Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Stating that we feel special about our own children, says nothing about consuming animal products. Yes we feel our children are special, and so do other non-human animals feel their children are special. And? We feel our children are special therefore we treat them differently than a stranger's child, or a non-human. OK. Now please explain how that justifies our torture and killing of non-humans, without necessity. It simply doesn't.
Don’t respond to a Gary Francione statement with any references to P.E.T.A or Peter Singer. Mr. Francione has already explicitly stated many times he completely disagrees with both P.E.T.A and Mr. Singer. And with regard to your last statement, please re-read the following "...a very poor argument. There are many human beneficiaries of rights…who may not understand rights or any other notion connected with moral philosophy.
So what? The issue is our moral obligation not their level of comprehension..." **Sigh. How sad CCF. I mean, really.
- knuckles
August 17, 2008 1:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You fail to even understand Gary Fracione's argument. He's not saying we should be legally allowed to kill retarded human children. He's saying we shouldn't be able to kill NON-human children for the same REASON we shouldn't be able to kill retarded children.
Don't you see? You can't explain why we can't kill retarded children. Do you know why? Because by YOUR logic, there's IS no reason. It's just a FEELING you have. Retarded children will live their entire lives never able to grasp the concepts of rights. Ever. It is YOUR argument that says we should, therefore, be able to torture, kill, and eat them. Gary Francione wouldn't dream of eating their flesh. Why? Because he believes that even though they don't understand their rights, rights are still bestowed upon them by people who are capable of comprehending that these creatures have interests and those interests should be protected.
- mike
August 17, 2008 8:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
CFC said, ""Rights" belong to humans alone. Why? Because we're the only species capable of even approaching the argument rationally."
Yet, if that were the case, we wouldn't owe rights to human babies, human children, human mentally challenged, the mentally ill, or even simply people who haven't had an education in logic and philosophy.
Clearly, the CFC is grasping at straws.
- ElaineVigneault September 2, 2008 12:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"There's something instinctive about the experience of parenting that brings into focus the plain differences between people and animals."
It's interesting that the CFC brings up children because children are MORE likely to go vegetarian or vegan than adults. Their reason is simple. It's not based on complex philosophy, moral superiority, rights or anything else. It's simply: I don't eat my friends.
Children LIKE animals, so they don't want to eat them. It's not that they think animals are equal or even that animals deserve rights. It's just a matter of basic respect and kindness.
You don't need to think animals are equal to humans in order to think eating them is wrong.
- ElaineVigneault September 2, 2008 12:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Elaine Vigneault's comment on the relationship between children and animals is very accurate and I can testify on that. I was brought up on a farm and saw with my own eyes the slaughtering of my pig and chicken friends, much to my horror. I'm sure therein lies the roots of my veganism. I just knew it was wrong to kill those animals because they were crying for their lives and I felt love for them. I didn't need to be philosophically-literate to realise that, my heart told me what I had to know. It's simple really - we don't need animal products in our lives, as official data attests and knowledge and technology allows us not to, so carrying on with their breeding and killing is inconsistent with civilization, full stop. We must move on and evolve.
- apasolini
September 3, 2008 1:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"A Person's a Person, No Matter How Small" -- or how weak, or how incapacitated. The only way you can diminish the value of a PERSON is if you're looking for a way to do it. Period.
This ridiculous excuse for logic may play at Rutgers, but in the real world where people actually encounter both animals and mentally retarded children, you're going to come out on the losing end untiol the end of time.
I understand Francione's argument perfectly well. I just refuse to concede the ridiculous way he's framing the debate. There's no justification for presuming the moral equivalence of animals and humans. Emotionalism is the only basis for doing so. I'm not going there, and I'm not obligated to acknowledge the moral superiority (or even sanity) of those who do.
To paraphrase some of what passes for argument around here, the fact that we CAN extend rights to animals isn't sufficient reason that we SHOULD.
- Consumer Freedom August 17, 2008 8:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Please help this debate.
Your arguments so far: 1) It's a ridiculous thought 2) Most people don't think this way
Forgive me for not finding this convincing. If you don't like the framing, then try your own way. Either reiterate (in a way that addresses the concerns of the comments posted) your original arguments, or pose new ones.
The only reason the idea of capacity for rational thought came into the debate is because that is something you threw in as a difference that justifies needlessly harming and killing animals for profit and pleasure. It was only then that it was continuously pointed out to you that there are plenty of moral patients (recipients of rights and ethical codes) who have no concept of their benefits or their benefactors.
Instead of giving a "BECAUSE! THAT'S WHY!" response, try addressing these "ridiculous framings" with a clear, logical rebuttal.
- mike August 17, 2008 10:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Hi CCF. You know; if you would have a nice objective read of the articles submitted in this particular argument ('response to CCF'’, Comments and your objections), you might notice that the only one, who is getting "Emotional", between you and the people, Mr. Francione included, who are opposing your argument, is you.
Now, why is that I wonder? I do not claim to be superior to you. But, when you are debating on a public forum such as this one, you should read the articles objectively, and come up with rational arguments, if you want to try to be taken seriously in the debate.
May I ask, regarding your last sentence: does the fact that we CAN enslave, torture, and exploit animals mean that we SHOULD? Does it give, to put it in your words, sufficient reason? You make no sense to me. This does not mean that I think I am superior. It simply means, that I, personally, cannot find any logic in your arguments, and I think it may very well be because your arguments make no sense.
- knuckles August 18, 2008 1:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"There's no justification for presuming the moral equivalence of animals and humans. Emotionalism is the only basis for doing so."
Well, would you care to explain in an un-"emotional" way why men and women are 'equal', even though most men and physically much stronger than women?
To me, an un-"emotional" and completely rational answer would be : power and strength are irrelevant to the moral point of male-female equality. I cannot see why this same reason is irrelevant in the moral debate of human-nonhuman equality.
- Sandy
August 23, 2008 1:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
6
7
10
5
5
1
7
7
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Response to the CCF
- From Gary L Francione
By Gary L. Francione - Rutgers University School of Law
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Perfecto
As always, Gary displays impeccable logic and depth of thought. Which is more than can be said for arguments on the "yes" side that I have seen here.
- kelley
August 17, 2008 4:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Logic?
Anyone expecting logic from CCF forgets that the entire point of the organization is to obfuscate the truth, misleading consumers so that their clients sell more product.
Francione, on the other hand, is about as logically rigorous as they come.
- epski August 20, 2008 11:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
True enough
I certainly wasn't expecting logic from anyone on the Yes side actually, but good point. My aim was more to highlight Francione's reasoning... which is lightyears ahead of all the other "experts" in this debate.
- kelley
August 25, 2008 4:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If that were humans
Ï have read some stuff about "speciesism" and watched the video "theory of animal rights" on your website and by reading your response to the CCF (who aren't very clever I agree ) I have realised an interesting thing.
When I imagine that I am in a world in which the majority of humans are cannibals and in which there are human slaughterhouses, I would not just talk with every cannibal and say to him that it is wrong to kill humans and that it is a "moral imperative" to stop eating human flesh, I would certainly gather with other people who think like me and would demand a law that forbids killing humans, because it is the right thing to do even if we aren't a lot. I wouldn't be able to say this: "The decision to reject the violence entailed by consuming and otherwise using nonhumans must be a matter of moral choice.", because i think that killing humans is absolutely wrong and that even if some people want to continue to eat humans they should be stopped.
If you are antispeciesist but you just say to people who eat animals that it is wrong to do it and that it is a "moral imperative" to stop, that means that (possibility 1) if you were in a world in which humans were killed in slaughterhouses, you would just say to the cannibals that they should make the moral choice to stop eating humans whithout even demanding a law that forbids this practice which would be completely unethical and irrestpectful of human rigths. Or that means that (possibility 2)you would demand a law that forbids killing humans but you don't demand it for animals because unconsciously you think like the majority of humans that animals are less important than humans.
Which one is it?
- Zeus September 9, 2008 5:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Social Movements
Zeus,
What can I say except that there are many aspects of a social movement. I realize that a million-person march on national capitals is a real tour-de-force worthy of note, and makes headlines; but the truth is that you need a strong base before waltzing down the main streets of capital cities demand legal changes.
All past movements began with disseminating literature, organizing communities to action, holding rallies and protests, etc, and only then did they have the momentum to demand legal action. There is a lot of frustration and anger over this issue, and it’s appropriate to use that anger to write it in books, in blogs, or in these forums; to use it to enact local change in communities, to discuss it with those around you, to protest it, to sing it, to dance it, to express it in every way possible, and when it’s appropriate, to march it.
There must be efforts on all fronts. Most of them require hard work and, unfortunately, don’t grab headlines. Some of them include presenting arguments that counter the efforts of organizations such as the CCF.
In short, all I’m saying is that just because there aren’t huge rallies every weekend that doesn’t mean that effective efforts aren’t being taken to squelch the horrors of speciesism. I am very thankful for forums such as this that promote discussion and allow our message to shine through. However, I do look forward to marching at national capitals, and I hope you’ll be there with us.
- etbarker
December 17, 2008 12:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nothing else to add, just perfect!
What can I say, Gary's arguments are arguments, FCC's are just dogmas and tangential explanations.
Thumbs up for Gary.
- joancarles
May 31, 2009 5:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Moral significance
It took me a while to understand the concept of who is morally significant- those who have free-will are morally significant in that they have accountability for what they do. Only actions performed freely require moral justification. The argument for usign animals seems to always rest on the idea that animals do not act morally to each other so why should we treat them any differently. Animals do not act with the same degree of free will as humans do, consequently they need not justify their actions to us. We need not justify our actions to animals, but we are responsible morally for what we do to animals to ourselves because we are free agents to a greater extent than animals are.
I think the argument about individual freedom and responsibility is constantly used with the disadvantaged and the poor in societies. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds are assumed to possess the same degree of freedom as those from advantaged backgrounds and so their acts of crime or violence are considered to be choices for which they are responsible and therefore which should be punished. But to what degree were these actions free choices? Sometimes it is not so clear cut- any study of the backgrounds of people in prison will reveal their choices were actually very limited. It is pointless to attribute moral responsibility where there is no choice. The same applies to animals. However, this does not mean that those who do have choice are not responsible for what they do to those who have less choice.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 10:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.