Animal Welfare

[Rob_86]

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.

Haha the eternal optimist! I wouldn't like to be on the opposite side of you in a revolution.

[Bigsby]

"Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about."

[Le Stu]

Haha the eternal optimist! I wouldn't like to be on the opposite side of you in a revolution.

Don't worry mate, I keep at least a month's stash of food at home, and am therefore going to be a little late to the party

[Le Stu]

"Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about."

That reminds me of a girl I know who has a rather odd karmic approach to her diet. "Never eat anything that can eat you"

I did point out that a herd of stampeding cattle could crush her like a crisp but she remained adamant in her philosphy.

[nullmouse]

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.

A mentally disabled person, "but for the grace of God", is still a human - You might as well ask why we don't eat children. Being mentally disabled or not fully compos mentis for any reason does not make you into a cow, pig, sheep, dog, carrot or whatever you choose to eat (or not).

If that makes me sound specieist then I really don't care (as it's not analogous in any form to sexism or racism, and is astoundingly degrading to those civil rights fights to claim so) - I'd rescue a human from a burning house that I didn't know over a sheep any day, although I would worry about one person being alone in a house with a sheep.

To be clear, I have no problem at all with people eating meat or not eating meat and respect anyone who decides they do not personally want to impart suffering on another animal - I just don't find any of the arguments why I should be guilted into changing my diet that convincing.

[Rob_86]

This debate has got me thinking about some of the philosophical literature I have read on the subject. Especially on the sense of superiority we feel over other animals, and sense of complete uncomparability between us that we feel we want to attribute. This obviously comes from our development from a society which used to be Christian in base (and still probably is) and other such pre-evolutionary ideas.

A lot of arguments on here haven't just seeked to point out the moral capacity difference between humans and other animals, but has also clutched at other differences that we more than anything want to be there, or want to be relevant. Well evolution, i think, shows there are a lot of similarities between us and other animals, and the only significant difference is the ability to conceptualise, and the capacity for morality. However the ability to conceptualise doesn't give a being greater rights, and the capacty for morality is pretty worthless unless it is used to a reasoned conclusion (not ignoring the ideas of speciesism - ie, not attributing an individual lesser rights purely based on physical boudaries - regardless of whether they can protest it or not). And either way, neither allow us to believe we suffer more, in fact some would say quite the opposite.

I would just like to say, at my peril, that I think a lot of our emotion to reject humans and animals being 'basically' the same in terms of 'basic' rights, comes from a time of Christian moral values - the ideals of humans being a heaven sent shepherd for the planet. And, again I risk incurring somewhat of a heavenly revenge, but Christian ethics are mainly based on the desires of an arrogant mythical being - which is bollocks.

[Le Stu]

I don't know if anyone else has read Ishmael, but it's a great book for showing how weird and irrational our so called social norms are, from the subjective or perhaps even enlightened, viewpoint of another species (it wouldn't be much of a spoiler to explain that, but still....) It gets into the morality of one population eating another population and the justification for it is that it's just the way things are.

[Alkaline]

I would just like to say, at my peril, that I think a lot of our emotion to reject humans and animals being 'basically' the same in terms of 'basic' rights, comes from a time of Christian moral values - the ideals of humans being a heaven sent shepherd for the planet. And, again I risk incurring somewhat of a heavenly revenge, but Christian ethics are mainly based on the desires of an arrogant mythical being - which is bollocks.

I don't even want to get into that with you but you've already had a go at meat eaters, mentally impaired people and now you're taking a pop at religious people as well!

[Rob_86]

A mentally disabled person, "but for the grace of God", is still a human - You might as well ask why we don't eat children. Being mentally disabled or not fully compos mentis for any reason does not make you into a cow, pig, sheep, dog, carrot or whatever you choose to eat (or not).

If that makes me sound specieist then I really don't care (as it's not analogous in any form to sexism or racism, and is astoundingly degrading to those civil rights fights to claim so) - I'd rescue a human from a burning house that I didn't know over a sheep any day, although I would worry about one person being alone in a house with a sheep.

To be clear, I have no problem at all with people eating meat or not eating meat and respect anyone who decides they do not personally want to impart suffering on another animal - I just don't find any of the arguments why I should be guilted into changing my diet that convincing.

personally I wouldn't eat a mentally disabled person, not because of their social labels of being black or male, or of their physical labels of being human. I wouldn't eat them because I don't need to, and they have a right to live purely by virtue of being individually alive. That is how interactions take place (whether you kill the person yourself, or pay some one else to do it). So in the case of similar individuals who aren't human, the case is still the same and the exact same moral problem is present. You can't morally hide behind the labels of race or sex, so you shouldn't be able (in situations where the creature are mentally similar) to hide behind the labels of species - it doesn't make any logical sense.

[Rob_86]

I don't even want to get into that with you but you've already had a go at meat eaters, mentally impaired people and now you're taking a pop at religious people as well!

What? I haven't had a pop at anyone, I've simply used analogous thought experiments, which if you think are insults to those involved, then you aren't getting them!

Except for the Christian thing...yeah you have a point there, my bad. But there are far bigger problems with Christianity which are reasons we don't include Christianity in our moral decisions anymore!

[Alkaline]

What? I haven't had a pop at anyone, I've simply used analogous thought experiments, which if you think are insults to those involved, then you aren't getting them!

Except for the Christian thing...yeah you have a point there, my bad. But there are far bigger problems with Christianity which are reasons we don't include Christianity in our moral decisions anymore!

I personally have issues with you comparing mentally impaired people with animals as my sister is mentally impaired and she's a lot brighter than my dog and cat. You've slapped on the guilt trip by saying that anyone who does eat meat is immoral as well. I eat meat and i'm not an immoral person.

[Stichman]

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

Well I don't believe.

Infants have the capacity to be fully-fledged, functoning human beings. Eating them would be denying them the potential to live. I just don't believe that humans and cows should have the same rights.

Nobody has yet told me why we should feel obliged to not kill (other) animals, if we too are animals? They're fair game.

[Stichman]

this debate has got me thinking about some of the philosophical literature i have read on the subject. Especially on the sense of superiority we feel over other animals, and sense of complete uncomparability between us that we feel we want to attribute. This obviously comes from our development from a society which used to be christian in base (and still probably is) and other such pre-evolutionary ideas.

A lot of arguments on here haven't just seeked to point out the moral capacity difference between humans and other animals, but has also clutched at other differences that we more than anything want to be there, or want to be relevant. Well evolution, i think, shows there are a lot of similarities between us and other animals, and the only significant difference is the ability to conceptualise, and the capacity for morality. However the ability to conceptualise doesn't give a being greater rights, and the capacty for morality is pretty worthless unless it is used to a reasoned conclusion (not ignoring the ideas of speciesism - ie, not attributing an individual lesser rights purely based on physical boudaries - regardless of whether they can protest it or not). And either way, neither allow us to believe we suffer more, in fact some would say quite the opposite.

I would just like to say, at my peril, that i think a lot of our emotion to reject humans and animals being 'basically' the same in terms of 'basic' rights, comes from a time of christian moral values - the ideals of humans being a heaven sent shepherd for the planet. And, again i risk incurring somewhat of a heavenly revenge, but christian ethics are mainly based on the desires of an arrogant mythical being - which is bollocks.

"It's all the fault of the christians!"

Doesn't your apparent obsession with 'morality' stem from religion?

[ca_gere]

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.

Not really though because It's not about purely 'mental' attributes. Cows live on a completely seperate plane of reality, their signs and signifiers are so different to those of the human species that meaningful comparison of the two is futile.

e.g. Killing one cow has zero impact on other cows around it. Reasons for this are explained by the natural societal differences between human and cow such as the weak bovine maternal bond, the fact calves are born ready to walk and feed for themselves, the fact infant cows never pass that famous 'mirror stage' that we humans do where they recognise themselves in relation to the world around them.

Kill the calf of a young mother and that mother will just have another calf the next year, look after it for a bit then leave it to its own devices. Killing a mentally disabled person however, for whatever reason, has a huge number of direct and indirect effects. The parents and people around suffer, it is judged by society (or the rest of the herd if you like), etc. This doesn't exist in cowtown.

This hypothetical mentally disabled person may be mentally on the same level of a cow and view the world in a similar way. But, others around this person don't and so his/her's place in society is predetermined as being more meaningful than that of the cow's.

[Rob_86]

I personally have issues with you comparing mentally impaired people with animals as my sister is mentally impaired and she's a lot brighter than my dog and cat. You've slapped on the guilt trip by saying that anyone who does eat meat is immoral as well. I eat meat and i'm not an immoral person.

What, this is just made up. If you go back and check the posts, it is not all mentally impaired people who I am saying have the intellectual abilities of a cat or dog - just the one's that do, and there are people that do.

Well if you eat meat and don't think it is immoral that is what makes this discussion pointful, because the great moral arguments of our time seem to suggest otherwise. Hence why it's an interesting debate. Don't go getting all offended, it's just a debate, I'm not going to organise a mob to run you out of the city.

[Alkaline]

What, this is just made up. If you go back and check the posts, it is not all mentally impaired people who I am saying have the intellectual abilities of a cat or dog - just the one's that do, and there are people that do.

Well if you eat meat and don't think it is immoral that is what makes this discussion pointful, because the great moral arguments of our time seem to suggest otherwise. Hence why it's an interesting debate. Don't go getting all offended, it's just a debate, I'm not going to organise a mob to run you out of the city.

Yes there are people who have lower mental capacities than others but to say they are no better than a cat or a dog is ridiculous regardless. I think if you read ca_gere's post you'll see what i mean.

There are much greater moral arguments regarding how we treat our own species that we could do with concentrating on before we start over indulging trivialities like whether other animals should be allowed the same status as humans.

I'm not sure you veggies would be able to lift your arms above your head with that leafy diet nevermind run me out of town

[Rob_86]

"It's all the fault of the christians!"

Doesn't your apparent obsession with 'morality' stem from religion?

Touche! Your right our wants to do 'what's right' probably originated from religion, but I think they stretch deeper than that. Either way I haven't ever met anyone who disagrees with the idea that doing 'what's right' is a good idea. However when it comes to taking the other ideas that Christianity gave us, the vast majority seem foundation-less. Especially this idea of humans as heaven granted rulers of the planet, especially as science suggests we were once animals without our current characteristics, so making us moral animals rather than heavenly suppported rulers. That's all I was getting at really.

Well I don't believe.

Infants have the capacity to be fully-fledged, functoning human beings. Eating them would be denying them the potential to live. I just don't believe that humans and cows should have the same rights.

Nobody has yet told me why we should feel obliged to not kill (other) animals, if we too are animals? They're fair game.

I don't agree with this. Because if a young or impaired human wasn't going to develop into a fully fledged , functioning human being, then I would still respect their right to live equally - if not more. Hence if you would also agree with this, then the idea that this development matters is rendered unimportant on this particular issue.

As for the obligation to eat other animals, what is this meant to mean? Yes we are animals, but animals with morality! If we had no capacity for morality, there would be no obligation to act morally! Being animal doesn't give us reason to ignore our morality, it simply gives us reason to respect the other animals that share the traits of suffering with us. We are similar to other animals in suffering and being alive, but different in forms of morality - so can't act in ways that are relevant on each issue.

And the 'eye for an eye' theory doesn't make sense in relation to animals anyway. 'They would kill me, so I can kill them'. That's fine if we disregard determinism and use it as a way to kill serial killers, but animals don't think morally - they can't be held to moral obligations as they don't have the capacity for morality. Either way the theory for animal rights seems to come out on top.

This is an odd debate to be involved in for me - I keep hearing all the same arguments that I used to use, it's a little eerie.

[nullmouse]

personally I wouldn't eat a mentally disabled person, not because of their social labels of being black or male, or of their physical labels of being human. I wouldn't eat them because I don't need to, and they have a right to live purely by virtue of being individually alive. That is how interactions take place (whether you kill the person yourself, or pay some one else to do it). So in the case of similar individuals who aren't human, the case is still the same and the exact same moral problem is present. You can't morally hide behind the labels of race or sex, so you shouldn't be able (in situations where the creature are mentally similar) to hide behind the labels of species - it doesn't make any logical sense.

Granted a vegan wouldn't eat mentally disabled person or children, but nor would I (German homosexual cannibals aside). I wouldn't discriminate on grounds of race or sex because that would be calling someone less than human, and it is patently obvious that a cow is not, nor ever will be, a human. To me, racism and sexism is a world apart from speciesism and I would I sincerely doubt that an oppressed ethnic minority would take kindly to the suggestion that the plight of cows is akin to their situation.

Again, just to reiterate, we don't ascribe the same rights and weighting to animals no matter how much anyone posting here would like to think they're not speciesist: You'd save the human, screw the sheep. Not literally. That would be disgusting.

You don't need the speciesism argument to justify being a vegan, I'm happy enough conceding that it's your choice. It's untenable to justify a political change across the entire human population because it wouldn't be viable for anyone other than economically permissive societies - And we've got these societies by shafting more than just sheep and cows.

[Rob_86]

Yes there are people who have lower mental capacities than others but to say they are no better than a cat or a dog is ridiculous regardless. I think if you read ca_gere's post you'll see what i mean.

There are much greater moral arguments regarding how we treat our own species that we could do with concentrating on before we start over indulging trivialities like whether other animals should be allowed the same status as humans.

I'm not sure you veggies would be able to lift your arms above your head with that leafy diets nevermind run me out of town

That's kind of the point - you're still seeing it as 'if a human has the mental abilities of a cow, there still better than a cow', whereas the point is that it's not about being better than. In the right to experience these abilities, they are equal. Whatever your personal preferences are, the technical points are the same. There's nothing wrong with prefering a human life, but it doesn't give reason to go 'right humans are more important, protect all humans, and do what we like with the rest'. Hence why we vegans also advocate human rights and stuff (well, most of us) it's about life and respect, not animals being better.

[Alkaline]

That's kind of the point - you're still seeing it as 'if a human has the mental abilities of a cow, there still better than a cow', whereas the point is that it's not about being better than. In the right to experience these abilities, they are equal. Whatever your personal preferences are, the technical points are the same. There's nothing wrong with prefering a human life, but it doesn't give reason to go 'right humans are more important, protect all humans, and do what we like with the rest'. Hence why we vegans also advocate human rights and stuff (well, most of us) it's about life and respect, not animals being better.

You've kind of missed my point. Human beings should always be more important to their own species as they are the only basis that we can realistically project our own ideals upon. Each species is important to its own species. Other animals don't value human lives as an equal to their own.

[Old Gold]

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!

I accept that the moral issue is extremely important (anyone who didn't wouldn't be discussing it in this thread), however I think the morality of keeping future humans alive is just as great an issue as that of killing an animal to eat it.

Obviously animals need to eat large amounts of vegetation to keep them alive, but they can digest things that humans can't, allowing for a greater variety of food sources to be utilized. If a crop as important to the (relatively limited) vegan diet such as soya were to be blighted potato style, our hypothetical nationally herbivorous grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren could find themselves in the shit.

[Rob_86]

Granted a vegan wouldn't eat mentally disabled person or children, but nor would I (German homosexual cannibals aside). I wouldn't discriminate on grounds of race or sex because that would be calling someone less than human, and it is patently obvious that a cow is not, nor ever will be, a human. To me, racism and sexism is a world apart from speciesism and I would I sincerely doubt that an oppressed ethnic minority would take kindly to the suggestion that the plight of cows is akin to their situation.

Again, just to reiterate, we don't ascribe the same rights and weighting to animals no matter how much anyone posting here would like to think they're not speciesist: You'd save the human, screw the sheep. Not literally. That would be disgusting.

You don't need the speciesism argument to justify being a vegan, I'm happy enough conceding that it's your choice. It's untenable to justify a political change across the entire human population because it wouldn't be viable for anyone other than economically permissive societies - And we've got these societies by shafting more than just sheep and cows.

I don't think that'ds a particularly strong view, as show by the 'aliens' thought experiment (not the movie). If aliens discovered Earth and had the same abilities as us, but slightly better, they would be party to most of the 'human' rights we grant. Hence showing that these rights aren't 'human' rights at all, they are just rights. Just as skin colour should have no bearing on an individuals right to live, neither should number of legs, wooliness of fur, or intellectual abilities (after all, the less mentally able a human is, the mroe we protect them). The suggestion and case of 'speciesism', though not as techinical and compelte as the rest of the animal rights argument, is just as strong as the reasons against racism.

As for the economic viability, that's another practical issue. But given the efficiency of vegan diets (animals take many times their use as food, in feed, not to mention far more water than crops, and the harm on the environment which is just becoming publicised) then I would imagine society would flourish in the long run. And I'm no expert on the hunger issue, but given the inefficiency of animal products, isn't the figure of people who could be fed on them (or at least the recommended US diet with them in anyway) something like half the world. Food for the rich much? Even if we could solve the logistical problem of feeding the world, it's impossible without drastically cutting the idea that people need animal products.

[Rob_86]

You've kind of missed my point. Human beings should always be more important to their own species as they are the only basis that we can realistically project our own ideals upon. Each species is important to its own species. Other animals don't value human lives as an equal to their own.

No I do understand this, and would agree - you can always get on better etc with your own species (except many Aberdonian farmers I'm lead to believe) I think that's a very valid point.

But still doesn't make us any less obliged to respect the lives of these non-human animals. I mean you are meant to get on better with your own flesh and blood too, and have more feelings for protecting them, doesn't give you reason to go out and eat those other members of the human race. You don't have to 'love' all creatures like you 'love' you're family, but I think there is a moral case for respecting them and not doing anything to put them at harm which you don't need to do.

[Rob_86]

I accept that the moral issue is extremely important (anyone who didn't wouldn't be discussing it in this thread), however I think the morality of keeping future humans alive is just as great an issue as that of killing an animal to eat it.

Obviously animals need to eat large amounts of vegetation to keep them alive, but they can digest things that humans can't, allowing for a greater variety of food sources to be utilized. If a crop as important to the (relatively limited) vegan diet such as soya were to be blighted potato style, our hypothetical nationally herbivorous grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren could find themselves in the shit.

Not really, I don't think that's particularly likely. All vegans don't get in their diet is dead flesh (with very few nutritional qualities) dairy (which has a couple, but still relatively few) and eggs (barely any again). The few things that you do find in these things, are found in an abundance on vegan diets - in many different types of food. If something like soya were to be disastrously wiped out, there wouldn't be a great deal of difference. The key to addressning your concerns, I guess, would be not to plant too much of one thing wouldn't it? Soya is in a lot of vegan products, because people like it, but it isn't necesary.

[Bletheringvegan]

Wow, this has moved on at least 10 pages since I've last been able to post.

The question of variety is absurd, there's only a few types of flesh and only a few things you can do with reproductive excretions, yet there is a plethora of different vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains and whatever else we vegans eat.

I think someone said that you can't compare racism, sexism and homophobia to speciesism, I'd disagree with this. Although the contexts are different, the process of 'othering' is essentially the same.

I just had a quick skim through the last 10 pages so apologies if any of this has already been covered.