Animal Welfare

[Rob_86]

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

[HeinzHines]

A cow desires to not feel pain. Is this not a valid desire?

That is impossible to know if they do or not. We cannot communicate with cows, for all we know, they love being in pain. Stating what you think a cow may or may not feel is irrelevant because no one can truly know either way what they think.

[Monster Zero]

It is an obligation every one has, in my opinion, to 'preach' flaws in people's/society's reasoning when it comes to ethical issues, and I really hate this idea that people should be left alone to think whatever they like. I mean it's true, people have a right to do what they like, but not when it harms others needlessly.

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.

[Rob_86]

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.

[Monster Zero]

Some would say we were built to spread our seed as much as possible, which would suggest rape is moral, which of course it isn't.

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

[Shaki]

That is impossible to know if they do or not. We cannot communicate with cows, for all we know, they love being in pain. Stating what you think a cow may or may not feel is irrelevant because no one can truly know either way what they think.

on the other hand....

Do you think slaughtered cows view themselves as necessary sacrifices to the continuity of the cow species?

maybe they do.....

[KimyReizeger]

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.

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:

Appeal to nature is a fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural. In this type of fallacy nature is often implied as an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, should be, or are: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition.

Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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,

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.

[Rob_86]

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.

[Rob_86]

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!!

[Monster Zero]

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.

How about just accepting that some people accept that there are risks associated with eating TOO MUCH red meat and they do so because it tastes so damn good?

Seriously. Vegetables on their own are generally less appetising than with a nice piece of meat.

[KimyReizeger]

How about just accepting that some people accept that there are risks associated with eating TOO MUCH red meat and they do so because it tastes so damn good?

Seriously. Vegetables on their own are generally less appetising than with a nice piece of meat.

Go back. Read the thread. Then please post objections which haven't been covered extensively already.

[Monster Zero]

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.

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.

[Monster Zero]

Go back. Read the thread. Then please post objections which haven't been covered extensively already.

Go back. Read the thread. Then please post new veggie-centric arguments that haven't been repeated ad-nauseum.

Heed your own advice.

[Alkaline]

Go back. Read the thread. Then please post objections which haven't been covered extensively already.

Selective point dodging is your specialty my good man.

[KimyReizeger]

Is it actually desire, and not just instinct? Desire would hint at logical thought, whereas instinct tells the animal to avoid pain if it can help it.

Instinct / desire? Does it matter? A cow wants pain to end regardless of its inability to consider in depth why it wants it to end. Much in the same way a mentally-impaired person of the same intelligence of a cow wishes it to end. Quite why that doesn't constitute 'logical thought' I'm unsure: seems pretty logical to move away from fires when they burn you.

When my dog barks at cows most of them run off, presumably sensing danger and the prospect of pain, yet there will always be some who stay, perhaps reflective of their experience, age, and, for want of a better word, personality.

[KimyReizeger]

GodzillaBlues. This:

Seriously. Vegetables on their own are generally less appetising than with a nice piece of meat.

is not an argument which bears any relation to the morality of eating meat.

[Guest Hobo]

which is easier to keep in times of severe weather, droughts, flooding? Animals which can be mobilised or crops which cannot?

[KimyReizeger]

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

...and dressing your arguments in the garb of a particularly dim, primary school age child does little to change much either!

[Monster Zero]

Instinct / desire? Does it matter? A cow wants pain to end regardless of its inability to consider in depth why it wants it to end. Much in the same way a mentally-impaired person of the same intelligence of a cow wishes it to end. Quite why that doesn't constitute 'logical thought' I'm unsure: seems pretty logical to move away from fires when they burn you.

When my dog barks at cows most of them run off, presumably sensing danger and the prospect of pain, yet there will always be some who stay, perhaps reflective of their experience, age, and, for want of a better word, personality.

Is comparing mentally impaired humans to a cow morally correct? I find that a bit offensive, more so than the thought of animals bred for food being killed.

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

There's been a few instances recently of humans being trampled by cows - is this the uprising of the cow? The 'Amistad' incident of the bovine world.....

[Alkaline]

Instinct / desire? Does it matter? A cow wants pain to end regardless of its inability to consider in depth why it wants it to end. Much in the same way a mentally-impaired person of the same intelligence of a cow wishes it to end. Quite why that doesn't constitute 'logical thought' I'm unsure: seems pretty logical to move away from fires when they burn you.

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 can categorically go against natural instinct.

You can't keep comparing mentally impaired people to animals either, it's not morally correct to do so. Most mentally impaired people still have attributes that elevate them above animalistic behavior.

[KimyReizeger]

which is easier to keep in times of severe weather, droughts, flooding? Animals which can be mobilised or crops which cannot?

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

Eating meat is not currently a necessity.

[Monster Zero]

...and dressing your arguments in the garb of a particularly dim, primary school age child does little to change much either!

My word your pro-veggie arguments get more elaborate by the second.

Do you actually have any reasoned argument that didn't come from someone else's mind?

[Guest Hobo]

GodzillaBlues. This:

is not an argument which bears any relation to the morality of eating meat.

Very true, there is no moral in it, however it is how he justifies it, obviously, like most people doesn't see anything wrong with it.

However it could make a killer quadriplegic joke if worded correctly

[Le Stu]

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.

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.

[Alkaline]

My word your pro-veggie arguments get more elaborate by the second.

Do you actually have any reasoned argument that didn't come from someone else's mind?

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.