(Poll) Ethics of eating meat

[mr friendly guy]

Oh look, a newly converted vegetarian is now going to preach at everybody. Wow, there's something I've never seen before. You know what, I find this kind of crap so annoying that I'm going to go out of my way to eat as many different animals as possible this week.

Hey, in my fridge I have salmon, bacon and bison! Look at that, I even have a theme now. Everything I eat today is going to end in -on.

I will double you.

While your statement isn't an argument per se, I think you are spot on as his post seems to smack of that attitude you described.

Seriously, lets address a few points.

1. its wrong to eat animals imply they have rights. Humanism would argue we have rights because of our intelligence. What is the rationale for animal rights? Why should they have rights, but not plants? If people are going to say they have intelligence that would of course vary between animals. Cows and pigs aren't exactly as smart as dolphins or whales. Most people don't eat whales, and if you point out Japan I will point out its actually not that popular a meat even in Japan, the hunting is kept going for political reason.

Lets assume this (animal rights for common consumed animals) is demonstrated then we go to the next point.

2. If its not wrong to eat meat if there is no other food and we are starving, that implies that we humans have greater rights. One purpose of moral systems is to maximise human happiness. If someone is happy eating meat and it causes no distress to another human why should it matter, given that our rights outweigh the animals.

3. It makes more ecological sense - blah blah blah global warming, less costly etc.

Yes this is true. However if we were to make sacrifices in our consumption for environmental reasons (and I am not adverse to this per se) it would be because it benefits humanity as a whole and not because it benefits animals. If eating meat was immoral in itself, people would be able to argue that without needing to start talking about "added benefits" to being vegetarianism.

[Mayabird]

Actually, pigs are rather smart. Cows and chickens might be a better example, as they're dumb. Fish and insects even better.
[line 2]

[Flagg]

Oh look, a newly converted vegetarian is now going to preach at everybody. Wow, there's something I've never seen before. You know what, I find this kind of crap so annoying that I'm going to go out of my way to eat as many different animals as possible this week.

Hey, in my fridge I have salmon, bacon and bison! Look at that, I even have a theme now. Everything I eat today is going to end in -on.

Oh look, the only thing more annoying than a newly converted vegetarian: A douchenozzel that tries to be a macho asshole by bragging about how much meat he's going to eat in order to try and make a vegetarian feel bad.

[The Kernel]

Is it unethical to eat termites? They eat stuff useless to us as food, and they are edible - there are societies where they are sought out as a delicacy. I would say that if eating animals in unethical then you have to include things like termites. If it's not unethical to eat insects when it is unethical to eat cows then the person making the claim needs to explain the distinction.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. If you look at the prevailing opinion from those who argue such things, so called "vegans" believe in not killing or using the product of any animals including bees (honey) or using scrap parts from animals in things like clothing and shoes. Ethically I'd say that's a consistent position, but then you still have to form SOME kind of hierarchy of life. After all, is it really wrong to kill pests like mosquitos or even crop pests? What about animal testing for medical purposes?

The most obvious connection of the value of life would be intelligence but why? We don't value human life based on intelligence (indeed, the variance of intelligence from the bottom 5% to the top 5% of humans is striking). Perhaps sentience is what really defines whether something deserves ethical treatment, but it is a very difficult thing to judge sentience. Are ants sentient or are they just hardwired to respond the way they do?

Obviously this is opening up some greater issues around the rights of living beings (or how we even define living beings) and for the life of me I can only think of two consistent ethical positions to take:

1) Humans are the only form of life that matters, everything else doesn't have an innate rights although we may choose to treat them with such.

2) All creatures that display individual behavior and demonstrate some form of intelligence (pretty much everything above an insect) deserves rights to life. Humans can still get preferential treatment under this philosophy but only in the cases where survival is at stake.

[Rye]

A bit of background:

I recently decided to become a full-blown vegetarian, mostly prompted to do so after reading about the bluefin tuna and realizing that it was mostly my love of seafood that kept me from making this lifestyle change in the first place. So rather than take no action after realizing that my lifestyle choice was contributing to mankind's habitual overfishing, I decided to do something about it.

Good on you.

I never really thought that eating meat was inherently wrong, but now that I've given it up for ecological reasons I'm starting to wonder if that belief wasn't just motivated by inertia and my self-interest around wanting to continue eating meat. For the life of me I can't find a good reason why eating meat ISN'T wrong--our bodies are perfectly capable of surviving on a vegetarian diet (in fact all the data suggests that it is in fact much healthier to do so) and there doesn't seem to be any justification for eating meat aside from "it tastes good".

There really isn't one. I say this as a meat eater, I only eat meat because it tastes good. It's not really ethically justifiable beyond "it's better than life in the wild" and the fact that the meat industry will only change if people who continue to eat meat who are interested in animal welfare apply some market force towards more ethical farming.

I'm not quite ready to start bombing meat packing plants just yet, but I wanted to figure out if anyone can suggest some counter-arguments for my conclusion that killing animals for the purpose of consumption doesn't make any logical sense and is immoral. I'll start by my responses to a few common ones.

Argument #1: Animals kill other animals in nature for food.

My reaction: I thought the whole point of civilization was that we were supposed to be better than our animalistic tendencies. So this argument seems silly to me.

In short, we're not. We are animals and it is a foolish form of denial to expect us to be beyond sadism, rape, murder or eating meat. We kill other animals though we can get by without doing so. We are greedy. We mostly eat out of desire, not need. That's also why the west is full of people who've eaten so much they'll die as a result. It is an injustice, and anyone who reads about the terrible conditions of the cattle farmed here SHOULD feel bad if they are not total cunts.

Argument #2: Animals aren't people and don't deserve the same rights as we do.

My reaction: I certainly think people come first, but why does this mean that animals shouldn't get a certain basic level of inherent rights? We already have laws against animal torture...doesn't it follow that animals have the right not to be killed purely for the pleasure of humans? And let's face it: consumption of animal meat is NOT about survival, it is purely about pleasure.

EDIT: Added a poll.

We have laws against zoophilia but not slaughter. What is clear is that people are a type of animal, evolution has long since shown that we are essentially highly divergent sea cucumbers with a front end, a back end and a digestive tube in the middle. The only reason animal slaughter is understandable and acceptable is due to it being habitual. Animals experience as we do, they suffer as we do, we sympathise with them as we do members of our own species. And why not? Intelligence? Oh yeah, I'm sure you'd slaughter and eat your brain damaged kid. Consciousness? Consciousness makes up a tiny part of human existence and experience. Other animals are conscious too, just in different ways. Humanism is a position taken only out of a sort of blind chauvanism.

My position is that I'm less than ideal, as everyone is. Life is suffering, and if the farm gives a form of life superior to that in the wild, I don't mind eating the animals involved. I eat a reduced meat diet and attempt to only eat meat from decent free range local producers. This doesn't make me perfect, but it makes me better than most people in the world. Ideally, I would eat vat grown meat and not contribute to the suffering of real live animals.

1. its wrong to eat animals imply they have rights. Humanism would argue we have rights because of our intelligence.

No, humanism would argue we have rights because we're humans. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Humanists wouldn't agree with a more intelligent species coming here and subjecting us to factory farming, would they? Humanists wouldn't farm humans with severe retardation for food would they? "Intelligence" is an argument of convenience for the humanists, as ultimately their position of singular human dignity and seperateness from the animal kingdom is faith based, one inherited from Christianity and its absurd notions of souls, self-denial and free will.

What is the rationale for animal rights? Why should they have rights, but not plants?

People have rights because there's a desired end for less suffering, they only suffer because their animal evolution provided it. There's no argument for the reduction of suffering that doesn't also apply to other species; no altruism, no responsibility, no desire to avoid cruelty.

If people are going to say they have intelligence that would of course vary between animals. Cows and pigs aren't exactly as smart as dolphins or whales. Most people don't eat whales, and if you point out Japan I will point out its actually not that popular a meat even in Japan, the hunting is kept going for political reason.

Intelligence isn't key to happy, ethical human life. Conscious thought that gets broke is termed "schizophrenia". Conscious thought is the subject of unconscious processes like neurotransmitters, when they go wrong you get people stuck with aggression and depressive thoughts. Your body starts to do things whole seconds before your conscious mind realises a decision has been made. There are many times when conscious thought is a hindrance rather than a help, for instance, when you become a master of a musical or artistic instrument, obsessing over every tiny movement will make you sound like shit.

2. If its not wrong to eat meat if there is no other food and we are starving, that implies that we humans have greater rights. One purpose of moral systems is to maximise human happiness. If someone is happy eating meat and it causes no distress to another human why should it matter, given that our rights outweigh the animals.

This line of argument doesn't stop at humanity. This was one criticism levied at Utilitarianism when it was first proposed, after all. The sadistic guard and the political prisoner: you have one person everyone hates, and the sadistic guard beats him. There are spikes of pleasure and more guards join in, all of them feel great about it. That society doesn't care about his suffering. Why should he matter? He's one sheep surrounded by wolves.

In the opposite way, what of altruism? If it's not wrong to eat a threatening, rival group humans if there is no other food and we are starving, that implies that our group has some greater rights than them. Of course, we do not, we just have the luck of the draw; we have better weapons and can take the rivals and eat their flesh to survive. Or they might have better. Either way, the suffering of the other tribe will not matter to yours, will it? Likewise, a scientific analysis of morality will not quibble with this. Morality is all about making sure your group can survive, your family primarily, then your tribe, then the animals you are used to and love, then the other tribes of humans you like emotionally, then other animals you like emotionally, then life in general. It's a hierarchy of personal preference, not total species net "worth" which is ultimately a different way of saying the same thing without realising it.

Altruism says it is moral to die to save others. If that were the case, with the cannibalise-or-be-cannibalised example, it would be more moral to die for the survival of the other group rather than killing them to stay alive. Under a more utilitarian analysis, either wiping out the other so the greatest number survive is most desirable. Under actual behavioural morality, only one is acceptable: you and yours survive, they die with no chance of reprisal.

There is no reason to favour you and yours above any and all other groups, we just do. There's no reason to state that morality extends only to humans, because it clearly does not, either in the actual behaviour of individuals (nobody's sending their pets to starving africans for food!), or in a broader utilitarian scale (why does avoiding pain and maximising happiness NOT apply to all organisms that can experience both?).

3. It makes more ecological sense - blah blah blah global warming, less costly etc.

Yes this is true. However if we were to make sacrifices in our consumption for environmental reasons (and I am not adverse to this per se) it would be because it benefits humanity as a whole and not because it benefits animals. If eating meat was immoral in itself, people would be able to argue that without needing to start talking about "added benefits" to being vegetarianism.

It's immoral for any non-circular reason killing and eating humans we don't care about is, or if you prefer, letting them die while being able to post on the internet and feeding your pets. Humanism isn't the be all end all of morality, it's just a faith position. And to contradict what you say, sacrificing consumption isn't just for our own sake. If it were for our own sake you should cut down the amazon and cover it with wheat farms, farm all non-human life to be consumed in McDonald's or socialist food outlets by our ever-increasing numbers. That's a nightmarish, undesirable world and you know it.

Penn and Teller summed up the horror and repugnance of the humanist writ at the end of the PETA episode of Bullshit!. "We would kill every chimp on Earth with our bare hands to save one junkie with AIDS." I would not, and that is why I can never be a humanist.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alright, I am going to start this out by dealing with both of the following, and will then expand.

Argument #1: Animals kill other animals in nature for food.

My reaction: I thought the whole point of civilization was that we were supposed to be better than our animalistic tendencies. So this argument seems silly to me.

No. That is just what we tell ourselves so we feel special while masturbating at night. We actually have civilization because we are social creatures who's populations and thus group size have grown sufficiently large that we have had to make certain cultural adaptations in order to survive. Namely, centralized populations, and third party social-interaction enforcers that keep the group from dissolving under its own weight, because the group is now sufficiently large that social parasitism (Basically crime, which of left unchecked will break a society) cannot be prevented by individuals or small groups. Part of how we do this is by telling ourselves we are special.

We are in fact not. We are just animals, who are not as good as ants at holding a group together.

Argument #2: Animals aren't people and don't deserve the same rights as we do.

My reaction: I certainly think people come first, but why does this mean that animals shouldn't get a certain basic level of inherent rights? We already have laws against animal torture...doesn't it follow that animals have the right not to be killed purely for the pleasure of humans? And let's face it: consumption of animal meat is NOT about survival, it is purely about pleasure.

There is a reason we like meat. Meat is easier to digest and provides more of the nutrients we need than plants.

My take is of course that rights, outside of a legal context, are pretty much done as a moral concept. I am torn as to whether or not I think normative ethics make sense. I tend to view ethical systems as meaningless constructions that allow us to justify moral decisions which are really based on intuition. That however does mean they cannot be applied... Just that someone is going to choose one to apply that is based on said intuition.

In general I place all moral worth in aggregates. It lends toward a sort of utilitarian pragmatism where I take in stakeholder input and optimize the function of held interests. For most interpersonal interactions, straight up utilitarianism works as a proxy, but it is necessary to modify it for large groups, and for organisms which cannot communicate their desires and where suffering cannot easily be quantified.

Again, I have about as much metaphysical basis for that as any other ethical system. Which is none. Like any other ethical system which is applied, it is a preference and arbitrary

As a result of that:

We have an interest in eating meat, both for its nutritional content, and tastyness.

The meat bearing organisms have an interest in survival, but vary in the degree to which their populations can be used for food, and in the amount of suffering they can experience as a result of being deprived of existence.

Therefore, in order to optimize the fulfillment of held interests, we ought eat the flesh of animals cultivated for the purpose, that cannot feel significant amounts of suffering (IE. their individual interest in survival is weak). We should also endeavor to cultivate these organisms in such a way that impact on other organisms is minimized, and should reduce meat consumption in order to obtain this goal.

Considering you need to feed animals anywhere between 5-10x as much protein as you get back from eating them

Um... No. You fed them between 5 and ten times the amount of vegetable mass you get out of them in flesh mass.

They make their own proteins, through amino acid synthesis. We by the way cannot synthesize many of ours, and neither can plants manage a couple.

So putting aside hunting wild animals, would you agree then that raising animals for slaughter doesn't make any sense?

No. See above. This issue is not that we do so. The issue is that we crave meat to such a high degree that we are causing environmental problems and the processes we have to use to satisfy that demand are unspeakably cruel to the cows.

Me raising a few animals for food makes perfect sense. I can get back some of what I would otherwise throw out (either as uneaten leftovers, or as food stock I could not eat before it spoils etc)

Why? I'm not seeing the justification for that when your example family could be feeding themselves many times over on the food they would be allocating to their animals being bred. It's an inefficient and wasteful process.

It is also nutritionally necessary. Even legumes do not provide all of the amino acids and vitamin B12 you need. The only reason the "vegetarians" in other countries dont die is because they get insects in their vegetables, flour, etc. They also get enough meat (usually bush meat) to sustain themselves. US vegetarians eat dairy. Vegans have health problems.

Need? How do we NEED to eat meat? We may have evolved as omnivores but it is hardly necessary for us to survive and in fact studies show that humans who practice a vegetarian diet are healthier and live longer than those that do not.

They also consume dairy which ameliorates many of the problems inherent with having a diet lacking in meat.

Most of those studies compare people who eat too much meat, with those who dont eat any. They are not valid reasons why we should therefore not eat any meat.

I also read somewhere, and have no idea if it is the truth, that meat-eating was partially responsible for our species abillity to pursue other interests other than food gathering, due to the energy it provided.

This is correct, and the general consensus among anthropologists is that a shift from herbivory to omnivory was one of the things that allowed us to grow larger brains. There was more in the energy budget, so hominids could evolve to allocate more energy to brain growth. It loosened a developmental constraint.

I'm willing to concede it is a wash health wise which actually suits the argument just fine since it shoots down the notion that we need to consume animals for survival. The fact that people have to put more work into eating a vegetarian diet doesn't change anything since my supposition is still that we eat meat purely for pleasure and convenience rather than out of necessity.

The reason it is a wash is because the vegetarians still eat dairy, which still BTW requires cultivation.

That's assuming you feed the animals food that people could eat. In fact, cattle and other ruminants (like sheep and goats) can make use of plants that humans are physically unable to process, such as grass. If we raised food animals on grasses - as, historically, was the case until relatively recently - then they wouldn't be eating potential human food.

Hell you can feed them the parts of plants we dont consume. Like the stalks of wheat and corn, and the stuff we dont eat dud to overproduction. There is nothing that says we have to have the same number of cows.

1) Humans are the only form of life that matters, everything else doesn't have an innate rights although we may choose to treat them with such.

2) All creatures that display individual behavior and demonstrate some form of intelligence (pretty much everything above an insect) deserves rights to life. Humans can still get preferential treatment under this philosophy but only in the cases where survival is at stake.

Or you can reject rights all-together. What is with people and their obsession with rights-based ethics? Why not some form of consequentialism? Or even Kant? Where is Kant? Or pragmatism. What Would Dewey Do?

Of course the question is could you use the grazing land for cultivation of things that humans CAN eat. Furthermore the disparity is so large (something like 10-to-1 best case) that clearly it is cheaper to cultivate plants. Heck, just looking at the prices of grains vs. meat can tell you that.

If I follow this argument to its conclusion, we should be bulldozing all non-cultivated land to produce food for people.

It is an injustice, and anyone who reads about the terrible conditions of the cattle farmed here SHOULD feel bad if they are not total cunts.

Which is why i only but rarely eat meat other than chicken (free range once I can afford it) and farm raised tilapia.

Penn and Teller summed up the horror and repugnance of the humanist writ at the end of the PETA episode of Bullshit!. "We would kill every chimp on Earth with our bare hands to save one junkie with AIDS." I would not, and that is why I can never be a humanist.

Agreed.

[mr friendly guy]

No, humanism would argue we have rights because we're humans. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Humanists wouldn't agree with a more intelligent species coming here and subjecting us to factory farming, would they? Humanists wouldn't farm humans with severe retardation for food would they?

Oh. I thought one of the "weaknesses" of humanism was that it was vulnerable to an abstract attack such as if intelligent aliens come and wanted to do the same to us? Although I would see it as wrong to do the same to another species which clearly had a level of intelligence enough to grasp concepts such as happiness, suffering etc even if say their average intelligence was less than that of a creationist.

So if Q suddenly made common farm animals as intelligent as primitive humans I would not eat them. I would simply find other meats to consume.

"Intelligence" is an argument of convenience for the humanists, as ultimately their position of singular human dignity and seperateness from the animal kingdom is faith based, one inherited from Christianity and its absurd notions of souls, self-denial and free will.

What happened to "I think, therefore I am"?

People have rights because there's a desired end for less suffering, they only suffer because their animal evolution provided it. There's no argument for the reduction of suffering that doesn't also apply to other species; no altruism, no responsibility, no desire to avoid cruelty.

Just to clarify, are you saying plants, bacteria, protozoa, fungus can also have rights, since the arguments for reduction of suffering also applies to any species?

Intelligence isn't key to happy, ethical human life. Conscious thought that gets broke is termed "schizophrenia". Conscious thought is the subject of unconscious processes like neurotransmitters, when they go wrong you get people stuck with aggression and depressive thoughts. Your body starts to do things whole seconds before your conscious mind realises a decision has been made. There are many times when conscious thought is a hindrance rather than a help, for instance, when you become a master of a musical or artistic instrument, obsessing over every tiny movement will make you sound like shit.

But one must be intelligent enough to appreciate concepts such as happiness, suffering etc. My contention is that we clearly are. Some more intelligent species may be. Certainly some of the animals we eat aren't that intelligent.

Just so I know where you are coming from, what do you consider a happy ethical human life?

2. If its not wrong to eat meat if there is no other food and we are starving, that implies that we humans have greater rights. One purpose of moral systems is to maximise human happiness. If someone is happy eating meat and it causes no distress to another human why should it matter, given that our rights outweigh the animals.

This line of argument doesn't stop at humanity. This was one criticism levied at Utilitarianism when it was first proposed, after all. The sadistic guard and the political prisoner: you have one person everyone hates, and the sadistic guard beats him. There are spikes of pleasure and more guards join in, all of them feel great about it. That society doesn't care about his suffering. Why should he matter? He's one sheep surrounded by wolves.

The problem is that we are still in the process of arguing that animals should have rights. Humans clearly do and in this scenario even the political prisoner should have rights.

In the opposite way, what of altruism? If it's not wrong to eat a threatening, rival group humans if there is no other food and we are starving, that implies that our group has some greater rights than them.

If they are threatening us then arguments for self defense come into it. That is my right to live outweighs their "non right" to attack me.

If you had already killed them in self defense then what is wrong with eating the body of the already dead to survive? Does it make a moral difference? I would argue its not, even though we can argue the morality of what led them to being dead in the first place. IIRC There was a group of soccer players lost in the Andes after a plane crash which ended up eating the body of those who had died. I see nothing wrong with doing that.

Of course, we do not, we just have the luck of the draw; we have better weapons and can take the rivals and eat their flesh to survive. Or they might have better. Either way, the suffering of the other tribe will not matter to yours, will it?

Your point and its relation to eating meat is....

<snip>

There is no reason to favour you and yours above any and all other groups, we just do.

So might makes right then?

There's no reason to state that morality extends only to humans, because it clearly does not, either in the actual behaviour of individuals (nobody's sending their pets to starving africans for food!), or in a broader utilitarian scale (why does avoiding pain and maximising happiness NOT apply to all organisms that can experience both?).

As I said earlier, one could argue that humans are clearly smart enough to experience happiness, some smart animals maybe, some common consumed animals dubious.

And to contradict what you say, sacrificing consumption isn't just for our own sake. If it were for our own sake you should cut down the amazon and cover it with wheat farms, farm all non-human life to be consumed in McDonald's or socialist food outlets by our ever-increasing numbers. That's a nightmarish, undesirable world and you know it.

You sure this is the best example you can come up with? Because right off the metaphorical bat there is plenty of other benefits to us to NOT do as you say. You even stated one since we would find the world nightmarishly.

Penn and Teller summed up the horror and repugnance of the humanist writ at the end of the PETA episode of Bullshit!. "We would kill every chimp on Earth with our bare hands to save one junkie with AIDS." I would not, and that is why I can never be a humanist.

Ignoring for a moment a cure for AIDS won't just be applied to one junkie, haven't you in previous socialised medicine thread said that a alcoholic dying from cirrhosis still deserves treatment even if he bought it on himself? Its clear in this scenario Penn and Teller are implying that this AIDS sufferer by being a junkie brought it on himself. Whats the difference?

[Alyrium Denryle]

What happened to "I think, therefore I am"?

Not relevant. The argument was used to demonstrate that the only thing you can be sure really exists is your mind. Because you asked the question. Other beings may well be figments of your imagination.

Just to clarify, are you saying plants, bacteria, protozoa, fungus can also have rights, since the arguments for reduction of suffering also applies to any species?

No. He is rejecting the notion of moral rights, and instead saying that if suffering is bad, then all suffering is bad. Not just human suffering. Therefore harming an animal (or anything else) is wrong to the degree to which it suffers.

But one must be intelligent enough to appreciate concepts such as happiness, suffering etc. My contention is that we clearly are. Some more intelligent species may be. Certainly some of the animals we eat aren't that intelligent.

All of the animal species feel pain and pleasure in some way. Therefore they, under a utilitarian ethic, have some moral weight. If for example an animal will experience more pain through its death than you will pleasure through the eating, it is wrong to eat them.

The problem is that we are still in the process of arguing that animals should have rights. Humans clearly do and in this scenario even the political prisoner should have rights.

I would argue that the concept of "rights" is an inherently supernaturalist moral framework and they dont exist outside of a legal context.

So might makes right then?

No. He is saying that we humans have a tendency to do so. To be tribalistic. This tendency however is irrational.

As I said earlier, one could argue that humans are clearly smart enough to experience happiness, some smart animals maybe, some common consumed animals dubious.

My snakes clearly experience the full range of at least the less abstract emotions. They are obviously happy when they eat. They obviously experience fear or anger when they flatten themselves out and strike at anything that moves when I move their cages around to clean them.

Ignoring for a moment a cure for AIDS won't just be applied to one junkie, haven't you in previous socialised medicine thread said that a alcoholic dying from cirrhosis still deserves treatment even if he bought it on himself? Its clear in this scenario Penn and Teller are implying that this AIDS sufferer by being a junkie brought it on himself. Whats the difference?

The point he is making is that humanism ultimately entails that humans are metaphysically special and that no other organism matters for its own sake, and that therefore under it, it is acceptable to kill every other organism on the planet in order to save one person. That is where their non-logic takes them.

[Formless]

You can argue against all ethics on metaphysical grounds. I'd say that's a problem with metaphysics, not ethics. Its totally meaningless to real people whether or not rights are conceptual or real, clearly they are a useful concept or they would not have lasted as long as they have. Remember, morals don't have to exist outside of the mind, the need only be pragmatic. What about duties? Do we not have a duty to sapient/self aware life first (of which we currently only know of one-- humans), less intelligent life second? This would not exclude animals from the equation, but it would recognize the fact that is quite obvious to most people-- that our own needs and survival is more important than other animals.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do we not have a duty to sapient/self aware life first (of which we currently only know of one-- humans), less intelligent life second?

I would ask the question why? By placing them explicitly second, we relegate them to a position where they lose all ethical contests regardless of magnitude. If we do this, then why on earth do we count them at all.

Also, there are a LOT of animals, including some invertebrates which are self aware.

that our own needs and survival is more important than other animals.

Same logic applies to people of the same or different ethnic groups.

What makes us special? Why is our suffering more important than the suffering of a lizard, elephant, or mouse? If the magnitude of suffering is the same for a given action, do you always choose the person? If so, why? How do you justify this?

[Formless]

Do we not have a duty to sapient/self aware life first (of which we currently only know of one-- humans), less intelligent life second?

I would ask the question why? By placing them explicitly second, we relegate them to a position where they lose all ethical contests regardless of magnitude. If we do this, then why on earth do we count them at all.

Also, there are a LOT of animals, including some invertebrates which are self aware.

No, only contests where they lack magnitude. And yes, there are other self aware creatures we know of-- that's why poaching elephants and whaling dolphins is illegal. But if I had to choose between saving my cat and saving my father... I wouldn't like it of course, but it will be my father every time. The simple fact that a human being is more useful/necessary to society's functioning than a cat means that, while no one would seriously suggest that we be cruel to cats, no one would seriously suggest we should put the cat's considerations above a human's.

that our own needs and survival is more important than other animals.

Same logic applies to people of the same or different ethnic groups.

How? All humans are capable of roughly the same level of cognition regardless of ethnicity. All humans are certainly capable of mutual cooperation, the basis upon which we derive ethics. But most animals are rather more selfish than that. If the human species were dying out, none of them would be bending over backwards to save us. The same does not hold true of us... if only barely, but still.

What makes us special? Why is our suffering more important than the suffering of a lizard, elephant, or mouse? If the magnitude of suffering is the same for a given action, do you always choose the person? If so, why? How do you justify this?

We are the only animal that has made it to space; the only animal with the capability to decide the fate of the entire planet; and arguably we're the only animal that has a future that isn't predestined to end in extinction. Seriously? That doesn't make us special?

Also see above. If I had only two options, yes it would be the human life over the animal life all other things being equal because the human contributes more to society, and it is the sum total of those contributions that make possible endeavors like science, the space program, and just about any other project of high-value not just to humanity but to all living things. Of course, we need other animals for our survival as well, partly because we are omnivores and because we need the ecosystem for our survival, so they are hardly without value at all. But then, I put it to you that situations where you have to choose one or the other are much rarer than you make it out to be. Most of the time, we can have our (meat) cake and eat it too.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But if I had to choose between saving my cat and saving my father... I wouldn't like it of course, but it will be my father every time. The simple fact that a human being is more useful/necessary to society's functioning than a cat means that, while no one would seriously suggest that we be cruel to cats, no one would seriously suggest we should put the cat's considerations above a human's.

False comparison. You are placing the needs of one cat against the needs of many people. I am arguing against the categorical separation of humans as being special (in a sense that is relevant to ethics) not the qualitative equality in all cases. It is one thing to say that in a given circumstance, an animal will feel less pain than a human, therefore if forced to choose the animal must die, and another to say that humans categorically come first. In one case you are being pragmatic. In the other you are basically being a fucking racist (or speciesist, anthropocentrist etc). It is a prejudice without rational basis.

How? All humans are capable of roughly the same level of cognition regardless of ethnicity. All humans are certainly capable of mutual cooperation, the basis upon which we derive ethics. But most animals are rather more selfish than that. If the human species were dying out, none of them would be bending over backwards to save us. The same does not hold true of us... if only barely, but still.

There are more animals who cooperate more strongly with eachother in one rainforest than there are people on this planet.

That having been said, you are engaging in a categorical rather than quantitative separation. Or at least you were until you moved your goal posts.

As for your last point in that paragraph. You are damn fucking right we should bend over backwards. We are causing all of those fucking extinctions.

We are the only animal that has made it to space

Not true. Tardigrades have made it to space on their own. Well... sort of on their own. They kind of get catapulted into space whenever dust and other things get shot up into space like during asteroid impacts. And they survive unaided too.

the only animal with the capability to decide the fate of the entire planet

Not in the long run, no.

and arguably we're the only animal that has a future that isn't predestined to end in extinction. Seriously?

No. No we are not. We will drive ourselves to extinction before we get enough of us off of this planet and in a self-sustaining colony to not kill the rest through inbreeding depression. Even if we last that long, we could get hit by a gamma ray burst, or if all else fails, die when Andromeda smacks into our galaxy.

That doesn't make us special?

So you have listed off these things that you subjectively think are cool enough to warrant us special moral status.

I ask. Can you hold your breath for more than 2 minutes? I happen to know turtles "personally" who can hold their breath for five hours, and others which can use the linings of their cloaca as primitive gills.

Can you invest a third of your total body mass into producing thousands of tiny offspring like a bullfrog can? Hell, do you undergo full blown rearrangement of pretty much all of your internal and external structures at some point during your life, to the point that people did not figure out you were the same organism until the 1750s?

No?

See the problem with your line of reasoning? The universe does not fucking care what we humans can do. We are not special.

We use suffering as a metric for morality because we are empathetic, and can fairly well decide that suffering=bad. However when we apply logic to that, we are forced into the conclusion that if suffering is bad for us, it is bad for everything else. As a result if we seek to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure then we must do the same for everything else. The only differences are not categorical, but quantitative. How much suffering can an organism experience?

Also see above. If I had only two options, yes it would be the human life over the animal life all other things being equal because the human contributes more to society, and it is the sum total of those contributions that make possible endeavors like science, the space program, and just about any other high-value project not just to humanity but to all living things.

You are changing the terms of the question. Assume the individuals are completely isolated. Or that all of that usefulness is already accounted for. Answer the fucking question.

Most of the time, we can have our (meat) cake and eat it too.

You seem to miss the point of a philosophical exercise.

[Formless]

But if I had to choose between saving my cat and saving my father... I wouldn't like it of course, but it will be my father every time. The simple fact that a human being is more useful/necessary to society's functioning than a cat means that, while no one would seriously suggest that we be cruel to cats, no one would seriously suggest we should put the cat's considerations above a human's.

False comparison. You are placing the needs of one cat against the needs of many people. I am arguing against the categorical separation of humans as being special (in a sense that is relevant to ethics) not the qualitative equality in all cases. It is one thing to say that in a given circumstance, an animal will feel less pain than a human, therefore if forced to choose the animal must die, and another to say that humans categorically come first. In one case you are being pragmatic. In the other you are basically being a fucking racist (or speciesist, anthropocentrist etc). It is a prejudice without rational basis.

I'm placing the needs of one cat against the needs of one human. That's exactly the kind of situation where it becomes important which life you value more. Get it right. All my ethics are pragmatic: the separation is based on observed differences in their utility to society. How is this so hard to understand? Its not speciesist to say that an animal lacks the cognitive toolset needed to contribute to society. Its just a fact.

There are more animals who cooperate more strongly with eachother in one rainforest than there are people on this planet.

And this is important because...?

That having been said, you are engaging in a categorical rather than quantitative separation. Or at least you were until you moved your goal posts.

How is saying "our needs and survival are more important" a categorical statement, especially in light of further explanation of why I think this to be true? That's quite a leap there, Aly.

As for your last point in that paragraph. You are damn fucking right we should bend over backwards. We are causing all of those fucking extinctions.

True, but that doesn't lessen the point.

We are the only animal that has made it to space

Not true. Tardigrades have made it to space on their own. Well... sort of on their own. They kind of get catapulted into space whenever dust and other things get shot up into space like during asteroid impacts. And they survive unaided too.

Oh, quit the fucking pedantry, you know what I mean. We're the only animal that made it to space of our own volition.

Not in the long run, no.

Why must you chop up my statements into little pieces? Even if its just in the short run, no other animal has that ability on its own. For better or for worse.

No. No we are not. We will drive ourselves to extinction before we get enough of us off of this planet and in a self-sustaining colony to not kill the rest through inbreeding depression. Even if we last that long, we could get hit by a gamma ray burst, or if all else fails, die when Andromeda smacks into our galaxy.

See, its fatalism like that that you cannot defend. Andromeda hitting the Milky Way isn't going to effect human civilization.

That doesn't make us special?

So you have listed off these things that you subjectively think are cool enough to warrant us special moral status.

I've listed capabilities that no other animal has. Said capabilities could grant us and by extension all other life on this planet a more stable habitat than the surface of a planet. That you don't find that cool shows how short sighted you are in the grand scheme of things.

I ask. Can you hold your breath for more than 2 minutes? I happen to know turtles "personally" who can hold their breath for five hours, and others which can use the linings of their cloaca as primitive gills.

Can you invest a third of your total body mass into producing thousands of tiny offspring like a bullfrog can? Hell, do you undergo full blown rearrangement of pretty much all of your internal and external structures at some point during your life, to the point that people did not figure out you were the same organism until the 1750s?

No?

See the problem with your line of reasoning? The universe does not fucking care what we humans can do. We are not special.

It doesn't matter what the universe thinks precisely because it doesn't think. We think. Do you have some kind of mental block keeping you from understanding the difference between holding one's breath for 2 minutes and sending spacecraft to the moon? Those are completely different in terms of scale. That's like saying that a swordsman is more skilled at hand to hand combat than a modern a artillery officer and concluding that objectively the swordsman is the artillery officers equal in combat and that we should start issuing swords to troops. Its totally nonsensical.

We use suffering as a metric for morality because we are empathetic, and can fairly well decide that suffering=bad. However when we apply logic to that, we are forced into the conclusion that if suffering is bad for us, it is bad for everything else. As a result if we seek to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure then we must do the same for everything else. The only differences are not categorical, but quantitative. How much suffering can an organism experience?

And that is why we slaughter animals in humane ways. But that doesn't mean we don't still slaughter them because in the end, there is more to consequentialist ethics than strict utilitarianism would lead you to believe.

Also see above. If I had only two options, yes it would be the human life over the animal life all other things being equal because the human contributes more to society, and it is the sum total of those contributions that make possible endeavors like science, the space program, and just about any other high-value project not just to humanity but to all living things.

You are changing the terms of the question. Assume the individuals are completely isolated. Or that all of that usefulness is already accounted for. Answer the fucking question.

Aly, you can't take a human out of society and expect morality to even fucking matter. Humans are social creatures. We are only valuable when taken as a group. Take your strawman and shove it.

Most of the time, we can have our (meat) cake and eat it too.

You seem to miss the point of a philosophical exercise.

And you miss the point of pragmatism. If the question has no real life basis, the question is utterly fucking pointless. Dumbass.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And you miss the point of pragmatism. If the question has no real life basis, the question is utterly fucking pointless. Dumbass.

You use a philosophical exercise in order to determine exactly that it is being valued, and what reasoning someone uses to make a choice. You control for the extraneous variables so you can make a straight up comparison. That is why in discussions of the intrinsic morality of torture they often start out with "we will assume for the sake of argument that torture works".

I do not miss the point of pragmatism. I am in fact a utilitarian pragmatist.

Aly, you can't take a human out of society and expect morality to even fucking matter. Humans are social creatures. We are only valuable when taken as a group. Take your strawman and shove it.

It is not a strawman. It is a philosophical question. You will notice I also specified that you can just as well consider the social interactions already taken into account.

Stop trying to dodge the question and answer it. What, all other things being equal but species epithet is more valuable? Or do you roll a dice or something?

And that is why we slaughter animals in humane ways. But that doesn't mean we don't still slaughter them because in the end, there is more to consequentialist ethics than strict utilitarianism would lead you to believe.

Hence the moral Pragmatism. But Utilitarianism proper is a decent proxy for the time being. It avoids a level of complexity that allows it to be used for something other than an in-depth case study.

Do you have some kind of mental block keeping you from understanding the difference between holding one's breath for 2 minutes and sending spacecraft to the moon?

Not at all. My point was that while it may be cool, it does not mean we are categorically different from other organisms. Our intelligence, our ability to think, while important to use does not make us special. All it does is change the degree to which we can suffer (or hold certain interests if we want to fully apply proper ethical pragmatism)

To use an example. You have ten frogs of different species that while they are the same size, have different areas of toe webbing. The tenth frog has more toe webbing than the others. Now, say toe webbing is valued, and you are trying to maximize the amount of toe webbing you have at the end. In an ideal case, you can save all toe webbing. IE you need to sacrifice zero frogs. In any contest, the frog with the greatest toe webbing wins, and the other gets sacrificed. However in combination, it is possible that other frogs will have a combined webbing area that exceeds the tenth frog's.

What I am arguing against is the situation where said tenth frog is singled out for preservation at all costs. Its toe webbing is no different than any other frogs. It is not qualitatively different. It is however quantitatively different.

In the same way, a human's ability to think is quantitatively greater than that of any other animal. However that quantity does not set us apart as qualitatively special.

Do you understand now?

I've listed capabilities that no other animal has. Said capabilities could grant us and by extension all other life on this planet a more stable habitat than the surface of a planet. That you don't find that cool shows how short sighted you are in the grand scheme of things.

I think it is cool. Just not qualitatively special. Not any more than any other adaptation.

See, its fatalism like that that you cannot defend. Andromeda hitting the Milky Way isn't going to effect human civilization.

It refutes your claim that we can make ourselves safe from extinction pretty well. I am pretty sure we wont survive that.

I'm placing the needs of one cat against the needs of one human. That's exactly the kind of situation where it becomes important which life you value more. Get it right. All my ethics are pragmatic: the separation is based on observed differences in their utility to society. How is this so hard to understand? Its not speciesist to say that an animal lacks the cognitive toolset needed to contribute to society. Its just a fact.

Oh I see. You are pragmatic, but you are using a different version of pragmatism than the actual ethical system called pragmatism.

Also, it is still speciesist. All you are doing is changing the group size. You are changing "Usefullness to human individuals" to "Usefullness to human groups". I can just as well be "pragmatic"[sic] with the value placed on usefullness to groups of elephants and it has just as much validity.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I recently stopped eating almost all meat for health reasons, i.e., because meat is concentrated calories and I don't need those right now. This and the casual act of calorie restriction (which is surprisingly easy with a small bit of self control) led to my losing 15 lbs in 2.5 months. So eliminating foods from your diet is a very good way of going about it. That said I am properly a pescetarian--most of the time. In celebration of my father's life I had traditional German sausage and in the hospital as we were standing watch over him I ate whatever I was given; conversely I don't plan to eat even seafood for the next months as a gesture in memorial of his life. I'd say that being flexible about the subject is good and that there's no possible ethical restraint against an omnivore eating meat, but there IS an ethical restraint against humans eating meat which is produced from food grown on fertile farmland. That farmland should be under cultivation to provide vegetables and grains to people and/or ethanol for fuel, NOT for the production of meat. Meat (and Dairy) production should be sharply limited to lands on which it is impossible to grow edible crops, i.e., like natural grasslands, and likewise farmed fish and chicken should only be fed with meal produced from human-inedible parts of food plants, und so weiter.

[Broomstick]

An ethic of flexibility and moderation would do much to mitigate what's wrong with the world. The problem is not so much eating meat in and of itself as eating too much meat, and taken more broadly the problem is not food so much as too much food - producing, eating, or wasting.

[Lagmonster]

I argued that in a civilized society we have no reason to eat animals. Given that the crop levels needed to sustain humans is far less than that needed to produce animal feed and raise animals to feed humans, there would be no need to consume animals unless civilization has broken down.

I'm thinking you may wish to re-start this whole thread; you began by saying that "my conclusion (is) that killing animals for the purpose of consumption doesn't make any logical sense and is immoral", and now you're saying that when you responded to the statement that people can eat meat because animals do, you were actually separating meat-eating humans into 'civilized' and 'everyone else' (re-read your OP carefully; the only time you mention civilization at all was in your response to Argument #1, and that doesn't necessarily just include modernized nations). So are we talking about the ethics of human consumption of meat, which includes starving people and primitive cultures, or are we talking about something else, like mass farming or cultural decadence or agricultural extinctions? I'm not trying to be an asshole, I really think you've set too broad a target, and one with too many 'ifs' and 'buts' attached to the answer. The argument over whether it is ethical for humans to eat meat in the broadest sense has a different response depending on how you define the situation in which consumption occurred. For example, say a healthy cow wanders into your yard, trips over a root, breaks its neck, and dies. Would it be unethical to eat that meat?

How do you know you haven't just proven that some people are poor enough to have a weak diet? Without looking at the population in terms of susceptibility to, perhaps, deficiency diseases, you may not be getting the whole picture.

Are you suggesting that humans are incapable of creating a balanced diet without meat? Because that's clearly not the case.

My understanding, pending correction, is that a healthy vegetarian diet requires a not insignificant variety of greens, dairy and grains, not all of which may be present in one location without strong trade, and in some cases I'm aware of vegans using vitamin supplements or fortified specialty foods. All of which again are available to people with a grocery store and refridgeration, but not necessarily elsewhere. I'm also trying to make the point that human civilization, and when I say it, I actually mean all of us, are not at the point where we can tell people that it is wrong to consume animals for food, simply because many people still cannot get a complete diet based on greens alone.

I'm sorry, but "consumption of animal meat is NOT about survival, it is purely about pleasure" didn't leave any room for exceptions. It was, frankly, a blanket statement and I felt it needed to be challenged.

There is no contradiction here. If I said a civilized society should not require humans committing acts of violence against each other would you point out that in Somalia you might need to hurt or kill someone just to survive and consider that a valid rebuttal?

Your initial statement, which I quoted from argument #2, was specific and uncompromising, made zero mention of 'civilized society', and was an assertion about our motive for eating animals. You boiled it down to the aesthetics of taste alone while simultaneously dismissing the idea that people might ALSO eat meat to survive. If anyone eats meat to survive, even if they derive pleasure from the taste, then your statement of "it is NOT about survival" is false. Suddenly, people who don't have access to modern supplements, who don't have access to the wide variety of greens, grains and dairy products needed for a healthy vegetarian diet, or who have dietary issues with some plants, are all at risk.

I think what is misunderstood is the line between food and excess. It's entirely possible for a family to keep a small herd of goat in healthy, comfortable environments, treat them well, protect them from disease and predators, and then eventually use the meat of the older animals to supplement your diet. That's 'raising animals for slaughter', but I'd find it pretty fucking hard to argue with that version of it.

Why? I'm not seeing the justification for that when your example family could be feeding themselves many times over on the food they would be allocating to their animals being bred. It's an inefficient and wasteful process.

I chose goats specifically for that example, because goats can and will happily live off of plants we won't eat, or even parts of plants we don't like, or combinations of same. Say, corn; you eat the corn, they eat the husks. You can happily share an environment with domestic goats AND eat them. You can even do so in a way which ensures the goats comfortable lives, if you're so inclined to be a humane predator.

[Rye]

Oh. I thought one of the "weaknesses" of humanism was that it was vulnerable to an abstract attack such as if intelligent aliens come and wanted to do the same to us? Although I would see it as wrong to do the same to another species which clearly had a level of intelligence enough to grasp concepts such as happiness, suffering etc even if say their average intelligence was less than that of a creationist.

Happiness and suffering are very base experiences, they are not products of intelligence. Pleasure/pain responses, contentedness and such are products of our material needs being met, food, affection, reproduction, etc.

"Intelligence" is an argument of convenience for the humanists, as ultimately their position of singular human dignity and seperateness from the animal kingdom is faith based, one inherited from Christianity and its absurd notions of souls, self-denial and free will.

What happened to "I think, therefore I am"?

What about it? You think octopuses aren't thinking when they work out puzzles? Monkeys? Dolphins? Dogs and cats? "I think therefore I am" is just an extension of those thoughts, and a sleeping man and an infant that is not self aware is still there, still deserving of moral consideration.

Just to clarify, are you saying plants, bacteria, protozoa, fungus can also have rights, since the arguments for reduction of suffering also applies to any species?

Strictly speaking, yes, they "can" have rights, as rights are actually just behavioural rules we're applying to ourselves. That doesn't mean I agree with them. I would prefer conservation to rights.

But one must be intelligent enough to appreciate concepts such as happiness, suffering etc. My contention is that we clearly are. Some more intelligent species may be. Certainly some of the animals we eat aren't that intelligent.

Happiness and suffering do not require intelligence. In fact, when a child or animal cannot comprehend why they are suffering, that gets to me far more than suffering and understanding why.

Just so I know where you are coming from, what do you consider a happy ethical human life?

Tranquility, freedom from fear and the rejection of all cruelty.

The problem is that we are still in the process of arguing that animals should have rights. Humans clearly do and in this scenario even the political prisoner should have rights.

Why?

If they are threatening us then arguments for self defense come into it. That is my right to live outweighs their "non right" to attack me.

Why does it? If you aren't killed, you both die. If he kills, at least he lives.

If you had already killed them in self defense then what is wrong with eating the body of the already dead to survive? Does it make a moral difference? I would argue its not, even though we can argue the morality of what led them to being dead in the first place. IIRC There was a group of soccer players lost in the Andes after a plane crash which ended up eating the body of those who had died. I see nothing wrong with doing that.

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. Human meat in this case will save lives.

Of course, we do not, we just have the luck of the draw; we have better weapons and can take the rivals and eat their flesh to survive. Or they might have better. Either way, the suffering of the other tribe will not matter to yours, will it?

Your point and its relation to eating meat is....

That "rights" are dogmatic nonsense that lawyers rely on, not an infallible argument stopper.

So might makes right then?

Might makes successful.

As I said earlier, one could argue that humans are clearly smart enough to experience happiness, some smart animals maybe, some common consumed animals dubious.

You think cows can't be happy? Chickens? Of course they can. A neglected chicken in a battery farm will produce fucked up, misshapen eggs because it's stressed. They peck at each other viciously, they pull out their own feathers in self-harm. Compare this to the behaviours of chickens that have a more free range life.

You sure this is the best example you can come up with? Because right off the metaphorical bat there is plenty of other benefits to us to NOT do as you say. You even stated one since we would find the world nightmarishly.

Yes, why would we, if we are only interested in economic growth and our own insane malthusian numbers? We don't want it because we recognise some kinship with nature and the Earth.

Ignoring for a moment a cure for AIDS won't just be applied to one junkie,

Who says it was the cure for AIDS? There might be something in chimp bones that may extend a month onto the junkie's life and it would be equally justifiable under humanism. That's the point of what they said: other species do not matter relative to man. I dispute that. There's lots of people, they are not particularly valuable just for existing any more than blades of grass are.

haven't you in previous socialised medicine thread said that a alcoholic dying from cirrhosis still deserves treatment even if he bought it on himself? Its clear in this scenario Penn and Teller are implying that this AIDS sufferer by being a junkie brought it on himself. Whats the difference?

There's lots of junkies and not many chimps. There are baby chimps that do not deserve to suffer and die because one cretin with poor impulse control wants their bonemeal.

[Lagmonster]

I am arguing against the categorical separation of humans as being special (in a sense that is relevant to ethics) not the qualitative equality in all cases. It is one thing to say that in a given circumstance, an animal will feel less pain than a human, therefore if forced to choose the animal must die, and another to say that humans categorically come first. In one case you are being pragmatic. In the other you are basically being a fucking racist (or speciesist, anthropocentrist etc). It is a prejudice without rational basis.

Anthropocentrist, mainly. And that's fine from most people's point of view; I'd save my own wife over a whole bus full of highly advanced aliens any day, because of said prejudice. I'd also fuck my own wife over a highly advanced alien any day, for the same reason. Issues of biology do make for irrational human-centric decisions, such as the urge to reproduce and consume at any cost, and we leave it to our intelligence to implement proper checks and balances along the way.

And as an aside, I don't believe anyone - or hardly anyone - who says they are trying to save other species because it's the right thing to do. I believe most people try to save other species because they are afraid that if they don't, their life will become less comfortable, which is pretty fucking human-centric even if they won't admit it. Nobody gives a shit about the rainforest and its diverse ecosystem and trillions of life forms, they just don't want to have less oxygen to breathe. Even our green movements are all awfully close to being about preferential prejudice towards our own species.

See the problem with your line of reasoning? The universe does not fucking care what we humans can do. We are not special.

With no grand cosmic plan, there's nobody to give a shit if we arbitrarily decide that we ARE special. And act accordingly. As you point out, the universe isn't going to stop us. Or rather, it will, when our own nature of breeding and consuming or random act of cosmic violence kills us all off. But at that point it won't have mattered whether or not we saved the spotted owl, either.

We use suffering as a metric for morality because we are empathetic, and can fairly well decide that suffering=bad. However when we apply logic to that, we are forced into the conclusion that if suffering is bad for us, it is bad for everything else. As a result if we seek to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure then we must do the same for everything else. The only differences are not categorical, but quantitative. How much suffering can an organism experience?

Nobody has so much comfort in their own life that they will give a shit about many other people, let alone other species. Great philosophers don't generally sprout from the least educated and most oppressed peasantry - arguably, you need the freedom that a comfortable life, built out of necessity on the suffering and effort of others (no animal is going to HAND you the freedom to peacefully conduct a symposium), to even begin to think beyond your own needs. It's great that we want the whole species to be able to consider complex ethical issues; I'd love us to have that kind of sophisticated affluence, liesure time and medical support.

You are changing the terms of the question. Assume the individuals are completely isolated. Or that all of that usefulness is already accounted for. Answer the fucking question.

Simple; save the human. But you already knew that, didn't you? Because you know that if you saw a human and even a biologically unique and valuable insect colony in jeaprody, and you didn't save the girl, the rest of society would shun you, the girl's family might physically punish you, and the universe at large wouldn't give a shit either way. You have every impetus to value the human more highly, all other factors being equal.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Whenever I come across this argument, I immediately substitute "meat production" for "animal testing". The two areas are intrinsically linked due to the morality and ethics related to the organisms being subjected to such treatment and those benefiting off it. So, trying not to go OT, would those condemning the eating of meat and animal products in affluent societies apply the same condemnation to the use of animals in areas where a positive gain that benefits, not only humans, but the non-human animals being used as well? Even Singer, the icon for the animal rights movement, has agreed in the past that if we can only find a cure for human ailments via testing on even primates like macaques, then that is what must be done.

I have often come across people who suddenly get a bit unsure on this point, despite being quite vehemently opposed to meat and dairy production, though typically the more militant animal rights people I've met are die-hard vegans and fond of reciting the "I'd save my drowning pet over a drowning stranger" argument.

As an aside, I have had an experience when a fairly militant vegetarian I know, met a newly converted vegan. There's something oddly amusing about watching someone lecture you on eating a steak, bringing into it the practises of the animal industry I already know about, only for them to get a similar lecture off someone else for their dairy eating habits.

[Lagmonster]

I have often come across people who suddenly get a bit unsure on this point, despite being quite vehemently opposed to meat and dairy production, though typically the more militant animal rights people I've met are die-hard vegans and fond of reciting the "I'd save my drowning pet over a drowning stranger" argument.

I actually wonder if this holds up in practice. Say one of these people were in a real-life split-second emergency. Their dog and a stranger both suddenly go teetering over some railroad tracks together moments ahead of an oncoming train. Would the person actually hold to their assertion, or would instinct kick in and they try to grab for the person instead? I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that given no time for thought, they'd go for their own species every time.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There are thought exercises regarding the value any given person gives to someone they know over someone they don't, which is pretty similar to the idea of saving a pet they know over a person they don't, or someone they perceive to have greater net value to society than someone who's in a coma/a welfare leech etc.

These all rely on inherent biases within the person in question, though I'd wager the majority of people would be somewhat pragmatic or humanist. There was actually a story on the news not long ago about the authorities warning people from saving their pets from icy cold waters should they fall in themselves and be at risk. One example involved a dog who fell into an icy lake and was struggling to get out, so the owner dove in after the pet. The owner drowned after succumbing to hypothermia. The dog survived, getting out all on its own. One person who called in was quite certain that, given the choice between saving any of her (apparently many) pets or a human, she'd always go for the pets, or even ANY animal. Whether it was because another caller flatly stating all people risking their lives for non-humans are foolish had riled her or she was just this passionate, I don't know. But it is clear to me that the "speciesist" argument can cut both ways, with people actively vowing to save anything not Homo sapiens on principle.

I can fully believe that, after all, the likes of the ALF and SHAC have no compunction in making the lives of humans miserable if it means liberating another organism.

Another extension to this line of thinking: pest control. Think of the millions of rats, cockroaches, fleas, mosquitoes etc. that are eliminated for our sanitation and that of other animals useful to us. If one takes a firm stance on either side of the debate, you have to square off against these typically pragmatic issues that may run contrary to your ideology and that which aren't seen by many as "unethical" as consuming animal flesh.

[mr friendly guy]

Happiness and suffering are very base experiences, they are not products of intelligence. Pleasure/pain responses, contentedness and such are products of our material needs being met, food, affection, reproduction, etc.

What about it? You think octopuses aren't thinking when they work out puzzles? Monkeys? Dolphins? Dogs and cats? "I think therefore I am" is just an extension of those thoughts, and a sleeping man and an infant that is not self aware is still there, still deserving of moral consideration.

Strictly speaking, yes, they "can" have rights, as rights are actually just behavioural rules we're applying to ourselves. That doesn't mean I agree with them. I would prefer conservation to rights..

Happiness and suffering do not require intelligence. In fact, when a child or animal cannot comprehend why they are suffering, that gets to me far more than suffering and understanding why. ?

Before we go on I just want to confirm whether you think bacteria can experience concepts like happiness and suffering since their material needs can also be met? Once I have a better idea of how you stand I will be able to posit my reply.

Why?

The same rationale why I have rights.

Why does it? If you aren't killed, you both die. If he kills, at least he lives.

The way I see it the same "logic" applies both ways, so as it stands we have no more moral high ground that each other while we just think about killing each other. When he acts on it my self defense comes into it.

]

That "rights" are dogmatic nonsense that lawyers rely on, not an infallible argument stopper.

I am sure some people use rights as a instant win, however I use them in the same manner you argue for how we should do things. Rights still have to be justified so I don't see how that argument applies to me.

Yes, why would we, if we are only interested in economic growth and our own insane malthusian numbers? We don't want it because we recognise some kinship with nature and the Earth.

Well ignoring for a moment that your potential humans in this insane Malthusian example can't be worth as much as existing humans so there is no justification to support them in such numbers at the cost to something I find like (eg the rainforest)...

I pointed out eating less meat benefits humanity from an ecological perspective, eg easier to feed ourselves, combat climate change etc. Generally I would have thought it a given that I am of course refering to current humans and not potential humans when I mention "humanity". I don't know where you got the increase humanity's numbers especially when increase numbers would put increase strain on the environment which will not benefit humanity as each average human will not have as high a standard of living.

Who says it was the cure for AIDS? There might be something in chimp bones that may extend a month onto the junkie's life and it would be equally justifiable under humanism. That's the point of what they said: other species do not matter relative to man. I dispute that. There's lots of people, they are not particularly valuable just for existing any more than blades of grass are.

Its not so much they don't matter AT ALL, they just matter less (all other things being equal). To elaborate what I mean by all other things being equal, I will consider things like rarity of species vs humanity, whether that species is an ecological pest (so I have no objections to Australia trying to sell Cane toads to China because they think they can get Chinese consumers to eat it, and yes they are trying that).

haven't you in previous socialised medicine thread said that a alcoholic dying from cirrhosis still deserves treatment even if he bought it on himself? Its clear in this scenario Penn and Teller are implying that this AIDS sufferer by being a junkie brought it on himself. Whats the difference?.

There's lots of junkies and not many chimps. There are baby chimps that do not deserve to suffer and die because one cretin with poor impulse control wants their bonemeal.

But there are many alcoholics and druggies and few livers. Lets exclude them altogether from transplants (assuming other medical treatment fail) in favour of other people dying of liver failure who needs transplant.

And just for interest, what type of non junkie human would be worth killing this hypothetical chimp for?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Anthropocentrist, mainly. And that's fine from most people's point of view; I'd save my own wife over a whole bus full of highly advanced aliens any day, because of said prejudice.

Just because you would do it, does not make it correct.

I'd also fuck my own wife over a highly advanced alien any day, for the same reason.

Sexual attraction is an entirely different matter.

Issues of biology do make for irrational human-centric decisions, such as the urge to reproduce and consume at any cost, and we leave it to our intelligence to implement proper checks and balances along the way.

And I fail to see the checks and balances in that anthropocentric position.

And as an aside, I don't believe anyone - or hardly anyone - who says they are trying to save other species because it's the right thing to do.

Gee, how many biologists do you know? We often have to use that anthropocentric reasoning when trying to deal with the Plebes, because we know that to a large degree only the biologists and a few philosophers care about that little frog off in the corner for its own sake. Why do you think we devote our lives to studying them?

Nobody gives a shit about the rainforest and its diverse ecosystem and trillions of life forms, they just don't want to have less oxygen to breathe. Even our green movements are all awfully close to being about preferential prejudice towards our own species.

See above. You are making an awfully general and absolute statement. I will sometimes use anthropocentric arguments in a debate on say... human population growth, but that is not actually what I am thinking. What I am really thinking is that we are killing off every other organism on the planet, and we need to have our populations taken down a peg. Painfully if necessary. Why? Because the thought that frogs might be silent in spring after being on this planet since the Triassic fills me with a great sadness the likes of which I dont think you can comprehend. Not only the personal sadness from losing something I love, but the sadness that comes from knowing a great moral evil is occurring that you have no power to stop.

It is, literally, no different from me sitting by and watching the holocaust and be powerless to stop it. You can question that all you want, but you can also fuck off.

With no grand cosmic plan, there's nobody to give a shit if we arbitrarily decide that we ARE special.

Except that the position is illogical. Granted there is nothing that says we have to be logical, but if we do want to construct an internally consistent logical framework for ethics that is based on premises we cannot attack (such as that suffering is bad) with anything save sophistry, that position is untenable.

We dont have to use suffering as a metric either. We can even use Kant. It is harder, but doable. Point being, if we want to actually designate reasons humans have moral worth, those same reasons extend to other organisms. Thus, as a Utilitarian Pragmatist (An ethical pragmatist who tends to use utilitarianism as a heuristic, basically. I will sometimes refer to myself as a utilitarian for ease, or make purely utilitarian arguments. However with my metaphysics I am forced into what is actually pragmatism because utilitarianism makes certain false assumptions about the universe), I am forced to conclude that animals have moral worth. For their own sake. That by killing them we harm ourselves is icing on the cake, and makes for a much better argument when dealing with anthropocentists.

If you want me to give you the rundown of Pragmatism I can do that.

Nobody has so much comfort in their own life that they will give a shit about many other people, let alone other species.

Which is a reasonable expectation, but that does not entail that those positions are correct of followed through logically. Most people never actually make decisions that impact much more than their immediate surroundings. So I would say that in the general case, most people never really have ethical duties to things much bigger than themselves. Not causing needless cruelty (IE. dont crucify mice) and over-consuming i think is the extent of their obligations on a day to day basis in this respect. To that end, I for example try to reduce my meat consumption, eat species that are lower on the Pain O' Meter that dont impact other species as much etc. I eat mostly poultry and sustainably farmed fish like tilapia and catfish.

However that does not mean that these decisions cannot be shaped by policy, and those who make policy take on the responsibility of doing so. For example, meat consumption can be reduced by raising prices. By charging ranchers more to use public land for grazing, prices can be forced up and beef consumption reduced. Reforming the way our FDA, EPA and other regulatory agencies do testing, we can alleviate a lot of unnecessary suffering. Again, those who make policy have the responsibility fulfill more obligations than those who just go about their lives. They willingly take on that responsibility and are thus morally culpable.

Great philosophers don't generally sprout from the least educated and most oppressed peasantry - arguably, you need the freedom that a comfortable life, built out of necessity on the suffering and effort of others (no animal is going to HAND you the freedom to peacefully conduct a symposium), to even begin to think beyond your own needs.

And if the first world got up off its complacent and largely racist (nationalist, ethnist... pick whatever applies) ass, a lot of people could be helped into those conditions. I laid out how to do that in the population growth thread. We have a moral responsibility not just to help those people, but also to help the organisms who's homes we despoil. For their own sake. The individual typically does not have much power to change the situation much, but policy makers do.

They are not mutually exclusive propositions. Most people just treat them as if they are and take the premise for granted. What IS mutually exclusive with both of these, is continued population growth. That was taken care of in the other thread, and I am not going to rehash that over the course of the next ten pages.

Simple; save the human. But you already knew that, didn't you? Because you know that if you saw a human and even a biologically unique and valuable insect colony in jeaprody, and you didn't save the girl, the rest of society would shun you, the girl's family might physically punish you, and the universe at large wouldn't give a shit either way. You have every impetus to value the human more highly, all other factors being equal.

As an individual... it is difficult to actually say what I would do. The terms of the argument, at least logically equate to a coin toss. I may act on instinct. But that does not make that action morally correct. Ideally, I would have the courage to take whatever punishment is dished out. Never having faced that situation so directly, I may in fact be a moral coward and I am not ashamed to admit that.

No matter what decision is made, I set it up so that the person making the decision should feel like shit afterward. Just like the classic argument in utilitarianism dealing with a runaway train with two possible tracts. One occupied by multiple children and the other occupied by a passed out drunk.

Either way, the decision is painful to make.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I actually wonder if this holds up in practice. Say one of these people were in a real-life split-second emergency. Their dog and a stranger both suddenly go teetering over some railroad tracks together moments ahead of an oncoming train. Would the person actually hold to their assertion, or would instinct kick in and they try to grab for the person instead? I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that given no time for thought, they'd go for their own species every time.

It depends on how much they love their dog I think. The instinctual tricking works both ways. A dog becomes part of the family and there is a lot of emotional attachment.

So, trying not to go OT, would those condemning the eating of meat and animal products in affluent societies apply the same condemnation to the use of animals in areas where a positive gain that benefits, not only humans, but the non-human animals being used as well? Even Singer, the icon for the animal rights movement, has agreed in the past that if we can only find a cure for human ailments via testing on even primates like macaques, then that is what must be done.

I am hardly condemning all meat eating. I study predation for fuck's sake, and dont care much about individuals when it comes to my ethical reasoning.

That having been said, Singer does not subscribe to animal rights. He is a Preference Utilitarian and rejects rights. His reasoning is that all things being equal, and animal's preference not to die generally outweighs the preference for the human to eat it because it is tasty. However, because he weighs the strength of the preference on a sliding scale based on cognitive ability, the preference of a human not to die outweighs the preference of an animal not to die.

He is actually a very consistent Utilitarian, donating most of his income to charity for example.

Most of the hard core animal rights people follow Tom Reagan, a Rights Theorist.

If one takes a firm stance on either side of the debate, you have to square off against these typically pragmatic issues that may run contrary to your ideology and that which aren't seen by many as "unethical" as consuming animal flesh.

Once I have the option (IE. not living in an apartment, but rather in a house with no HOA, preferably built on stilts somewhere with a large property I intentionally allow to grow wild) I wont do any meaningful pest control, save for maybe the use of local parasitoids to deal with the termites. A large rat snake population will deal with the rodents...