Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Animal Welfare


Recommended Posts

It's possible that a move away from consumption of red meat, especially beef, due to health concerns has something to do with that. Also, we don't typically go for the internal organs these days when it comes to cuts of meat, which is unfortunate as the liver contains 80% of the vitamin B12 in the animal.

I'm currently enjoying Ardennes pate on crackers which contains around 47% liver, along with delicious pork connective tissue but I don't wish to put you off your thread...

Lol hmm by the same method I guess we could kill humans and eat the parts of them that do contain vit B12. However we used to get it, or developed a need for it, or do at the moment get it, to me it seems the most sensible option is supplements if you are worried about it, from personal experience with my friends. Both from an ethical or practical point of view. There's nothing particularly evil about creating/growing a particular vitamin to fortify food with due to practical or ethical concerns people may have.

is there a health based thread at all? Would be interesting, though I'm not sure how much use I would be in it!:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just we don't need cholesterol in our diet, and the point I would make is that it is dangerous to do so.

We do need cholesterol, it's essential for our bodies to function properly, and we synthesise it from our diet via saturated fats or by uptake from the diet. In either way, it's essential that we either obtain it or produce it. Cholesterol is carried around the blood by proteins that bind it, because cholesterol on it's own isn't a big fan of water. These proteins can be split between two classes, LDL and HDL, which stand for low-density or high-density lipoproteins. Saturated fats are linked with an increase in the synthesis of LDL, which results in a high circulating level of LDL in the blood. It's the LDL that's important and causes the health problems, the fact that it's bound to cholesterol is useful for diagnosis; LDL levels are not directly measured, but are indirectly assumed from measuring total cholesterol and HDL levels (HDL levels being the good kind of lipoproteins that helps transport cholesterol to where it's supposed to go).

So cholesterol is "good", what it's bound to may not be - The fact that high blood cholesterol is associated with health problems is because it's symptomatic of LDL, which can be as a result of too much saturated fat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do need cholesterol, it's essential for our bodies to function properly, and we synthesise it from our diet via saturated fats or by uptake from the diet. In either way, it's essential that we either obtain it or produce it. Cholesterol is carried around the blood by proteins that bind it, because cholesterol on it's own isn't a big fan of water. These proteins can be split between two classes, LDL and HDL, which stand for low-density or high-density lipoproteins. Saturated fats are linked with an increase in the synthesis of LDL, which results in a high circulating level of LDL in the blood. It's the LDL that's important and causes the health problems, the fact that it's bound to cholesterol is useful for diagnosis; LDL levels are not directly measured, but are indirectly assumed from measuring total cholesterol and HDL levels (HDL levels being the good kind of lipoproteins that helps transport cholesterol to where it's supposed to go).

So cholesterol is "good", what it's bound to may not be - The fact that high blood cholesterol is associated with health problems is because it's symptomatic of LDL, which can be as a result of too much saturated fat.

No I would agree with that stuff up there ^ even if it is a little sciency to the degree that i yawned when reading lol

Was just making the point that we don't need the actual cholesterol in our diet. I realise we need cholesterol to live and that our body makes it from certain things (like you said!) but I don't see any advantage to taking the excess cholesterol itself that the animal has made in it's body, in our diet. And from my understanding it is that which is the most important thing in things like heart disease (hence why it is a well planned vegan diet that reverses it), and not the cholesterol our body makes itself?

Sorry my grasp of health and nutrition is developing gradually, hence the simple way of putting things lol. I just can't stop thinking in terms of a badly/non-planned vegan diet is far better than a badly/non-planned animal product included diet (generally) - and so don't find the health discussion that important unless someone has a genuine deficiency or problem with one of the diets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't stop thinking in terms of a badly/non-planned vegan diet is far better than a badly/non-planned animal product included diet (generally) - and so don't find the health discussion that important unless someone has a genuine deficiency or problem with one of the diets.

What's your basis behind that? You say you are gradually learning about health and nutrition but come out with a statement like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans in Scotland have a large degree of freedom and have no immediate threat of death by slaughter. Therefore it makes little sense to invoke them as something you're protecting at the expense of animals. It is not the humans under threat on farms.

Furthermore, statements such as If this is wrong, then so be it, seriously undermine your contribution to moral debates.

What? I don't mean protecting humans from animals, I mean protecting humans from poverty, illness, each other, etc. It just worries me when people value *other* animal life more or equal to human life.

Sorry, I should have said "if you think that is wrong then so be it". Obviously I don't think it's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Kimy on this. If this was pre-racism era (and I know racism and speciesism aren't the same thing) then it would be pretty bad to look back on people's comments and see things written like 'I'm a racist remember, if that is wrong so be it'! The point of moral/ethical debate is to figure out what is wrong. If you think you have a reason that speciesism is okay in some instances, then the idea would be to say it. However if you resort to defending a personal preference against morality, then you're position becomes a little intenable.

I think what you really mean (correct me if I'm wrong.) is that you prefer humans, and do so unashamedly -and if THAT is wrong, then so be it. But of course that isn't wrong, at all (unless you take one of those odd Peter Singer utilitarian views!). However this isn't you acting speciesist, it's just having a preference. However, if you were to deny other animal their rights, purely on the basis of them being physically and mentally different to you, that is what is speciesist.

Why use that example then? o_O

Okay, so what are an animal's 'rights'? Who decides what they are? Animals obviously can't voice their opinion on the topic, so presumably we have to decide for them. So... Peter Singer decides? I decide? You decide?

I believe in animal welfare, but I don't believe that animals should have any inherent 'rights'. Again, that is a wholly human concept that we are trying to apply to animals.

So, I'm allowed to prefer humans? Ace. Well what if an animal has to suffer for the benefit of a human; say to test new cancer drugs or so someone without the luxury of a Western diet can eat and stay alive? Is that permissible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your basis behind that? You say you are gradually learning about health and nutrition but come out with a statement like that?

Well yeah, I'm gradually learning but it doesn't mean I know nothing! I just take this position as a badly planned vegan diet can leave you lacking B12, and other obscure things perhaps (which can cause problems, don't get me wrong) - but the heart disease risks (I mean 1 in 3 people die from this) and other growing cancer links, as well as the level of high protein and lack of nutrients in flesh would have me far more worried. That's just opinion that one, but the longer I've been vegan myself, the more I've realised that the problems with a vegan diet are mainly psychologically based (ie, it's a diet most people don't have, hence why the hundreds of myths).

To be honest it mainly comes from the fact that I had a bad non-vegan diet, and now have a relatively bad vegan one too - and I feel much healthier, and have noticed a couple of minor health complaints disapear (which was a bonus!). As I say, it's just my personal opinion and feelings on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand this

Well, rights relate to characteristics, you shouldn't discriminate between individuals on intellectual or physical grounds if the traits to use the right are equal, so hence animals have an equal claim to some rights by virtue of this (at the very least the right to live).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why use that example then? o_O

Okay, so what are an animal's 'rights'? Who decides what they are? Animals obviously can't voice their opinion on the topic, so presumably we have to decide for them. So... Peter Singer decides? I decide? You decide?

I believe in animal welfare, but I don't believe that animals should have any inherent 'rights'. Again, that is a wholly human concept that we are trying to apply to animals.

So, I'm allowed to prefer humans? Ace. Well what if an animal has to suffer for the benefit of a human; say to test new cancer drugs or so someone without the luxury of a Western diet can eat and stay alive? Is that permissible?

I use the example of racism sometimes, as although it isn't the same, the relevant points are the same to show some issues. Simple analogy methods.

If the problem is who decides the rights for the animal you interact with, then there is a problem also with the rights of new born and young children as well. We don't just give babies rights so as not to upset their parents, we do it as regardless of their ability to claim their right to life, or to decide they want it - they still are equal to it by virtue of their ability to experience it. Rights are only related to that one characteristic the right refers to.

<I believe in animal welfare, but I don't believe that animals should have any inherent 'rights'. Again, that is a wholly human concept that we are trying to apply to animals.>

This doesn't actually make any sense. If a superior race of beings came to earth, we would have to grant them rights, so it makes no sense to say rights are a 'human' concept - this example shows that if another species other than humans deserved them then we would have to grant them. However this also shows that we would grant superior beings the right, but not 'lower' beings. But if in their ability to experience their life the lower beings are equal (they too strive to stay alive, and to fulfil their desitres), it becomes a fairly untenable position to say they still do not deserve rights. You can't judge who has a right to life by appeal to someone's inteligence, their appearance, their physical abilities - and species sits in those categories. The difference you're pointing out, I think, is that we are used to giving humans and no other animals rights, and that this is what we currently do. There is no particularly strong argument for continuing doing it though.

<So, I'm allowed to prefer humans? Ace. Well what if an animal has to suffer for the benefit of a human; say to test new cancer drugs or so someone without the luxury of a Western diet can eat and stay alive? Is that permissible?>

I would agree that it can be. If someone HAS to kill and eat another animal, or even another human, there is no moral issue - at all. So the case, for me, is no different with the other methods needed for survival. I would bring up a few issues (which are probably a bit inappropriate for this thread) - if all species are equal in their ability to live, then one individual probably should not be torturing a second individual for the benefit of a third party unless there is some pretty strong moral justification (the path of human preference could be explored there). Secondly, humans can give fairly informed consent for medical studies, whereas no other animal can.

<Animals obviously can't voice their opinion on the topic, so presumably we have to decide for them. So... Peter Singer decides? I decide? You decide?>

Peter Singer shouldn't be allowed to decide anything. The mans an attention seeking nut case :up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? I don't mean protecting humans from animals, I mean protecting humans from poverty, illness, each other, etc. It just worries me when people value *other* animal life more or equal to human life.

.

No one is suggesting we place 'animals above humans', rather, that animals, by virtue of experiencing life, should enjoy the same right to retain life. Many animals hold characteristics found similarly in humans. Go and watch cows in a field, you'll notice that they're a curious bunch, who take an interest in and interact with their surroundings. We also know that they experience pain in much the same way as we do. As far as I'm aware pig organs can more-or-less be used in human bodies. Shared characteristics therefore provide a very strong argument for granting animals certain rights enjoyed by humans.

Regarding your repeated suggestion 'we should be sorting out our own species' first. Like I said, we are under no direct threats. Living in Scotland in the 21st century is pretty rosy; you're unlikely to die of either of those blights you've brought forth (illness or poverty). We have time and space to explore new moral ground where poorer societies do not.

In closing, I'll say, that the decision to stop doing something that is immoral is in fact good for humans. A clean conscience is certainly more rewarding and beneficial than a life spent with sirloins. Therefore don't assume quitting meat is all about denying the human, which in fact enjoys a greater moral awareness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not read the last fifty pages of this thread.

Can someone please sum it up in a sentence?

I considered writing a paragraph with no full stops in to fulfill this condition, but the 'don't be a twat' voice in my head over came that particular whim :D

My summation of the topic would be this for general health remarks:

Top Ten Food Choice Myths - Busted | Zerocarbonista

And this for the ethics/moral argument:

Culture & Animals Foundation

If someone comes up with any decent points that aren't covered (/aren't satisfactorily answered) in those short pages, then here after would be a good place to discuss it, I suggest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the problem is who decides the rights for the animal you interact with, then there is a problem also with the rights of new born and young children as well. We don't just give babies rights so as not to upset their parents, we do it as regardless of their ability to claim their right to life, or to decide they want it - they still are equal to it by virtue of their ability to experience it. Rights are only related to that one characteristic the right refers to.

No there's not, because I'm not suggesting we should give rights to babies on their ability to feel pain, etc. I'm suggesting that they have greater rights because thay are humans.

This doesn't actually make any sense. If a superior race of beings came to earth, we would have to grant them rights, so it makes no sense to say rights are a 'human' concept - this example shows that if another species other than humans deserved them then we would have to grant them. However this also shows that we would grant superior beings the right, but not 'lower' beings. But if in their ability to experience their life the lower beings are equal (they too strive to stay alive, and to fulfil their desitres), it becomes a fairly untenable position to say they still do not deserve rights. You can't judge who has a right to life by appeal to someone's inteligence, their appearance, their physical abilities - and species sits in those categories. The difference you're pointing out, I think, is that we are used to giving humans and no other animals rights, and that this is what we currently do. There is no particularly strong argument for continuing doing it though.

Argh! Species does not sit in those categories in the slightest. It is a massive jump to say because we treat humans equally regardless of their charcteristics that we should trreat other species in this way.

I still don't understand this basic point; if we are simply animals then surely we shouldn't feel morally obliged to not kill other animals? If we are simply the dominant species then it is in our nature to eat any other animal if it serves our interests. I don't think there has been any valid argument as to why this is even a moral issue in that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand this basic point; if we are simply animals then surely we shouldn't feel morally obliged to not kill other animals? If we are simply the dominant species then it is in our nature to eat any other animal if it serves our interests. I don't think there has been any valid argument as to why this is even a moral issue in that respect.

Animals don't have morality, but this is no basis on which to persecute them. Severely mentally-disabled people do not have....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... morality, but this is no basis on which to persecute them (sorry for nodding off there).

We aren't simply animals. We are out-with the Darwinian struggle for survival which animals in nature need contend with. We have a moral duty to spare at least a passing thought for any living creature which we interfere with.

As has been re-iterated countless times you can't justify your behaviour by reference to that of animals because animals do many things you wouldn't dream of doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No there's not, because I'm not suggesting we should give rights to babies on their ability to feel pain, etc. I'm suggesting that they have greater rights because thay are humans.

Argh! Species does not sit in those categories in the slightest. It is a massive jump to say because we treat humans equally regardless of their charcteristics that we should trreat other species in this way.

I still don't understand this basic point; if we are simply animals then surely we shouldn't feel morally obliged to not kill other animals? If we are simply the dominant species then it is in our nature to eat any other animal if it serves our interests. I don't think there has been any valid argument as to why this is even a moral issue in that respect.

<I'm suggesting that they have greater rights because thay are humans.>

This would be great if you could justify why this is a reason. If it isn't right to dicriminate on physical or intellectual terms in cases of race or sex, then neither is it in the other physical or intellectual boundaries. You are sort of proving the point that we give humans the correct rights (mostly) but deny other creatures our moral respect on irrelevant grounds. It is completely arbitrary to keep saying 'because they are human', as the right to life relates to life, not being human. Dead humans aren't granted a right to life lol. So long as there is a moral difference between a dead and living humans, then it is life that matters and not the physical categorisation of it.

<Argh! Species does not sit in those categories in the slightest. It is a massive jump to say because we treat humans equally regardless of their charcteristics that we should trreat other species in this way.>

I don't think we should treat animals and humans equally, I think we should treat inidividuals with equal claims to rights equally in those rights. That's a pretty logical way to look at it I would say. You're the one claiming that rights are given to humans 'just because' they are human. We don't lick lollipops just because they are lollipops, we lick them as they taste good (yes, that is a weird analogy). Similarly, we don't give humans rights as they are human, we give them rights as they are each individuals deserving of rights.

<I still don't understand this basic point; if we are simply animals then surely we shouldn't feel morally obliged to not kill other animals? If we are simply the dominant species then it is in our nature to eat any other animal if it serves our interests. I don't think there has been any valid argument as to why this is even a moral issue in that respect.>

This point has been answered a couple of times. Firstly, what is the exact argument you're trying to put across? We've already said that something being natural doesn't make it right, or a thing to be continued. We have also said that there are many humans who can not respect our rights, and that they still deserve rights - so it isn't about being able to act morally which grants a creature moral respect. So if you take these two points out of your paragraph, I don't think there is a lot left. It is appealing to have this idea of humans being top of a food chain, and it being natural to eat other creatures - but under scrutiny this argument does not hold up particularly well given what we know about moral logic, and what we know about animal life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...