Animal Welfare

[Rob_86]

This is an interesting discussion. I don't eat meat, based on analysis of the arguments for and against (not much to do with outward emotional reaction). I think someone made the argument that we are natural meat eaters, and that we need meat to be healthy - well of course there is equal argument to say cutting meat out is healthier nowadays, and the natural argument doesn't make a lot of sense in a couple of ways (it's not particularly natural to be a meat eater which suffers from cholesterol intake - no other meat eating creature does regardless of the amount. And of course our naturally developed moral capacity shouldn't be ignored in favour of questions of 'naturality').

As for the actual 'moral' argument, I find this most interesting of all. Someone earlier said

'I like the taste of meat. I like the texture of meat. I would categorically not have a problem killing and eating any one of you lot or another human being i wasn't emotionally attached to (though if they were dead already i wouldn't have a problem eating them) if the need arose.'

As much of a joke this was meant to be (I think..), it kinda sums up the issue. If it isn't right to farm or kill other individual humans for your diet when you don't have to, then it is very difficult to say it is okay to do so to other animals. If you are of the disposition that eating humans appears to be moral, then there should be no problem eating animals. However if you disagree with eating one but not with the other, then you have a job pointing out what the difference is that allows for it. Society assumes it is okay to eat animals because of the weaker 'natural' or 'other animals do it' arguments, but in reality it isn't right to discriminate on physical or intellectual factors (and thats what species difference is).

As for animal welfare, I found this a difficult position to hold, and no longer do. The case for not consuming animals, and therefore not farming them, is the most compelling one to me - and is as strong as most of the other great social change causes over the last 200 years from a logical stand point. All I see that welfare does is preach the weird view that's it's alright to kill things needlessly so long as it is done nicely - and I can't find a way to support that with reason. I mean it's true that if animals are going to be used (and I'd imagine they will be for the rest of my lifetime) then they should be used as nicely as possible, but I think this just appeases people's consciences without ever needing to switch to do what's right.

Anyway it's an interesting issue, and will be nice to see what other folk think about it.

[Alkaline]

As much of a joke this was meant to be (I think..), it kinda sums up the issue. If it isn't right to farm or kill other individual humans for your diet when you don't have to, then it is very difficult to say it is okay to do so to other animals. If you are of the disposition that eating humans appears to be moral, then there should be no problem eating animals. However if you disagree with eating one but not with the other, then you have a job pointing out what the difference is that allows for it. Society assumes it is okay to eat animals because of the weaker 'natural' or 'other animals do it' arguments, but in reality it isn't right to discriminate on physical or intellectual factors (and thats what species difference is).

Oh, it wasn't a joke. I would have no problem eating human unless it was someone i had an emotional attachment to (Like i said though, if they were dead already i wouldn't have a problem). I would have no problem killing a human being for food should the need arise either.

Animals don't display morality in nature when it comes to eating so i'm not willing to either. Obviously i don't think that animals being farmed for consumption should be mistreated but killing is killing and is never going to be done in a manner that is moral enough for everyone.

I remain unmoveable on the meat front. I'm not being made to feel guilty for enjoying eating it either.

[Le Stu]

Thinking about this further, the connection between vegetarianism and animal welfare seems unclear. Sure, a domesticated farm animal's life comes to a brutal, if swift, end but up to that point they are fed well, treated against disease and protected from predators. They face none of the hardships of their wild counterparts. Their welfare during life is almost assured.

I see some posts in the thread make a comparison between farming and slavery. This is an issue of self-determination or free-will, not quality of life. I would suggest that makes a far more compelling argument for vegetarianism.

[Rob_86]

Oh, it wasn't a joke. I would have no problem eating human unless it was someone i had an emotional attachment to (Like i said though, if they were dead already i wouldn't have a problem). I would have no problem killing a human being for food should the need arise either.

Animals don't display morality in nature when it comes to eating so i'm not willing to either. Obviously i don't think that animals being farmed for consumption should be mistreated but killing is killing and is never going to be done in a manner that is moral enough for everyone.

I remain unmoveable on the meat front. I'm not being made to feel guilty for enjoying eating it either.

So long as that's the case, you're view isn't unreasonable in any way. So long as you're consistent with it like that. I don't have a problem with telling people their views are wrong but only if it is inconsistent, otherwise it is just preaching opinion. I haven't met many people who would say killinbg/eating humans is fine and moral to them, but fair do's if that's what you honestly believe.

I don't get this though 'Animals don't display morality in nature when it comes to eating so i'm not willing to either. Obviously i don't think that animals being farmed for consumption should be mistreated but killing is killing and is never going to be done in a manner that is moral enough for everyone.'

Surely you dont treat animals, as they treat others?! You do realise they have no capacity for morality? Would be akin to throwing up on a baby or something. Either way, they don't have particular respect for treating their prey 'right', so if you do stuff because they do it, then you should have no need for being arsed about how they are treated. Otherwise it would be a bit of a mixed up view.

[Rob_86]

Thinking about this further, the connection between vegetarianism and animal welfare seems unclear. Sure, a domesticated farm animal's life comes to a brutal, if swift, end but up to that point they are fed well, treated against disease and protected from predators. They face none of the hardships of their wild counterparts. Their welfare during life is almost assured.

I see some posts in the thread make a comparison between farming and slavery. This is an issue of self-determination or free-will, not quality of life. I would suggest that makes a far more compelling argument for vegetarianism.

Le Stu, I think you've hit on the animal rights vs. welfare debate - this guy would suggest that welfare has nothing to do with rights and vice versa for similar reasons to what you said - and hence that welfare has little strength of argument behind it. Whether that be right or wrong, I personally think he's got a point.

Edit: just realised that link doesn't actually explain the view, it's just his blog post, but I'm sure you can find it on the rest of that site

[Shaki]

If it isn't right to farm or kill other individual humans for your diet when you don't have to, then it is very difficult to say it is okay to do so to other animals.

I don't find that difficult at all.

[Alkaline]

Surely you dont treat animals, as they treat others?! You do realise they have no capacity for morality? Would be akin to throwing up on a baby or something. Either way, they don't have particular respect for treating their prey 'right', so if you do stuff because they do it, then you should have no need for being arsed about how they are treated. Otherwise it would be a bit of a mixed up view.

In a position where an animal would treat me in the same manner that it would treat another animal i would treat it as it would treat me.

I don't get what you're saying here actually. I can independently have no moral issue with an animal being killed for consumption but have a moral issue with them being mistreated up until slaughter. I guess that's where i draw the line though.

If there was no meat available i would eat something else.

[KimyReizeger]

Animals don't display morality in nature when it comes to eating so i'm not willing to either. .

Don't you think that as thinking beings we should be able to elevate our actions above those of animals? I'm pretty sure that in no other realm of life you would justify yourself in this way. The likenening of a human with an animal is generally perceived as quite insulting, appearing in relation to the dirty, base or violent behaviour of said person.

[KimyReizeger]

I don't find that difficult at all.

Would you eat dog?

[Shaki]

Would you eat dog?

I wouldn't eat someone's pet dog unless I had to but I reckon if I was in a country where dogs were reared for meat and I was offered it then I would.

[Alkaline]

Don't you think that as thinking beings we should be able to elevate our actions above those of animals? I'm pretty sure that in no other realm of life you would justify yourself in this way. The likenening of a human with an animal is generally perceived as quite insulting, appearing in relation to the dirty, base or violent behaviour of said person.

Human's don't live in a particularly natural environment under animalistic constraints and rules though. Remove us from our un-natural habitat and we're just like them but smarter.

If you're wanting to be funny about it then just look at the way humans treat each other as an example.

[Alkaline]

Would you eat dog?

If i had to yes, it obviously wouldn't be my first choice on the menu but i wouldn't throw a pissy fit and get all "OMG It's a dog! I can't eat that!".

[Shaki]

If i had to yes, it obviously wouldn't be my first choice on the menu but i wouldn't throw a pissy fit and get all "OMG It's a dog! I can't eat that!".

Many meat eaters (particularly dog owners) would throw said pissy fit of course but rather than that being an inconsistency in their moral approach I can see that as a valid personal choice. I like live dogs therefore I won't eat a dead one. That's ok with me.

[paranoid]

Don't you think that as thinking beings we should be able to elevate our actions above those of animals? I'm pretty sure that in no other realm of life you would justify yourself in this way. The likenening of a human with an animal is generally perceived as quite insulting, appearing in relation to the dirty, base or violent behaviour of said person.

Sorry to bring up a glaring inconsistancy in the veggie argument, but where do animals get placed in this argument? One minute they are equal to humans in their rights and the way they should be treated, now we are being asked to "elevate our actions over those of animals".

They are either on an equal footing, or we are superior. Which is it?

[paranoid]

Many meat eaters (particularly dog owners) would throw said pissy fit of course but rather than that being an inconsistency in their moral approach I can see that as a valid personal choice. I like live dogs therefore I won't eat a dead one. That's ok with me.

I like cows. They look nice in a field on a summers day. Baby ones are cute.

I still eat them.

I'd eat dog, like Alkaline I wouldn't go out of my way to try and eat it but if the chance came up, I'd give it a try.

[Le Stu]

Le Stu, I think you've hit on the animal rights vs. welfare debate - this guy would suggest that welfare has nothing to do with rights and vice versa for similar reasons to what you said - and hence that welfare has little strength of argument behind it. Whether that be right or wrong, I personally think he's got a point.

Edit: just realised that link doesn't actually explain the view, it's just his blog post, but I'm sure you can find it on the rest of that site

I read the blog entry titled "Its Time for a Change" and I got the gist of his argument, even if that wasn't the specific post you referred to. He makes a compelling argument, based on the premise that people should care about the slavery of other species if we care about our own. Of course, we only really started caring about human slavery when it was becoming largely obsolete due to industrialisation and capitalism (the feudalism preceding it being arguably a state of slavery for most.) Perhaps when convincing meat replacements, possibly vat grown, become available we will suddenly come over all abolitionist ourselves.

[KimyReizeger]

I wouldn't eat someone's pet dog unless I had to but I reckon if I was in a country where dogs were reared for meat and I was offered it then I would.

So we can say eating habits are culturally specific and differ greatly across the world. We once had a culture of burning people over their religious beliefs; cannibalism probably goes on to this day. You'd clearly be happy to follow the conventions of whatever culture you're brought up in, which rather negates what you have to say on moral issues. 'I'd eat dogs if my parents did', is pretty much what you're saying.

These staple, accepted ideas (such as meat eating) which still have a strong, popular and accepted position within society, are the ones which are most resistant to change -as pointed out earlier in the thread, many were stubborn to the abolishment of slavery, though we'd all now agree that was a positive and correct step. Try to step outside the conventions and inherited attitudes of your own culture whilst attempting to analysis them. An objective morality must exist. There must a 'right' way to live. Blindly following the practices of forebears does little to approach this goal.

[Alkaline]

So we can say eating habits are culturally specific and differ greatly across the world. We once had a culture of burning people over their religious beliefs; cannibalism probably goes on to this day. You'd clearly be happy to follow the conventions of whatever culture you're brought up in, which rather negates what you have to say on moral issues. 'I'd eat dogs if my parents did', is pretty much what you're saying.

These staple, accepted ideas (such as meat eating) which still have a strong, popular and accepted position within society, are the ones which are most resistant to change -as pointed out earlier in the thread, many were stubborn to the abolishment of slavery, though we'd all now agree that was a positive and correct step. Try to step outside the conventions and inherited attitudes of your own culture whilst attempting to analysis them. An objective morality must exist. There must a 'right' way to live. Blindly following the practices of forebears does little to approach this goal.

Are you a nudist?

[paranoid]

Are you a nudist?

Hope not, where would he keep his cigarettes?

[KimyReizeger]

Sorry to bring up a glaring inconsistancy in the veggie argument, but where do animals get placed in this argument? One minute they are equal to humans in their rights and the way they should be treated, now we are being asked to "elevate our actions over those of animals".

They are either on an equal footing, or we are superior. Which is it?

I've no idea regarding 'the veggie argument', nor have I personally suggested at any point that animals should treated on some kind of equal footing as humans, whatever that means.

Would you eat a mentally disabled person due to their inability to comprehend the world or understand it to the same level as you? Of course not. We do what we can to help the needy and the poor, providing education, healthcare and creating institutions to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all people. The animal world works on a completely different scale, involving a struggle for life, a brutal heirarchy that weeds out and destroys the weak. An apt analogy for us meat-eaters could perhaps be the 19th century trader; the arch-capitalist taking advantage of the weakness of others. Ideologies have been created to dispel such inequality, and perhapswe should use our mental superiority as a force for good rather than perpetuate the subordination and enslavement of other creatures, despite their inability to comprehend the situation. What do you think?

[scottyboy]

Tomorrow I think I'm going to step outside the inherited attitudes of my own culture and eat a dog.

[Le Stu]

The other argument I find very weak is the 'would you eat another person' argument. Human beings are not widely known for cannibalistic feeding habits. It's the same for us as it is for many other species. We have our preferences for certain species and don't feed upon our own. Not that we don't kill our own for other reasons, and we may just be the most homicidal species on the planet for those.

Of course, who else can cull our numbers except for us? A human armed with technology is more dangerous than all the bears in Alaska and we are seldom prey for other species these days.

[paranoid]

I've no idea regarding 'the veggie argument', nor have I personally suggested at any point that animals should treated on some kind of equal footing as humans, whatever that means.

I was referring to the thread as a whole. One person tells us animals are equal, another that we are superior.

Would you eat a mentally disabled person due to their inability to comprehend the world or understand it to the same level as you? Of course not. We do what we can to help the needy and the poor, providing education, healthcare and creating institutions to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all people. The animal world works on a completely different scale, involving a struggle for life, a brutal heirarchy that weeds out and destroys the weak. An apt analogy for us meat-eaters could perhaps be the 19th century trader; the arch-capitalist taking advantage of the weakness of others. Ideologies have been created to dispel such inequality, and perhapswe should use our mental superiority as a force for good rather than perpetuate the subordination and enslavement of other creatures, despite their inability to comprehend the situation. What do you think?

What are the circumstances that have led to me turning carnivore?!? Have the veg-nazis released all of the cows to frolic in the wild, or is there some major disaster? If it is the latter, and I'll warn you, you won't like this, then survival of the fittest kicks in, so the old, young and weak are top of the menu.

If it was a toss-up between going to a butcher to buy steak, or down to Cornhill to bump off a patient and stick them on a BBQ, then obviously the butcher would get my custom.

Can we go back to reality now please, I don't like being a cannibal while there are tasty cows all over the place...

[KimyReizeger]

What are the circumstances that have led to me turning carnivore?!? Have the veg-nazis released all of the cows to frolic in the wild, or is there some major disaster? If it is the latter, and I'll warn you, you won't like this, then survival of the fittest kicks in, so the old, young and weak are top of the menu.

If it was a toss-up between going to a butcher to buy steak, or down to Cornhill to bump off a patient and stick them on a BBQ, then obviously the butcher would get my custom.

Can we go back to reality now please, I don't like being a cannibal while there are tasty cows all over the place...

The situation leading to you being a carnivore is simply your existence within a meat-eating society. Thankfully we live prosperous, well-fed times where living can progress beyond an animalistic survival-of-the-fittest system. Meat-eating is not necessity, as expressed earlier.

Employing the 'survival of the fittest' term therefore doesn't cut it in the 21st century, and indeed, the 19th century either.

Critics of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.[13] However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way.

It has also been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to "social Darwinism" which allegedly glorified laissez-faire economics, war and racism[16].

Snippets from wiki:

Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[paranoid]

You were doing fine until you used Wikipedia as a source to back up an argument.