, that cows don't feel pain and don't want it to end, or that the fact that meat tastes nice is a moral argument for eating it!

Who's suggesting that pain doesn't exist in animals? You've bounded off in a world of your own there mate.

[Alkaline]

Cows want pain to end. Whether or not this is instinct or desire is irrelevant. You're just toying with words.

No she's not, that is a perfectly valid example of a point well made. Just because it doesn't fit with an ideology that you've assembled from some hackneyed view of the way that humans and animals relate to each other doesn't mean it should be dismissed at all. You were busy a couple of posts ago saying that desire was relevant, you can't pick and choose things to suit yourself. Talk about rose tinted specs.

Of course cows want pain to end, but so does every other living creature so it isn't viable to base a whole concept on that and that alone in the case of a discussion like this.