Animal Welfare

[Rob_86]

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.

[Stichman]

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.

No, it is a terrible analogy. Disabled people are extremely unfortunate; they have been born with or developed a condition that means they are often no longer capable of the same mental processes as their fellow humans. We looks after and sympthise and care for disabled people because they are still people. Cows will never be people. They are cows.

[KimyReizeger]

It's not desire it's natural instinct.

Can you tell me why a being acting out of 'instinct' holds less rights to be free of pain than one which acts out of 'desire'?

[Alkaline]

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.

Anything that puts a base thought process onto it is different from a natural response to a situation. That's where the line between desire and instinct is in my mind.

You can't even apply desire to the way that a dog goes after affection as it a base pack instinct not a "mmmm her hands look soft i'd love to have them running over my fur" type of response. The dog is seeking a natural status within its pack (family) not personal gratification.

I don't masturbate because i have to, i masturbate because i desire to. There's no physical need for that process other than personal gratification. Human's use sex as both a method of personal gratification and spreading seed. When was the last time you saw a cow having sex for personal gratification. It's a base natural instinct for them.

[paranoid]

Cows will never be people. They are cows.

Quoted for truth, and to say I LOL'd a little.

[Rob_86]

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.

[Alkaline]

Can you tell me why a being acting out of 'instinct' holds less rights to be free of pain than one which acts out of 'desire'?

Aside from the end of their life when are they feeling pain? Nobodies talking about rights here in that respect other than you.

Animals have no concept of morality they are entirely ruled by instinct, we aren't.

[nullmouse]

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.

Cheers, I'd really appreciate a link. I wouldn't reckon there's much call for a conspiracy theory about suppression - There is a lot of data out there on diet and cancer risk, but nothing as profoundly striking as that. Diet is quite well researched, to be honest (we've got a whole institute in Aberdeen dedicated to it), and there are numerous credible and politically-independent scientific journals dedicated to peer-reviewed work on the subject.

[Stichman]

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.

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?

[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.

[Rob_86]

Cheers, I'd really appreciate a link. I wouldn't reckon there's much call for a conspiracy theory about suppression - There is a lot of data out there on diet and cancer risk, but nothing as profoundly striking as that. Diet is quite well researched, to be honest (we've got a whole institute in Aberdeen dedicated to it), and there are numerous credible and politically-independent scientific journals dedicated to peer-reviewed work on the subject.

Well no, but you have to remember that in America charities (especially the cancer charities) are run like businesses. There is very good dietary information, as you state, which involves cancer prevention - however they rarely will support these causes, instead working on the elusive cures. I would doubt our charities are run much better, especially from what I know of the british heart foundation anyway. As conspiracy based as it might sound, it is very difficult to get information out if there are interests that don't want it to.

Link wise, after having a brief look I could only suggest giving you a copy of the propogandha-promoted DVD with lecture on. Either that or buy/obtain the book in which she talks about it (this one I would imagine: www.JanePlant.com).

[ca_gere]

I'd agree some animals do have emotions. Obviously not as complex as a human's but Elephants mourning a lost one, those australian fat lizards that mate for life, primates in general, etc... a certain level of emotion can be proven.

But, a cow in an abattoir is not contemplating his immediate death. If it's in a field, it doesn't matter if that field is part of a beef processing plant or part of a friendly no-death-involved old mcdonald farm, it has no concept of either and if it leads a happy existence munching grass and whatnot in plenty of open space, it'll be as happy as larry untill it gets a sudden bullet in its brain at which point it'll simply be dead.

Arguing that we shouldn't kill animals in order to eat them because they are beings on a level with humans and have the same frames of reference (i.e. the same notions of suffering, an idea of morality, etc) as we do is wrong in my opinion. I can understand that not everyone feels that way but I always will.

It's like that old philisophical concept that if a lion was suddenly able to speak english we still wouldn't understand it. It's frames of reference are so far removed from ours, itd be gobbledygook.

[nullmouse]

Well no, but you have to remember that in America charities (especially the cancer charities) are run like businesses. There is very good dietary information, as you state, which involves cancer prevention - however they rarely will support these causes, instead working on the elusive cures. I would doubt our charities are run much better, especially from what I know of the british heart foundation anyway. As conspiracy based as it might sound, it is very difficult to get information out if there are interests that don't want it to.

Again, this doesn't tally with my experience. All the charities I've ever had dealings with have a policy of open-access publishing, where papers are submitted to journals that peer-review and publish research online and available for all. Admittedly, if your work was industry funded there would be clauses and caveats for what you can or can't publish, but for research funded by councils or charities there's no such clauses. Again, if this work was true and perfomed properly then journals would be tripping over themselves to publish it and the charity or council that funded it would be baying about it from up high.

Thank you for the offer of a shot of your DVD - It wouldn't satisfy me too much in terms of providing evidence that the study shows what is claimed, but it sounds like it would be an interesting watch

[Guest Hobo]

Surely if animals have emotions and so do we then eating meat is not wrong, eating meat is instinctual by way of hunting, farming is just a more efficient form of hunting - anyone who argues this is not the case can go right back to the beginning of the thread....

Its not wrong anyway but just thought id throw that in

[Stichman]

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.

No, I'm obviously not talking about pidgeons getting angsty or pigs getting grouchy. I mean that there is no way a cow is aware it is being reared to be eventually killed and eaten. It cannot grasp this and it never will be able to. They can probably experience fear, which is why the killing process should be as 'humane' as possible. Like what ca-gere says -

But, a cow in an abattoir is not contemplating his immediate death. If it's in a field, it doesn't matter if that field is part of a beef processing plant or part of a friendly no-death-involved old mcdonald farm, it has no concept of either and if it leads a happy existence munching grass and whatnot in plenty of open space, it'll be as happy as larry untill it gets a sudden bullet in its brain at which point it'll simply be dead.

Oh, and where are all these 'recent studies' you keep referring to?

Please tell me why animals should have 'equal claim in our moral thought'. Why should they? You are applying our human notion of 'life' to that of an animal. A pig is not a human with trotters. Why should I change my tastes? I don't think there is anything remotely morally wrong with eating animals. In that sense, it's not even a moral issue for me. Morals don't come into it. Why should we have some kind of obligation to not eat and kill animals? Again, if pigs were the dominant species, they'd have no problem with killing and eating me.

There is a massive contradiction in vegetarian argument - you would agree that we are all just animals, yeah? Then we should be able to eat anything we want. Just because we are capable of reason doesn't mean we should treat all other animals as equals. They aren't.

[Old Gold]

It got touched on by hobo earlier, but having a number of different food sources is a plus. If future human's did theoretically adapt to live farm animal free, wouldn't they be in danger of starvation if something dramatic happened to the massive crop of soya beans that were keeping them alive?

Also still to be addressed: where is the moral line? Cows and sheep are cuddly, but what about fish and insects? Less deserving?

[paranoid]

It got touched on by hobo earlier, but having a number of different food sources is a plus. If future human's did theoretically adapt to live farm animal free, wouldn't they be in danger of starvation if something dramatic happened to the massive crop of soya beans that were keeping them alive?

Also still to be addressed: where is the moral line? Cows and sheep are cuddly, but what about fish and insects? Less deserving?

What, like a potato famine? Can't see that happening, surely the vegetablists will have thought of that!

[Le Stu]

What, like a potato famine? Can't see that happening, surely the vegetablists will have thought of that!

At least they're safe from Guan-Di!

[Rob_86]

I'd agree some animals do have emotions. Obviously not as complex as a human's but Elephants mourning a lost one, those australian fat lizards that mate for life, primates in general, etc... a certain level of emotion can be proven.

But, a cow in an abattoir is not contemplating his immediate death. If it's in a field, it doesn't matter if that field is part of a beef processing plant or part of a friendly no-death-involved old mcdonald farm, it has no concept of either and if it leads a happy existence munching grass and whatnot in plenty of open space, it'll be as happy as larry untill it gets a sudden bullet in its brain at which point it'll simply be dead.

Arguing that we shouldn't kill animals in order to eat them because they are beings on a level with humans and have the same frames of reference (i.e. the same notions of suffering, an idea of morality, etc) as we do is wrong in my opinion. I can understand that not everyone feels that way but I always will.

It's like that old philisophical concept that if a lion was suddenly able to speak english we still wouldn't understand it. It's frames of reference are so far removed from ours, itd be gobbledygook.

Well I wouild say it isn't really about whether they now they are going to die or not. It's just a simple philosophical thought experiment that's needed to tell us that. Ie, if you have one individual human who is at the same intellectual level as say a pig, it wouldn't be right to farm and then kill to eat him (even if it was shown to be healthy food), so that says something about our moral stance on the matter. That pig is just an individual, so if you can live without killing and eating him (like in the example if you can live without eating the mentally impaired individual) then you arguably should.

I wouldn't advocate we treat animals well/don't use them because they are the same as us, I would advocate we treat them well because we can, and they can feel it if not. If we don't need to eat them, there is little reason to, regardless of how much they feel suffering etc - as the point is that they do.

[Rob_86]

Again, this doesn't tally with my experience. All the charities I've ever had dealings with have a policy of open-access publishing, where papers are submitted to journals that peer-review and publish research online and available for all. Admittedly, if your work was industry funded there would be clauses and caveats for what you can or can't publish, but for research funded by councils or charities there's no such clauses. Again, if this work was true and perfomed properly then journals would be tripping over themselves to publish it and the charity or council that funded it would be baying about it from up high.

Thank you for the offer of a shot of your DVD - It wouldn't satisfy me too much in terms of providing evidence that the study shows what is claimed, but it sounds like it would be an interesting watch

Yeah it is pretty interesting...will have to PM for your address or something. Either way be warned that it is a dvd made by a pro-vegetarian group, so ignore the first lecture (which is just propogandha and not health based at all!). The rest of it is good though, Jane Plant and Colin Campbell on there (he's always interesting I find).

[Rob_86]

No, I'm obviously not talking about pidgeons getting angsty or pigs getting grouchy. I mean that there is no way a cow is aware it is being reared to be eventually killed and eaten. It cannot grasp this and it never will be able to. They can probably experience fear, which is why the killing process should be as 'humane' as possible. Like what ca-gere says -

Oh, and where are all these 'recent studies' you keep referring to?

Please tell me why animals should have 'equal claim in our moral thought'. Why should they? You are applying our human notion of 'life' to that of an animal. A pig is not a human with trotters. Why should I change my tastes? I don't think there is anything remotely morally wrong with eating animals. In that sense, it's not even a moral issue for me. Morals don't come into it. Why should we have some kind of obligation to not eat and kill animals? Again, if pigs were the dominant species, they'd have no problem with killing and eating me.

There is a massive contradiction in vegetarian argument - you would agree that we are all just animals, yeah? Then we should be able to eat anything we want. Just because we are capable of reason doesn't mean we should treat all other animals as equals. They aren't.

'I mean that there is no way a cow is aware it is being reared to be eventually killed and eaten. It cannot grasp this and it never will be able to. They can probably experience fear, which is why the killing process should be as 'humane' as possible.'

If this provides reason to farm and eat cows, it justifies the same of any individual who has those same characteristics of unawaredness etc. And obviously that doesn't sit well with moral thought, hence why it isn't upheld as a point against animal rights. Well, it is on here, but not in the literature!

'Please tell me why animals should have 'equal claim in our moral thought'. Why should they?'

Well it's fairly simple. I don't treat human beings I meet with respect because they are human, I treat them with respect because they possess certain characteristics which deserve it. Similarly if an alien race appeared who had similar characteristics, I would treeat them with respect too - another thought experiemtn which shows it isn't 'being human' that matters, but instead it is the characteristics that humans have that matter. Well obviously pigs don't have our intelligence, or awaredness, or whatever else you like in this area. But they are individuals who experience their own life (which is the important things about humans) and so by virtue of this deserve the respect that goes along with it. They don't have intelligence on our level, so we don;t need to give them a right to vote. or right to education etc, but they do live , experience life and can suffer - so why wouldn't they be equal in these areas?

I think the mistake you're making is taking the physical boudaries of species and suing it to determine moral decisions. Whereas, of course, rights aren't given on basis of physical boudaries, they are given by virtue of intellectual characteristics. Amnesty may have you believe that 'protect the human' is the point, but it is really 'protect the individuals ability to suffer' which is the important thing. It's not as catchy though.

[Rob_86]

It got touched on by hobo earlier, but having a number of different food sources is a plus. If future human's did theoretically adapt to live farm animal free, wouldn't they be in danger of starvation if something dramatic happened to the massive crop of soya beans that were keeping them alive?

Also still to be addressed: where is the moral line? Cows and sheep are cuddly, but what about fish and insects? Less deserving?

ooh practical problem, does this mean that you've accepted the moral issue is important?! No point worrying about practical application if not!

If something happened to the soya crops you would have a hell of a job feeding the animals we currently keep, and infact even a massive amount less due to the amount cows eat and the amount we need to feed ourselves. If something happens to our crops we're buggered on both ends - animal use and non-animal use.

Again, the moral line is a practical application point. The best judge would be science, and judging which animals have nervous systems complex enough to feel emotion (by our best reckoning). I mean cows, pigs, chickens, fish etc obviously come above the line, comfortably. As for insects, I haven't researched it to be honest. My philosophy on the matter is, if you can't be sure then be careful. We have no idea if most insects suffer in a way which is important, but it's not like we need to eat them so until we can be sure leave the fine young critters alone - don't go out of your way to stamp on them, and if you do see one in the street, there is nothing wrong sidestepping it just in case!

[KimyReizeger]

Arguing that we shouldn't kill animals in order to eat them because they are beings on a level with humans and have the same frames of reference (i.e. the same notions of suffering, an idea of morality, etc) as we do is wrong in my opinion. I can understand that not everyone feels that way but I always will.

.

By that logic should the same happen with mentally-disabled people? Why should the mental attributes of a cow impact on its ability to suffer? This point has been dragged on somewhat because I don't think anyone can answer it.

[KimyReizeger]

I mean that there is no way a cow is aware it is being reared to be eventually killed and eaten. It cannot grasp this and it never will be able to.

Please tell me why animals should have 'equal claim in our moral thought'. Again, if pigs were the dominant species, they'd have no problem with killing and eating me.

Just because we are capable of reason doesn't mean we should treat all other animals as equals. They aren't.

This sums up an argument against your thought which has been running throughout the thread without answer. Speciesism:

Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973 to denote a prejudice based on physical differences.[1] "I use the word 'speciesism'", he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species [...]. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."[2]

Philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer have both argued against the human tendency to exhibit speciesism. Regan believes that all animals have inherent rights and that we cannot assign them a lesser value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants and the mentally impaired solely on the grounds of their being members of the supposedly superior human species.[5]

Speciesism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Le Stu]

Oh God, not speciesism... Humanity cannot even conquer racism, let alone our bizarre, uneven attitudes to other species. We simply paper over it and call that civilisation.

We eat cows because we eat cows. We don't eat dogs because we don't eat dogs. Vegans eat vegetables because vegans eat vegetables. And when our paper-thin civilisation rips in half, we'll eat vegetables, cows, dogs, cats, people of varying intelligence and our own bodies from the inside out.