Want to reduce animal cruelty? Eat more meat!

[Justforfun000]

I'm going to hasten to add I love animals and would never deliberately hurt them, I don't even have the stomach to personally hunt them and maybe vegetarianism would happen to me anyway if I was forced otherwise..but I still don't feel guilty about them being part of the food chain.

I'm not a heartless bastard. I'm just speaking as realistically and without pie in the sky bleeding-heart ideas getting in the way. The universe is a savage garden. That's reality. It's not "immoral" to accept that and look out for our kind.

[Akhlut]

I'm not simply talking about eating practices. I'm saying your ethical framing of why certain populaces matter, and which populaces are legitimate targets for oppression by dominant groups, is morally bankrupt and justifies all sorts of other heinous versions of oppression.

Bullshit! I don't need morals to deal with animals.

Humans are animals.

Do they have an "ethical framework" regarding me?

Most primates would, as would pachyderms and cetaceans. Corvids might, and, frankly, there is a chance that many other vertebrate animals would have some sort of primitive one (there are instances of lions, for instance, taking care of antelope calves).

Are they going to equally be concerned for my welfare?

Depends on the animal. But, hey, how many humans are going to be equally concerned about your welfare? I don't think King Saud is going to be as concerned about my welfare as that of his grandchildren, so does that give me free reign to slaughter him for meat?

Consciously choose to live side by side and share resources in a way that is equal to all concerned?

Do you do that with other humans beings who aren't immediate family and close friends?

Of course not! Only humans can and DO make those types of policy decisions and we do so only in regard to other humans UNLESS said animals are adopted into our personal family or we are being generous and allowing it.

That leads to problems such as mass extinctions and the eventual death of humanity. Oh well! It's not like having an ethical framework that includes animals could possibly be useful!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with me picking my species and our needs above all other animals first and foremost. Are you seriously suggesting we should do otherwise?

Why shouldn't he be? He does make a strong case that is difficult to logically refute. How is a newborn baby objectively different from a dog? Fur? Well, some men are bald, some people have hirsutism. A different number of teeth? Well, children have a different number of teeth from adults. What about potential for intelligence? Well, some children are born with cri-du-chat syndrome or some other severe mental disability that limits their intellectual growth to such an extent that linguistic learning is impossible, which limits everything else. There are very few important objective differences between humans and other mammals, so why shouldn't we apply ethical arguments to animals as well as people?

[Justforfun000]

There are very few important objective differences between humans and other mammals, so why shouldn't we apply ethical arguments to animals as well as people?

The most important point that comes to mind? We simply don't have the Godlike means of resource sustainability to do so. Fuck, we are going to have a problem with our own human population explosion. You want to add animals on top of the list of who has to be "looked after"?

Look, I know what you're saying. I can sympathize, but I am too fucking old and jaded to let these simplistic semantics affect my resolve. Again..this isn't Disney! We all can't live happily ever after. The lion isn't going to lie down with the lamb, manna isn't going to fall from the skies. My cause is humanity first. I would do all in my power to minimize unecessary suffering in our species and in any other species we could do so reasonably because that IS what an ethical person would do because we possess empathy. But equal footing? Sorry. When they can talk with us, meet with us, force us to parley in a way that demonstrates equal self-awareness and self-possession in a societal sense, then I'll get back to you.

[Junghalli]

The most important point that comes to mind? We simply don't have the Godlike means of resource sustainability to do so. Fuck, we are going to have a problem with our own human population explosion. You want to add animals on top of the list of who has to be "looked after"?

If we can't alleviate their natural suffering we could at least minimize the degree to which we actively add to it. I'm not sure this is necessarily going to work against maximizing resources for humans; aren't present industrial meat-farming practices pretty wasteful, and would be less so if we only grazed animals on land insuitable for directly growing people food, but this would mean people would have to eat less meat?

[Justforfun000]

If we can't alleviate their natural suffering we could at least minimize the degree to which we actively add to it. I'm not sure this is necessarily going to work against maximizing resources for humans; aren't present industrial meat-farming practices pretty wasteful, and would be less so if we only grazed animals on land insuitable for directly growing people food, but this would mean people would have to eat less meat?

Not arguing against that! Would be HAPPY to help animals and minimize their suffering in every way reasonably possible. In that sense or course I feel similarly as I do to fellow humans. I'm not trying to paint a 100% black and white situation of we matter totally, they don't. BUT if you put my back to the wall as a global species and where our priorities have to be in terms of life rights over the human race and other animals? I will support our species. Now the individual asshole deliberately wiping out animals without good cause, (food, shelter, clothing, etc..), I would take to task and control him within our culture because I DO believe other animals should have a general right to existence of course! It's not that there is any problem with them being an abomination or inconsequential as a consciousness...I'm just trying to make the overall watermark starting point that humans have to care about humans. No other animal has the capacity, (to my knowledge), the desire, or the proven history of altruism towards us as a species.

I feel like I'm arguing against devils advocates..am I just being punked or are you guys serious in your questions? Would you REALLY elevate a non-human species of ANY kind currently existing to have power over our lives at this time equal in our control on theirs?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah, but it's not logically inconsistent, necessarily.

Circular reasoning is not by definition inconsistent. It is just wrong.

Consciously choose to live side by side and share resources in a way that is equal to all concerned? Of course not! Only humans can and DO make those types of policy decisions and we do so only in regard to other humans UNLESS said animals are adopted into our personal family or we are being generous and allowing it.

Some animals do, actually. Dolphins for example will treat a human by THEIR social rules. It is just that their social rules are different from ours and sometimes this can get a human hurt. Same with chimpanzees and other apes. They have a social/ethical framework. It just evolved under different circumstances and signals can get crossed.

So, I want you to define EXACTLY what makes animals inferior to humans in such a way that we owe them absolutely nothing. I do not object to predation, but predation is way the fuck different from what we do them in factory farms, and what we do as a side effect of our agricultural practices to entire ecosystems. So, what makes us "special"? And you cannot simply define it as "humanity" because that is tautological, and is basically the logic of racism, just up a level of organization? Is it human level intellect? Again, tautology. Self-awareness? I can name a number of taxa that are self aware. Elephants, pretty much all the monkeys and great apes, most cetaceans, some parrots, probably octopus, and maybe monitor lizards. Dogs definitely, pigs.... may have better problem solving skills than a dog, but may not be self aware. (Basically, really really high problem solving skills require abstract thought sufficient to visualize the self. First order theory of mind. Highly complex social behavior requires the ability to use your brain to model someone else's reactions. Second order theory of mind or higher. With training, humans can get up to IIRC 6th order theory of mind--they can model reactions to five people down a chain-- .Chimpanzees can sometimes get to third order, dolphins have not been tested, but are at at least second order. I mention dogs as counting because they are highly social, can read human social cues, and can learn to understand language)

The answer to someone not trying to work to a pre-defined anthropocentric conclusion is obvious. What makes humans morally worthwhile? We experience life, and would prefer others to not make our lives miserable. We are all fundamentally the same, therefore, everyone prefers not to have their lives made miserable. Therefore, we will put rules in place to avoid being made miserable. Really simple. I could put this in a polysyllogism if you would like.

Animals with a primary consciousness experience life. The degree to which they are capable of experiencing life (abstractly registering damage-->fixed action pattern to avoid all the way to full self awareness and experiencing vicariously through others) is the degree to which they are similar to us. Therefore, the degree to which they are similar to us is the same degree to which our rules should protect their interests

And this is before we get into ecosystem connectedness. This is nothing more than our own moral intuition as performed by our amygdala and prefrontal cortex, with a consistency rule. It basically means that killing a chimp, dolphin, or elephant is murder (and others), but predation on other animals (like say, a hoofed ungulate that is has limited cognitive ability and basically registers damage) might be acceptable so long as said animal does not suffer thereby.

[Akhlut]

There are very few important objective differences between humans and other mammals, so why shouldn't we apply ethical arguments to animals as well as people?

The most important point that comes to mind? We simply don't have the Godlike means of resource sustainability to do so. Fuck, we are going to have a problem with our own human population explosion. You want to add animals on top of the list of who has to be "looked after"?

So, you take a paternalistic view of nature? It's been chugging along for 14 billion years just fine without us, why do you think it needs taking care of rather than left alone?

Again..this isn't Disney! We all can't live happily ever after. The lion isn't going to lie down with the lamb, manna isn't going to fall from the skies.

Active intervention is unnecessary, but what about not actively taking lives and directly preventing suffering vis a vis farming or similar methods? Eating meat, for instance.

But equal footing? Sorry. When they can talk with us, meet with us, force us to parley in a way that demonstrates equal self-awareness and self-possession in a societal sense, then I'll get back to you.

I do not see infants talking with me, meeting with me, forcing me to parley in a way that demonstrates equal self-awareness and self-possession in a societal sense. Ergo, slaughtering infants for meat and leather is morally and ethically fine, QED.

[Akhlut]

Alternatively: how can I know you're on equal footing with me? For all I know, your speech is nothing more than a sophisticated set of automation from some sort of meaty robot that does not actually have any of the qualities that you described and are little more than an sophisticated insect. Should killing you, then, be ethically fine, due to me thinking you're not actually an entity with moral value?

[Alyrium Denryle]

The most important point that comes to mind? We simply don't have the Godlike means of resource sustainability to do so. Fuck, we are going to have a problem with our own human population explosion. You want to add animals on top of the list of who has to be "looked after"?

Leaving them well enough alone should suffice. Nature has been chugging along much longer than we have been around.

But equal footing? Sorry. When they can talk with us, meet with us, force us to parley in a way that demonstrates equal self-awareness and self-possession in a societal sense, then I'll get back to you.

If we teach them ASL, the great apes display a vocabulary and cognitive ability equal to that of human children. Dolphins have a language of their own (several, actually), we just dont speak it(them) yet. But I suppose that it is OK to kill them for meat. Same with elephants which also probably have a language, mourn their dead, and are one of a few dozen species on the planet that will take horrible vengeance over the course of weeks and months for the murder of their offspring. Mmmm Ivory. Gotta love it.

[Kuroneko]

If we teach them ASL, the great apes display a vocabulary and cognitive ability equal to that of human children. Dolphins have a language of their own (several, actually), we just dont speak it(them) yet.

That's completely incredible. Our great ape cousins are in many ways very intelligent in regards to tool use, ability to solve problems in better ways than trial and error, etc. But that non-human animals have such linguistic ability is unsupported, unless we're going to take children under two years of age.

What their performance in the attempts to teach them language tells us is that they can learn that signs are valued by people and rewarded. Their vocabulary performance is dismal outside of a natural context. In other words, they use signs or lexigrams as an extension of their quite impressive problem-solving abilities, to effect outcomes out of their handlers, and not as a language; they can mand, but show no ability to name.

By no means do humans have a monopoly on intelligence, but they do seem to have one on language.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's completely incredible. Our great ape cousins are in many ways very intelligent in regards to tool use, ability to solve problems in better ways than trial and error, etc. But that non-human animals have such linguistic ability is unsupported, unless we're going to take children under two years of age.

Except that they then proceed to teach said ASL to other apes in their group. Either way, I said human child, by which I meant toddler (which is about the same vocabulary depth of an above-average chimp), so that is perfectly fine.

By no means do humans have a monopoly on intelligence, but they do seem to have one on language.

And then we get into dolphins...

My apologies for formatting. Pulled from PDF

Herman LM, Uyeyama, RK. 2008. Bottlenose dolphins understand relationships between concepts. BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 31(2):139

Example 4. As described in Herman (2002b) the four dolphins
were taught a gestural sign, tandem. When each of a pair of
dolphins was given the tandem sign followed by a sign for a
particular behavior, such as back dive, they joined together and
carried out that behavior in exquisitely close synchrony. Each
dolphin was also taught a sign create, which required it to
perform any behavior of its own choice. Then, when a pair was
given the two-item sequence tandem þ create, they joined
together and in close synchrony performed the same selfselected behavior. On a later formal test of Elele and Hiapo’s
responses to tandem þ create, 79 different highly synchronized
behaviors were recorded with 23 of them novel (i.e., they were
not under control of established gestures). The tandem
responses were very closely timed, and although careful video
analysis could detect some slight asynchrony in timing in some
cases, there was no consistent “leadership” by one dolphin or
the other. These results reveal close collaboration, as well as
the marrying of two abstract concepts, tandem, a social
collaboration, and create, a self-determined behavioral
innovation, into a higher-order abstract relationship. This
collaborative capability likely finds expression in the wild, for
example, in the fluid first-and second-order alliances formed in
collaborative efforts by male dolphins to secure female consorts
(Connor et al. 2000)

This is not at all easy to do. To reach a consensus about a routine of behavior, much of which is novel, plan it in sequence, and then execute it (and yes, there is a period prior to obeying this command that the dolphins swim around and communicate with eachother). This sort of thing requires something that we might call language. It does not have to be at all complex, but if they can understand a really basic language (and they can, apparently, http://www.lacus.org/volumes/34/102_herman_l.pdf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz3sQsTE5tA), have a vast vocal repertoire which gets modified when communicating with other groups of dolphins (or even across species boundaries, which they do), and they use cultural transmission of information...what exactly are we to conclude from this?

Are we to conclude that the huge vocal repertoire, completely different from their echolocation clicks and contact/signature whistles is just noise? Are we to conclude that an animal capable of understanding things like word order, transitive reasoning, presence and absence, and the meaning of verbs sufficiently advanced to modify their environment to perform said verbs... is not capable of a language--even a basic one--of its own? I dont think so.

If you reach this conclusion, what data would you require to show that they do, in fact, have their own language and are capable of actually learning others, such as one we might teach to them? Do you want the language of the group of dolphins living off the Fl. Keys fully translated? We cannot even do that with some old human languages.

[Lagmonster]

This system of yours leads to an ugly place, and it's well past time that we rejected it. Especially when we are in a technological age where we can feed ourselves, more efficiently and at a healthier standard, by eschewing the consumption of animal flesh.

There are many people in many places who die because they do not live in a technolgical age where they can feed themselves, efficiently and at a healthier standard, or by eschewing the consumption of animal flesh. When everyone has a full stomach, we can sit down and talk about being picky about food.

[Straha]

Having read through that a bit, while I appreciate your arguments, I'm not sure they necessarily hold water; after all, the Hindu states of India operated on an ethic of respecting all life, but were willing to make up all sorts of exclusionary principles allowing for the oppression and subjugation of the Dalit while simultaneously revering cattle and preventing any harm to come to them. Contrariwise, if we look at the Sikhs, though they exclude animals enough from their ethical perspective to slaughter and eat them, they also are much more egalitarian and much more committed to social justice.

I'm not arguing for a Hindu or Sikh approach towards animals. Specifically I argue for a Jainist and/or Levinasian approach to ethics which would differ substantially both in rationale and approach to the statist and Sikh ethics you try to compare it to.

Additionally, of the many atrocities committed through history, aside from the ones done in modern Communist nations, how many were done in a utilitarian/consequentialist ethical framework? The genocide against Native Americans was done as a result of mainly Medieval Christian theology, while the Holocaust was a quasi-religious crusade. One can't fault utilitarian ethics for the failures of other philosophies.

Both were expressly maintained and propagated by utilitarian ethics. M'intosh V Johnson (the US supreme court case which stripped Native Americans of land rights) expressly said that Native Americans could never utilize lands like the White Man so they could only be considered to be holding land in trust for white settlement. Many of the later atrocities were also justified via utilitarian approaches to ethics which forced Native Americans off of land that would later be settled by Whitey.

There is endless literature on the holocaust, but a number of authors have pointed out how the camps were designed to wring every last bit of utility out of the jewish inmates, and how the Nazis campaigned for election in certain areas by stating, simply, that the Jews caused more harm than good and thus out be disposed of.

Also: I'll just note here that I wasn't personally subscribing to the idea that I mentioned in my other post, just saying that it isn't logically inconsistent to separate people from animals, though it does require adhering to generally religious principles about the superiority of humans (I didn't mention that second part, but, hey, it is an argument that one can make and that a lot of people do make).

That's exactly the point. Lacking a super-natural starting point there is no consistent way to exclude animals from the moral community.

This system of yours leads to an ugly place, and it's well past time that we rejected it. Especially when we are in a technological age where we can feed ourselves, more efficiently and at a healthier standard, by eschewing the consumption of animal flesh.

There are many people in many places who die because they do not live in a technolgical age where they can feed themselves, efficiently and at a healthier standard, or by eschewing the consumption of animal flesh. When everyone has a full stomach, we can sit down and talk about being picky about food.

That's not an argument. At best that's equivocation and at worst it's moral cowardice.

Yes it's an acceptable act to eat the flesh of animals if you live in place where its consumption is necessary in order to hope to survive. For us in the first world though? Their hardship is no excuse for us to commit needless moral atrocities, and to lump our relationship to food in with their relationship is an act of unimaginable hubris and disrespect.

[Straha]

I'm not simply talking about eating practices. I'm saying your ethical framing of why certain populaces matter, and which populaces are legitimate targets for oppression by dominant groups, is morally bankrupt and justifies all sorts of other heinous versions of oppression.

Bullshit! I don't need morals to deal with animals. Do they have an "ethical framework" regarding me? Are they going to equally be concerned for my welfare? Consciously choose to live side by side and share resources in a way that is equal to all concerned? Of course not! Only humans can and DO make those types of policy decisions and we do so only in regard to other humans UNLESS said animals are adopted into our personal family or we are being generous and allowing it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with me picking my species and our needs above all other animals first and foremost. Are you seriously suggesting we should do otherwise?

I'm going to hasten to add I love animals and would never deliberately hurt them, I don't even have the stomach to personally hunt them and maybe vegetarianism would happen to me anyway if I was forced otherwise..but I still don't feel guilty about them being part of the food chain.

I'm not a heartless bastard. I'm just speaking as realistically and without pie in the sky bleeding-heart ideas getting in the way. The universe is a savage garden. That's reality. It's not "immoral" to accept that and look out for our kind.

I haven't seen someone do the "But I'm not a racist!" in quite some time.

Firstly, your ethical systems needs a check of premises. Your first post makes it very clear that you only consider beings who care about you to be part of your moral framework. This leaves young children, the mentally handicapped, and people with less expansive ethical systems completely outside of any system you might propose.

As to this:

Only humans can and DO make those types of policy decisions and we do so only in regard to other humans UNLESS said animals are adopted into our personal family or we are being generous and allowing it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with me picking my species and our needs above all other animals first and foremost. Are you seriously suggesting we should do otherwise?

Replace species with race. You give no reason as to why you should include all of humanity other than "they're like me", and give no reason to exclude non-human animals except for "they aren't like me." Before you try to get self-righteous and say "But animals don't give a crap about me, so it's okay!" think about it long and hard. Would you be okay with me herding the mentally handicapped, elderly, and certain religious fundamentalists into a feed lot and then raising them for slaughter and consumption. Probably not. Do these people give a shit about you? No. Under your ethical system why is this wrong but the killing of animals okay? The answer is: It's not, at least without being massively contradictory.

So let's try this again, shall we?

[Justforfun000]

I'm conceding the argument for now even though most of you are still agreeing with me in the first place about all I 'm really trying to argue for in the first place, the right to eat animals for food but not to hurt or kill them indiscriminately or possibly special exceptions like primates and such. I should have admitted I was willing to consider differences with certain animals but I didn't want to get sidetracked.

Apparently I just don't know how to argue what I'm trying to put across properly because it's having some of you put a lot of words in my mouth. How the hell could you possibly slippery slope me from eating meat to killing babies and handicapped? Sheesh.

Withdrawn.

[Straha]

I'm conceding the argument for now even though most of you are still agreeing with me in the first place about all I 'm really trying to argue for in the first place, the right to eat animals for food but not to hurt or kill them indiscriminately or possibly special exceptions like primates and such. I should have admitted I was willing to consider differences with certain animals but I didn't want to get sidetracked.

Apparently I just don't know how to argue what I'm trying to put across properly because it's having some of you put a lot of words in my mouth. How the hell could you possibly slippery slope me from eating meat to killing babies and handicapped? Sheesh.

Withdrawn.

A. Pro-tip: When you want to concede a point don't get snooty about it, just concede.
B. I'm certainly not agreeing with you that it's alright to eat animals for food.
C. Unless you can give a justification for why animals are acceptable targets of slaughter and consumption and humans aren't, there really is nothing keeping you from justifying the slaughter of infants.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Both were expressly maintained and propagated by utilitarian ethics. M'intosh V Johnson (the US supreme court case which stripped Native Americans of land rights) expressly said that Native Americans could never utilize lands like the White Man so they could only be considered to be holding land in trust for white settlement. Many of the later atrocities were also justified via utilitarian approaches to ethics which forced Native Americans off of land that would later be settled by Whitey.

There is endless literature on the holocaust, but a number of authors have pointed out how the camps were designed to wring every last bit of utility out of the jewish inmates, and how the Nazis campaigned for election in certain areas by stating, simply, that the Jews caused more harm than good and thus out be disposed of.

You also cannot blame utilitarianism for being misrepresented, or having its assumptions violated.

[Straha]

You also cannot blame utilitarianism for being misrepresented, or having its assumptions violated.

Go check out the consequentialism thread. Util is neither being misrepresented nor having its assumptions violated, if anything Util's assumptions lead to the horrific consequences like the holocaust/CAFOs.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Go check out the consequentialism thread. Util is neither being misrepresented nor having its assumptions violated, if anything Util's assumptions lead to the horrific consequences like the holocaust/CAFOs.

Um. No.

Holocaust: Yeah. Sure. If you conclude that the jews as a race of people were doing more harm than good (a false claim), and the only solution was to kill them, and completely disregard their own contribution to the utility function. Remember, utilitarianism requires the maximization of the utility function. I am pretty sure there were higher utility options other than concentration camps--and that is you accept the statement as true, which no sane/intellectually honest person does.

Native Americans could never utilize lands like the White Man so they could only be considered to be holding land in trust for white settlement.

Presupposes that land must be utilized in accordance with 19th century notions of progress. Something not claimed by utilitarianism at all. An observation by darwin, slightly modified, also seems to fit. The white man is expanding for economic advantage. The native american is fighting for their lives (or home), I wonder... who has a stronger utilitarian claim? Settlers, or the native americans who last I checked, outnumbered whitey locally until smallpox killed them all (horrifically). And remember, the utility function must be MAXIMIZED. No other solution to that problem that does not involve ethnic cleansing eh?

[Lagmonster]

There are many people in many places who die because they do not live in a technolgical age where they can feed themselves, efficiently and at a healthier standard, or by eschewing the consumption of animal flesh. When everyone has a full stomach, we can sit down and talk about being picky about food.

That's not an argument. At best that's equivocation and at worst it's moral cowardice.

Leaving aside that you’re weaselling out of the fact that you didn’t specify that your ideals only apply to rich people, I'll save you the trouble: I don't employ morals with food, only with humans. I don't want the world you offer. I want a world where everyone has the luxury of choice, where everyone can turn down bacon if they feel like it. And that world isn't coming about with empathy for pigs; but it may come about because departments like mine are coming up with ways to raise bigger, healthier, meatier pigs for slaughter.

Yes it's an acceptable act to eat the flesh of animals if you live in place where its consumption is necessary in order to hope to survive. For us in the first world though? Their hardship is no excuse for us to commit needless moral atrocities, and to lump our relationship to food in with their relationship is an act of unimaginable hubris and disrespect.

I’m happy to see you’ve moved where you’ve drawn your line in the sand, although you’re going down the same road as every other idealist I’ve talked to about this: “Eating meat is wrong!” “What if you’re starving?” “Okay, maybe then”. I’m sure if I took the time to discuss global food markets with you, I could get you to agree to enough exceptions for North American production as to push it beyond the point where any layperson would consider it a useful philosophy.

[Straha]

Go check out the consequentialism thread. Util is neither being misrepresented nor having its assumptions violated, if anything Util's assumptions lead to the horrific consequences like the holocaust/CAFOs.

Um. No.

Holocaust: Yeah. Sure. If you conclude that the jews as a race of people were doing more harm than good (a false claim), and the only solution was to kill them, and completely disregard their own contribution to the utility function. Remember, utilitarianism requires the maximization of the utility function. I am pretty sure there were higher utility options other than concentration camps--and that is you accept the statement as true, which no sane/intellectually honest person does.

Native Americans could never utilize lands like the White Man so they could only be considered to be holding land in trust for white settlement.

Presupposes that land must be utilized in accordance with 19th century notions of progress. Something not claimed by utilitarianism at all. An observation by darwin, slightly modified, also seems to fit. The white man is expanding for economic advantage. The native american is fighting for their lives (or home), I wonder... who has a stronger utilitarian claim? Settlers, or the native americans who last I checked, outnumbered whitey locally until smallpox killed them all (horrifically). And remember, the utility function must be MAXIMIZED. No other solution to that problem that does not involve ethnic cleansing eh?

You're missing the more fundamental ethical question. Util presupposes that there can be an accurate accounting of who counts, and who does not, as ethical subjects. The second such a count is made groups are left out and become legitimate subjects of eradication. The problem with the Jews and the Native Americans is that they were no longer viewed as ethical subjects under these systems of util, and were thus elided from the moral calculus except in so far as they effected actual ethical subjects. In other words, because the Native American had no claim to being an ethical subject because they didn't establish settlements they were always legitimate targets for exterimination and destruction. The only way out of this fundamental miscount (which we see most explicitly in this thread) is to get rid of the counting process at all and adopt a universalist framing for ethics and ethical conduct.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're missing the more fundamental ethical question. Util presupposes that there can be an accurate accounting of who counts, and who does not, as ethical subjects. The second such a count is made groups are left out and become legitimate subjects of eradication.

That people fucked up said accounting because they were operating on false assumptions, or bigotry does not mean that consequentialism is not true. In the same way, in Kantian deontology, one must have a rational mind to count. If I don't think that group X is rational--say I take the solipsist approach and claim they do not really exist, or only appear to think--I can do whatever I want to them because I am not violating the categorical imperative by torturing an automaton/figment of my imagination.

Utilitarianism assumes, last I checked, that people are fundamentally the same. That I am no different from you, and no different than a black person etc.

If I use special pleading, I can invent any set of assumptions that breaks any ethical system. I can say, for example, that black people are not people and as such have no natural rights. That does not mean rights theory is invalid (it is invalid for other reasons).

[madd0ct0r]

I’m happy to see you’ve moved where you’ve drawn your line in the sand, although you’re going down the same road as every other idealist I’ve talked to about this: “Eating meat is wrong!” “What if you’re starving?” “Okay, maybe then”. I’m sure if I took the time to discuss global food markets with you, I could get you to agree to enough exceptions for North American production as to push it beyond the point where any layperson would consider it a useful philosophy.

"Stealing is wrong!" "What if you're starving?" "Well, ok then."

ETHICAL SYSTEM IN TATTERS!

But please do discuss the global meat markets. I'd love to see how you get me to agree for exceptions for the North American system.

[Straha]

Leaving aside that you’re weaselling out of the fact that you didn’t specify that your ideals only apply to rich people, I'll save you the trouble: I don't employ morals with food, only with humans. I don't want the world you offer. I want a world where everyone has the luxury of choice, where everyone can turn down bacon if they feel like it. And that world isn't coming about with empathy for pigs; but it may come about because departments like mine are coming up with ways to raise bigger, healthier, meatier pigs for slaughter.

A. Bullshit I only apply morals to rich people, I merely prioritize survival. If you live in the Serengeti or the South East Pacific and literally cannot live without the sacrifice of animals it is acceptable to kills as necessary. Nobody in the first or second (or most of the third) world faces that ethical dilemma, nor should they be excused from that choice.

B. The "luxury of choice" comes off the horrific maiming, mutilation, torture, rape, and needless slaughter of animals. The choice you call for is the choice to commit atrocity at whim via a process that's not only morally horrific but is also unhealthy and, in North America especially, environmentally destructive beyond all want or repair. What Agriculture Canada (and the DoA in America) does cannot be justified, and will (I hope) one day be a hallmark of one of this era's deeply shameful characteristics.

C. You want to talk this out in regards to North America? Fine. Let's have at it. You, me, the The Coliseum. "Resolved: It's ethically justifiable for North Americans to consume animal products as part of their diet." You affirm, I negate, and I'll even give you four posts to my three and first and last post. I'd make some snide comment here but I think this would actually be both of us doing our jobs, except on the internet.

[Straha]

Utilitarianism assumes, last I checked, that people are fundamentally the same. That I am no different from you, and no different than a black person etc.

That's about as close to factually wrong as possible.

But let's say you were right, the question would be why? If you simply start from the stance that all humans count then you're being utterly arbitrary and can't rule out the exclusion of other groups on similar arbitrary grounds. Anything that is 'innately human' that would make humans count, typically language or higher intelligence, tends to elide large portions of humanity and render them as beings outside the moral calculus. Not only is that problematic but the standards that make humans count tend to be rather arbitrary and can change according to new social interpretations of the world that render more beings outside the moral community. Put more succinctly, any utilitarian calculus is always going to be based on a foundation of shifting cultural norms and presumptions that can arbitrarily include or exclude groups with no rhyme or reason.

The closest that anyone has gotten to overcoming this is Peter Singer and his gaggle of followers with his attempts to spread util's net as wide as it can go, but even his work is ridden with internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Better to take the logical next step and just adopt a universalist framing of ethics and be done with it.