The Reason Foundation and CCF: An Absence of Valid Arguments
This forum illustrates an interesting aspect of the "debate" between those who promote animal exploitation and those who oppose it. The former do not put forth any valid or even interesting arguments. Unfortunately, it is not really a "debate" at all.
Let's do a brief review.
The Reason Foundation
The Reason Foundation argues that the universal adoption of a plant-based agriculture would condemn the world's poor to starvation. The Reason Foundation suggests that veganism is some elite privilege of rich nations and individuals.
The exact opposite is true. Although there are many political reasons that contribute to world starvation, it simply cannot be doubted that the inefficient use of resources required for animal agriculture is an important factor. For example, there is presently a food crisis in many parts of the third world. The reason for this crisis is that China and India are consuming dramatically increasing amounts of meat and grain is being diverted to produce that meat. The notion that the poor will be harmed by the adoption of a plant-based agriculture is ridiculous. Animal agriculture ensures that many of the poor will starve.
The Reason Foundation also argues that plant production is more
environmentally destructive than meat production. Again, that is
ludicrous. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
has recently reported that animal agriculture is
a more significant producer of greenhouse gases than is the burning of
fossil fuels for transport.
So the Reason Foundation proposes two arguments that not only do not support its position but where the data support the opposite position--that we should not consume animal products.
The Center for Consumer Freedom
CCF flails around desperately, moving from arguments to rebut positions that I do not take to simple declarations that are not even arguments.
For example, CCF lectures us about libertarian philosophy in support of the notion that people should not be forced to be vegan. I defy CCF to cite one instance in which I have suggested to the contrary.
I have consistently maintained that this a moral choice that people must make. It cannot be legislated or forced; there must be a shift in the moral paradigm. So CCF's comments about John Stuart Mill are completely irrelevant because this debate is not about whether government power should be used to impose veganism; rather, it is about whether those who care about morality should choose to become vegan.
But the bulk of CCF's contributions can be characterized as nothing more than declarations that humans are superior and that it is ridiculous to suggest that humans cannot exploit nonhumans. When confronted with arguments that supposedly unique human characteristics cannot be used to justify the exploitation of animals as a moral matter, CCF goes running off and refuses to engage those arguments, preferring instead to make ad hominem attacks on those who gainsay CCF's baseless declarations.
In fairness to both the Reason Foundation and CCF, there really is no good response to the arguments against animal exploitation. The best argument that we have for killing 53 billion animals a year worldwide (not counting fish) is that we have the power to do so and we enjoy the taste. But a long time ago, Socrates, in Plato's dialogue, The Republic, rebutted the argument that justice is what is in the interest of the stronger.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Here is another argument I hear from people about why they must eat meat - they point to their front teeth and tell me that their teeth are pointy at the tips- this is of course irrefutable biological evidence they are in fact a carnivore! Not that their teeth even come close to what one would find in a vampire film. Somehow they forget they also have a full set of chewing teeth at the sides of their mouth, which no real carnivore has or needs. I really think they need to pay a visit to a vet and have a look at a model of what a dog's or cats' set of jaws is like. In fact- a cat's jaw has virtually no teeth on the sides- only two fangs at the front and tiny sharp teeth on each side of the mouth- because carnivores do not chew their food .
I also have people tell me that because baboons have sharp teeth it means humans are also carnivores. What is needed is a proper defintion of what a carnivore really is.
Mr. Francione claims that the Reason arguments and the CCF arguments are illogical.
I disagree, because I find his interpretations of the Reason and CCF arguments to be bogus. Reason does not argue that meat is cheaper to produce or that it generates less carbon to feed a carnivorous diet . Francione attempts to set up a straw man. Reason argues that the quality of life of the poor is improved by the availability of meat for their diet and that world Veganism would be tantamount to culture-cide for the Masai and probably for many other similar cultures in which the consumption of animal products is integral.
Mr. Francione claims that the fact that consumption of meat is pleasurable is not a logical or "good" argument. Would the same hold true if the argument was sex vs celibacy? If someone tried to argue that the whole world ought to be celibate, would it be irrational to argue in response that sex is a pleasurable and natural part of life?
I would like to hear a response by Mr. Francione to CCF's argument that "Plant-Eating Kills Plenty of Animals Too."
CCF argues that "According to [an Oregon State University] study, even a completely vegan U.S. diet would result in the deaths of 1.2 billion animals every year. That's more animals than would die if we were eating a meat-based diet skewed heavily toward ruminant animals (cows, calves, sheep, and lambs)."
Is that argument irrational, Mr. Francione? Or do do you merely find it inconvenient?
I agree with Gary L. Francione! Groups like CCF are here to support factory farming & help the meat industry. They are least bothered about animal welfare or human rights. CCF runs from funds donated by fast food giants, slaughterhouses, tobacco industries, cattle ranchers, etc., they are here in support of them.
Right--the question is do we have a "moral justification". Or as you invoke the ancient greek philosopher you could say "Is is just to eat animals" That's the trap that we meat eaters cannot get out of in this debate. The real fact is that we don't care if meat eating is just, or if we have moral justification--we certainly don't have one. In that regard we bring ourselves to the mentality of wolves. I do not think about the long range, long term consequences of my killing of a deer for food. Mass meat eating could eventually lead to depletion of food stuffs right? but I'm not concerned about eventual starvations and malnutritions in the human population, which exist that in natures cycles for all other organisms as a kind of population balancing phenomenon. I don't think it is any question that many of our actions as humans could eventually lead to population depletion--I'm have to be OK with that on some level to "justify" my actions.
It certainly is refreshing to see honesty about this issue from the Yes side. It is so blatantly obvious to me that there is no moral justification for exploiting and intentionally killing animals, and I’m always astounded at the attempts to “justify” it. The best response from those who contribute to exploitation or intentional killing is simply that moral justification doesn’t matter. To say: “Sure, we’re not morally justified, but so what? Why be moral? Why not be an egoist and do whatever the law or society permit?”
To that response, I have no arguments to give. It is only when people try to “justify” exploitation and intentional killing that they don’t have a rational leg to stand on.
Yes I'm being honest. Sorry about the bad grammar--I hope that's not what made you say that I'm not as great as a wolf. In your response you say some interesting things.
"The majority of people feel empathy and do not want to be the cause of unnecessary suffering and they do care"--Sure a lot of people don't realize where their meat comes from, but that still seems like kind of a straw man argument--maybe just from my point of view though. I'm from Wyoming--I've hunted and raised cattle chickens and goats and sheep. I've slaughtered (quickly, but you may be one of those people don't care how quickly--it's still killing). Many people in my experience do not consider these actions to be causng "unnecessary suffering" and it seems to me that many people who are in the animal rights movement seem to put animal suffering on equal footing to human suffering, which I find very strange. Sure I don't want to hurt my dog, but a bear or mountain lion does not empathize with me or any of its food sources--some say because they don't have a way to do that, which is possible, but I think they do care about their families and they don't caniblize....) Why should I empathize across species lines especially with animals like cows and pigs and deer that really don't want to have anything to do with me? I don't really put a lot of credence in the empathizing with animals argument. I think the argument that makes more sense is the one about efficient use of resources and energy. One thing that I notice (correct me if I'm wrong) is that a lot of people in the U.S. who are heavy into veganism and animal rights do not come from backgrounds where people raise animals for food products or hunt--many in fact rely on others to grow their vegetables and grains for them, so it would only make sense from their point of view to use natural resources in the most efficient way so that they will not be without (if there was a shortage, they would be screwed--I would still be eating deer). But also in that regard, hunting and fishing are not the same as farming. I would hope that the animal rights movement would condone the existence of wild deer and antelope--Something is going to eat them and it does not remove any resources not already taken to eat them (people also regulate how many can be killed to make sure they stay correctly populated). Farming on the other hand is quite artificial and directly, purposely removes a lot of agricultural resources. The question of course, as I said earlier, is do I care enough to feed you? And a larger question--do I have the right to manage large chunks of land that I "own" and demand trade for the food there. In a tribal system (I like those), it would be perfectly natural for the people in a certain place to manage the land where they dwell and trade commodities gained from it to others. But in our less natural society, we have a different set up, so do you own some of the land in our "national community" even if you live in say NY city (sorry I'm not trying to make assumptions, just for argument sake--I'm not actually a land owner either). If I do have some kind of property rights, do I feel like I'm even getting a fair trade for what I consider to be mine if I'm trading a necessecity to life for...um what is it I'm getting for this again? and IPOD? Do you yave a right to demand grain from me instead of beef?
wrww:
I imagine you find equating human and nonhuman suffering strange because it has been accepted as unquestioned dogma in our culture that they are not and cannot be the same. A closer look, however, shows that unquestioned assumption to be wrong. It may be true that some animals are less sensitive to certain pain or harm than some humans, but it is also true that the pain and harm inflicted on animals can and often does equal or exceed that of humans. It is completely irrelevant whose pain it is. If it is significant pain, it is significant pain, and therefore morally relevant to the degree that it exists and equally across race, sex, and species.
There is nothing that makes humans “special.” There are many humans who don’t care about me any more than they care about a rock (some of them are mentally disabled, others just don’t care), but that does not justify my exploitation or killing of them. We can and ought to leave animals alone.
Wait--I'm not saying that animals don't feel pain as much as I do--I'm sure they do! I've killed more than one animal and there is no question they felt pain. But I am saying, once again, that I don't care as much about them. That is NOT at all unnatural, (but not all natural occurrences are moral by many peoples standards), but I don't think that attitude is wrong: I don't know if it is ethically justifiable, but I think it is natural. This is why:
Certainly we can make the obvious observation that when I've been hurt--it..well...really sucked, so it wouldn't be "moral" for me to do that to another being, but that's all a game of psychological ideals, not physical realities--- I NATURALLY identify (you may say 'empathize') more with my own species, even more with people from my own culture, and even more with my own community, then with my family and most with myself. I do not identify with a horse as much as I do with my sister. I think that people that say that they care about an animal's, or even a human stranger's life or wellbeing as much as their own, or their own childs, or their own wife or husband's are probably really lying (I hope that's not insulting, but whatever). It doesn't matter to what extent people want to convince themselves about golden rules, I think nobody feels my pain as much as I do (if at all?) and I don't feel theirs as much as they do. I don't believe that most anybody can truly value the pain, suffering and or death of another being as much as the victim of that pain. So then starting from the self and moving out through my family, community, larger communities, cultures and then finally species--I would say that I really in a very functional way do value the pain of animals in another species quite less and in fact most every sentient being does this because is is phycially natural. Now don't think that I go around squashing toads for no reason--I only kill for my own or families physical sustainability and protection, but I certainly have no basis for "empathizing" with reptiles or fish--I know that they are alive and can feel pain, but their existence and well being as entities other than food are not as valuable to me a humans.
wrww:
What you are referring to is “kin selection” and you are correct from a biological standpoint that all of us, as animals, have a biological tendency toward kin selection – a preference for one’s own kind, family, etc.
I also agree that there is nothing wrong (and everything right) with feeling and assuming greater responsibilities toward our immediate family than we do toward friends, and greater toward friends than strangers. However, just because we identify/empathize much more with family than with strangers, doesn’t mean that we would or should exploit or kill strangers for certain pleasures or preferences. The same goes for nonhuman beings.
We should identify with nonhuman beings as innocents who were born into the world as a member of the species they happen to be through no fault of their own, just as a stranger was born into the world unknown to us. We should realize that those beings want to live a decent life just as we do and react like we would toward violence and the immediate threat of death. For the same reason we shouldn’t exploit and intentionally kill innocent humans for our preferences or pleasures, we shouldn’t exploit and intentionally kill innocent nonhumans. They have committed no crime worth imprisonment or the death penalty. They were only unfortunate enough to be born into a world dominated by more powerful beings.
I’m going to be away from the Net for a few days, so if I don’t reply soon to any responses, that is why. I will follow up probably on Tuesday.
But I think a point has been missed. The point is basicallay that I have my own "animal rights"--I do not really have any reason to base my actions on psychological constructs (ethics philosophies) that I do not see a physical basis for. Certainly it is true that kin selection does not require anyone to exploit or kill strangers--and It certainly doesn't argue that anyone SHOULD do that outside of the limit of extreme scarcity of food and such. And its' fair to say that probably anyone can identify/empathize with an animal in pain--weather they care to or not--anyone probably can. But to go to the point of making a lifestyle based around avoiding the killing a being of another species, which could be seen, as much or more, as a food source than something whose pain you basically fantasize that you are empathizing with is quite unnecessary. The type of caring that you insist people should have is an abstract psychological construct. Think about it--most other animals do not really have these kinds of fantasy worlds. They don't have any reason to claim that they really feel anything but their own experience. Anything else is a fanatsy, weather begotten by logic or lack of it. When an animal is hurt and you empathize with that animal, you are choosing to do so (you can't really feel it). I am claiming ultimately that I have the right to pick and choose these kinds of ethical fantasies--they are not even based in my physical, biological reality (things like kin selection are). Once again--I state--there is nothing at all unnatural about CHOOSING to devalue the pain of members of other species in the interest of my dinner--this is normal in the animal kingdom. I have the right as an animal to choose to eat other animals.
Why should I not apply your philosophy to humans also? Humans and nonhumans kill other members of their own species, often merely because they feel like it or are angry and killing seems like a natural response to the anger. If Bill angers Joe and Joe has an extremely strong desire to kill Bill in retaliation, why shouldn’t he do it? According to your underlying philosophy, since other humans and other animals do that, Joe ought to be able to also. Is it because Joe should want to stay out of jail or stay in good social standing? Or is it just that it is wrong of Joe to kill because he has a strong desire to?
Mmmmmm, not quite--but nice try. I suppose if you want (which I'm sure you don't), you could apply my philosophy to humans--But remember, my argument is about food (as is this forum), not anger. It's not about war, but hunting. So we need to think about Joe eating Bill, not in an emotional fit of vengeance, but because Joe happens to taste good to Bill. Bill likes to eat people.
Now we know that there are or at least have been in the past cannibalistic tribes of humans. They have been shunned by societies and probably don't exist anywhere near you or I in time space. The reason they are shunned is not necessarily because of a psychological construct of altruism or pacifism. Even most war-mongers don't eat humans. It can also be because 1) people don't want to worry about being on the run from cannibals who are craftier than other predators that they already have to worry about and 2) people (who are social animals (even meateaters) think it's totally repulsive, (again because we naturally identify with our own species on a very primal level--I mean if you don't think eating humans is repulsive on a totally different level than eating chickens, they you may not be human). There's no need to rationalize farther-- I think it's fair to say that most humans operate on a certain agreement that we are not going to try to eat each other as long AS LONG AS THERE IS OTHER FOOD AROUND--don't think your neighbor wouldn't eat you if you were all that was left. But this agreement doesn't exist between species. Cows and bears can't even understand humans. Even the famously docile fish will nibble on live animals trapped in their waters. They don't give a fuck about you!! The psychological construct of the ethic of not hurting each other under almost any circumstances only makes sense within the human sphere--If you don't think so, go talk to rabbit about it. See how far you get.
wrww:
It’s about unnecessary killing, not food. If it were necessary for us to eat animal products, then it would be about food and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But it’s not necessary to eat animal products, and the only reason we do so is desire – because we prefer it – not because it is in any way necessary. So killing for the desire that we prefer to see our adversaries dead is very similar to killing for the desire of certain gustatory preferences. (BTW, our distaste for human flesh is deeply cultural, not biological. There have been human cultures that honored their ancestors by consuming their bodies after they died at natural death. Cannibals have referred to humans as “the long pig” because apparently we taste like “pork” or “bacon” [if we’re cured/smoked].)
You suggest that we don’t kill humans because we’d rather live in a society where we don’t have to constantly worry about ourselves being killed. This suggestion is a sort of egoist social contract theory. It basically assumes there is no good reason not to kill innocent people other than an implied social contract. It claims that the reason we don’t all kill each other is not because we give a damn about people – whom presumably we’d just as soon kill them as look at them – but because we’re looking out for our self-interest and part of our self-interest is living in a society where we’re more likely to live a long life. There are people who think that way, and if you’re one of them, then there’s no need to carry on this discussion, because we disagree at a much more fundamental level (i.e. if you reject human rights, then we don’t have much else to discuss).
However, if you think the reason we don’t kill innocent humans (for money or whatever utilitarian reason) is because innocent humans have an important interest and basic right not to be severely exploited, tortured, and killed, then we should continue this discussion. The point I’m making is that there is no morally relevant criterion separating human versus nonhuman beings for the purpose of the basic right not to be exploited, tortured, or killed. If one agrees with the basic reasons for human rights, then to be reasonably consistent, one must apply those basic reasons to nonhuman beings also. Any attempt to distinguish between humans and sentient nonhumans is grossly arbitrary and therefore wrong.
There is no point in arguing morals here, morals are like derrieres, everyone has them and they are all different.
I would never intentionally harm another living creature just for the sake of doing it.
I believe that every human on this earth has the right to live the way they want as long as it does not adversely affect others (Humans). If you want to be a vegan go for it, just remember to take your B12 so the rest of us don’t have to pay your medical bills.
Feeling morally self-righteous and believing your cause of choice outweighs everyone else’s beliefs is wrong and has caused more death, started more wars and been the motivation for more cruelty then anything.
One more thing, Jimmy P:
You said we should make sure we get enough B12 so others don’t have to pay for our hospital bills. I agree with that, but would add that non-vegans should avoid animal products so we don’t have to pay for your hospital bills from high cholesterol, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and even cancer.
Jimmy P:
If someone claims they don’t care about morals or the morality of a given act, then there is nothing to discuss and “no point in arguing about morals.” However, if someone claims they do care about morals and believe there is justification for what they do, then there is a lot to discuss and thinking rationally about morals and justifications is very important.
You say you “would never intentionally harm another living creature just for the sake of doing it.” What if you got pleasure from it, directly or indirectly? Many people do get pleasure from harming other living creatures and use that “rationale” to “justify” the harm they inflict. In fact, that is what this whole topic is about: whether or not we are justified in harming another sentient being merely because we derive pleasure from it. There may be a difference between being a sadist (i.e. deriving pleasure directly from the harm) and consuming animal products (i.e. deriving pleasure indirectly from the harm), but that difference is disturbingly small. In the end, whether the pleasure is derived directly or indirectly, you are still harming solely because you derive pleasure (indirectly via the taste of animal products) from the harm.
Why does every human have “the right to live the way they want as long as it does not adversely affect others (Human)” and why only humans? What, specifically, is so special about humans that we have that right but other sentient beings who want to be left alone and be happy just as much as we do don’t have that right? It is pure dogma (unjustified belief) that humans are somehow “special”. You cannot come up with a relevant difference that would justify different treatment.
Finally, I assert that wars are caused from some people violating the rights of others (human or nonhuman), and that if you want to avoid wars, stop stepping on others (human and nonhuman) rights and well-being. That said, what we’re talking about here is not whether ARAs should “wage war” on non-vegans, but whether we are justified in inflicting harm on innocent nonhuman beings for our pleasures. We are not justified and it is absurd to try to justify it. The best response from the Yes side is “it’s not justified, but I don’t care whether it is justified or not, I’m doing it anyway.”
"You say you “would never intentionally harm another living creature just for the sake of doing it.” What if you got pleasure from it, directly or indirectly?"
If you get pleasure from directly inflicting pain on a living creature you are sick and need help. The reason we get pleasure from eating meat is the same reason we get pleasure from sex, because if we didn't we would be extinct.
You can justify eating an unnatural diet because you have empathy for all living things and can't bear to see them suffer and that’s fine.(note: Plants are also living creatures, just because you have no tangible way of sensing their pain does not mean they don't feel pain.) Just face the fact that humans are and have always been omnivores, morality, conscience or legislation will not change that.
I can't argue morality with you because you’re and my moralities are totally different. You will always be right in your eyes, I will always be right in mine. You would have more luck appealing to my code of honor then my morals.
Morality is not messing around on your wife because you think it's wrong.
Honor is not messing around on your wife because she thinks it's wrong.
Jimmy P:
First, although it is true that we have evolved with animal products in our diet, the evidence of our vegetarian, ape-like digestive tract is overwhelming in favor of a mostly plant-based diet with very small quantities (1% to around 3%) of meat, eggs and dairy. The designations “herbivore”, “omnivore”, and “carnivore” are very crude categories that don’t allow for the spectrum of transition areas between them. I would say that, by evolutionary standards, we are really 95-99% herbivore and 1-5% omnivore, yet because of blind tradition and cultural dogma, we call ourselves “omnivores”.
So, to call a vegan diet “unnatural” is an exaggeration at best, and even absurd, when faced with the biological and nutritional evidence available today. If there is anything unnatural, it is gorging ourselves with the quantities of flesh and bodily fluids that the average American does, which leads to heart disease, high cholesterol (which is often unnaturally medicated due to poor diet), and obesity, just to name a few of the health problems associated with being an “omnivore.”
About animal suffering: It is not that I “cannot bear to see them suffer”. In fact, being an animal rights advocate, I expose myself to their suffering almost every day. Suffering and death is a part of life for every being born and it is something that I am very comfortable with, including, and perhaps especially, my own pain and death.
My problem with our use of animals is that I think it is plain and obviously wrong to exploit and kill them for our pleasures or preferences. I don’t arbitrarily distinguish exploiting and killing nonhumans from exploiting and killing humans, because there really is no difference. I realize that idea that there is no difference flies in the face of our cultural dogma, but I think the dogma is just that – dogma – highly cherished, unquestioned and unjustified belief that originated in religious dogma. For me, it is a matter of moral principle, not a matter of not being able to “bear to see them suffer”.
As far as honor goes, honor is little more than a ridiculous obsession with what the herd thinks. It is looking to culture rather to oneself for approval and approbation. Personally, I think notions like honor and pride are for those who have not been shown how to think for themselves and to rely on themselves for their sense of self-worth. Instead, they have been taught to look to the herd for what to think and for their self-worth. I forget who said it, but I like it: “It is better to be at war with the world and at peace with yourself than to be at peace with the world but at war with yourself.”
So yes, morality – what I think about my own actions – is far more important to me than honor – what others think of my actions.
"So, to call a vegan diet “unnatural” is an exaggeration at best, and even absurd, when faced with the biological and nutritional evidence available today."
You can't survive on a Vegan diet without supplements. You can reason away facts all you want but it does not change them.
"As far as honor goes, honor is little more than a ridiculous obsession with what the herd thinks"
No that would be morality, people do horrible things to other people in the name of morality. Honor is a sense of what’s right and wrong and how you apply it when dealing with others.
On Supplements:
In a truly natural environment, one which is not as immaculately sanitized as ours, you can survive on a vegan diet. B12 is the only essential vitamin missing in a modern sanitized vegan diet, but it is a plentiful bacterium in nature that would be consumed in sufficient quantities when consuming the dirt on mushrooms, fruits, roots, and vegetables.
Incidentally, dairy milk is *artificially* fortified with vitamin D, as are other processed foods. One of the reasons for artificial fortification is that most omnivorous diets are nutritionally deficient because people don’t eat enough variety of foods. Vegans, due to our research on nutrition, generally eat much more balanced and nutritious diets than most people on an omnivorous diet.
Finally, what is important is not how “natural” the diet is (even though “natural” would work in vegans’ favor), but how well it meets nutritional needs, supplements included. If your argument is that we should needlessly torture and slaughter nonhuman beings because it’s “wrong to supplement B12”, it is an extremely weak argument.
On Morality versus Honor:
To oversimplify, morality is what’s right and what’s wrong. Honor is the respect received from others (whether deserved or not).
Morality is what you or I perceive to be or have been taught is right or wrong, not what actually is. Whats Moral can change with education, circumstances or culture.
"That's the trap that we meat eaters cannot get out of in this debate. The real fact is that we don't care if meat eating is just, or if we have moral justification--we certainly don't have one."
Thank you! at least you are being honest (are you? well, probably). But wait, then you start to talk about wolves. I beg to differ, you do not have the mentality of wolves - do not exult yourself so high. ha ha. But seriously, thank you for your honesty and may I ask... how do you sleep at night? No I am just kidding. It's not about deer hunting or about human population depletion. The majority of people feel empathy and do not want to be the cause of unnecessary suffering, and they do care. I believe, although I may be wrong, that you are the exception. The thing is, animal exploitation is so widely accepted, such a huge taken-for-granted part of our lives, that people have not really been challenged to justify it morally, it just is... Well the times they are a changin', and you are in the minority I hope. But, refreshing honesty, truly appreciated. Nuff said. Exeunt wrww!
Yes I'm being honest. Sorry about the bad grammar--I hope that's not what made you say that I'm not as great as a wolf. In your response you say some interesting things.
"The majority of people feel empathy and do not want to be the cause of unnecessary suffering and they do care"--Sure a lot of people don't realize where their meat comes from, but that still seems like kind of a straw man argument--maybe just from my point of view though. I'm from Wyoming--I've hunted and raised cattle chickens and goats and sheep. I've slaughtered (quickly, but you may be one of those people don't care how quickly--it's still killing). Many people in my experience do not consider these actions to be causng "unnecessary suffering" and it seems to me that many people who are in the animal rights movement seem to put animal suffering on equal footing to human suffering, which I find very strange. Sure I don't want to hurt my dog, but a bear or mountain lion does not empathize with me or any of its food sources--some say because they don't have a way to do that, which is possible, but I think they do care about their families and they don't caniblize....) Why should I empathize across species lines especially with animals like cows and pigs and deer that really don't want to have anything to do with me? I don't really put a lot of credence in the empathizing with animals argument. I think the argument that makes more sense is the one about efficient use of resources and energy. One thing that I notice (correct me if I'm wrong) is that a lot of people in the U.S. who are heavy into veganism and animal rights do not come from backgrounds where people raise animals for food products or hunt--many in fact rely on others to grow their vegetables and grains for them, so it would only make sense from their point of view to use natural resources in the most efficient way so that they will not be without (if there was a shortage, they would be screwed--I would still be eating deer). But also in that regard, hunting and fishing are not the same as farming. I would hope that the animal rights movement would condone the existence of wild deer and antelope--Something is going to eat them and it does not remove any resources not already taken to eat them (people also regulate how many can be killed to make sure they stay correctly populated). Farming on the other hand is quite artificial and directly, purposely removes a lot of agricultural resources. The question of course, as I said earlier, is do I care enough to feed you? And a larger question--do I have the right to manage large chunks of land that I "own" and demand trade for the food there. In a tribal system (I like those), it would be perfectly natural for the people in a certain place to manage the land where they dwell and trade commodities gained from it to others. But in our less natural society, we have a different set up, so do you own some of the land in our "national community" even if you live in say NY city (sorry I'm not trying to make assumptions, just for argument sake--I'm not actually a land owner either). If I do have some kind of property rights, do I feel like I'm even getting a fair trade for what I consider to be mine if I'm trading a necessecity to life for...um what is it I'm getting for this again? and IPOD? Do you yave a right to demand grain from me instead of beef?
There is this thing called a food chain, we are at the top. We eat things lower on the food chain. It's natural, normal and the way it should be. How we now "hunt" our food has changed, I agree we would probably all be a lot healthier and eat a lot less meat if we had to catch it but that doesn't negate the fact humans are omnivores.
Sorry, Jimmy, you are not at the top of the food chain. Get real. A lion will make a snack of you in five seconds.
Sure, you stick an unarmed solitary human in a cage with a lion and the lion will win. Problem with your statement is humans don't normally travel the bush alone or unarmed. We have evolved to the point where through the use of tools and cooperation we can take down a lion.
Who is 'we'- certainly there are some exceptionally gifted humans who came up with amazing inventions- but they are 1 in a million- the remainider of the human race are mostly of low intelligence. So, it was not you personally who invented anything of the kind and that would apply to most people.
Anyone who reproduces contributes to the evolution of the human species.
I meant we as in the species Homo sapiens. Your statement that most people are of low intelligence is a little elitist don't you think.
Your use of "natural" is just as bad as the oppositions use of "ethical" and it leads to chest beating without actually helping either side to understand the other. You use "natural" without attempting to explain the decisions and conditions that led us "naturally" to where we are today. Our world changes constantly if the conditions that applied when we made the decision to mass-produce food (or our knowledge thereof) has changed then looking at the currently existing conditions and possibly making a new choice is warranted.
The thing that you are not getting is: it is very simple. Why are you making it so complicated? It truly is, almost more than anything else, a matter of personal choice. You can go vegan. Children may not have that choice if they are living with meat eating parents. But if there is a shift in the world to veganism on a global scale, far into the future though that may be, then that issue will be moot, because there will be no meat eating parents. If this issue bothers you so much, the answer is so simple; once you are an adult and in charge of your own nutrition as the VAST MAJORITY of adult humans are (note: I didn't say all, there are always exceptions, don't go off on another tangent), then it is a very simple choice to make. The thing is, it is so ingrained in our culture and our psyche and our economics, that people cannot get their head around a life without animal products. I have a suggestion. Why don't you try it? If you care so much about the issue, why don't you try to live without animal products, even for a day? Please believe me - it is very easy to do. It is as easy as saying, now, shall I have the pork or shall I have the chickpeas? Hmm. Not too much of a stretch IF you care about the issue. However if you have real economic interest in animal exploitation, you are going to justify it and "beat your chest" until the "cows come home". That's a motive I recognize, it exists on a massive scale, but it is not to those whom we are looking for change. It is a grass roots "movement" if it can be called that. What is your personal position, in your own life? I am just curious. Oh wait, you have already answered that; you either can’t come up with a justification, or you have one but you won’t tell us because it’s beyond our comprehension. That argument is getting really tiring. The “I don’t agree with you but I’m not going to tell you why so there!” or “Because I said so that’s why”. It’s getting old. That is not debating anything.
I rephrased and expanded my argument in the other comment line but I want to address the "because I said so, that's why" comment you make here. You are asking for my insight into my decision making progress and then calling such insight wrong because it does not conform with the answer you want to hear. I do not purport to know that what I am saying is correct; I am merely stating the conclusions I have formed over my (limited) lifetime of experience in this society and self-reflection.
You can target anyone and take any approach that you wish in your quest to make your inner turmoil subside - since that goal and the goal of actually ending the practice of animal ownership are not mutually inclusive.
I realize I am being difficult and have hijacked this debate and moved it away from the "should we" question and toward something more constructive; leaving people behind in the process. Coming into the alternate debate and insisting on staying on the "should we" topic is going to frustrate you since I will not play that game. You respond to my comment in this post without even acknowledging the question I posed, let alone even attempting an answer as mike did, and you want me to take you seriously?
Try saying this aloud: I accept that people have other factors besides morality (e.g., addiction, ingrained behavior, economics, apathy) which affect their (in)decision to become vegans. My goal, however, is to target indifferent (generally receiving no economic benefit) people and get them to realize the immorality of eating meat and hopefully convince them to go vegan. With enough people making this choice the industries supporting our meat eating habits will become less profitable and will slowly go away as well. I recognize that some people may very well have a different idea of morality than me but I am not concerned about them at the moment, I only want to get those who share my morals to give stronger weight to the feelings those morals instill and thus overcome what is currently a zero net force.
in your earlier reply to my previous comment (smoking, holocaust etc) you said "I feel that humans are better than animals" but you don't say WHY. Honesty appreciated - clearly, you feel the same way as wrww in that you don't feel it is immoral. thank you for your honesty and for finally saying that. I cannot use the ethical argument against you, someone else can debate you, you can be happy, finally i have gotten all i need to know with regard to your attitude to that particular issue. I admit at present I solely have one argument; my argument is the moral one. i leave it to others to discuss environment etc, there are plenty of well-informed vegans who will debate on those grounds. but still, what i mean is: again, you don't say WHY. and you are debating me with regard to the moral issue, at least that is my understanding, that is what I have been debating with you. I always say why i feel it is immoral. i don't say, I feel it is immoral fullstop. I give a reason. You don't. So i am trying to get that out of you. I finally got you to admit that "...for the purposes of consuming them I find no moral fault. I do consider humans to be better than animals..."
Well, what is your reason for that? Because you feel that way. But why? There must be a reason. Anyway, you have already made it clear you do not consider animals as part of the moral community, so I will move on, as I freely admit I personally am trying to reach those who do, even if they don't realize it yet. Once you tell me that, well I myself, it is my lack I am sure, I don't have an answer for someone who feels that way, because I really think that if you feel that way, it is a waste of time to try to get you to become vegan for ANY reason. I hope I am wrong. If you are not grabbed by the moral issue, then I doubt very much you will do it for any other reason you may be waiting for me to come up with. But I may be wrong, I can only use what I have at my disposal. It's just frustrating to debate someone and they won't bite the bullet. It IS saying "because I said so" but it is not saying WHY. And that is not a debate. 'Nuff said though. You have already told me what I need to know about you, and I am not judging you, I admit I have no answer for someone who feels that for the purposes of consuming animals there is no moral fault, and who considers humans to be "better" than animals. I am still curious to know why, but I accept I may not get an answer. It's not about giving an answer I find "satisfactory", or by "converting".. It's by giving an answer, period. But, you don't. Then you say "you wouldn't like my answers" or "you wouldn't understand my answers". Very convenient for you. Why don't you try me? All I would like to have is your reason, in black and white, specifically why you don't feel it is immoral. But you have a right not to give one, and by golly you have exercised that right. Enjoy the rest of the debate!
I am sorry not to put forth any response but it seemed that putting forth a reason behind those attitudes would just get shot down as immoral or invalid since the requester usually uses their own moral reference instead of actually trying to honestly understand and acknowledge that other positions are real and meaningful.
So, to put it bluntly, you would probably classify me as egotistical and utilitarian. To go into why I am that way would require the assistance of a shrink and beer, plus a couple of days to work though my life history.
The question I pose: is my personality is a minority or a majority within your social frame of reference? You say "If you are not grabbed by the moral issue...I doubt very much you will do it for any other reason" but in fact the opposite is true; I am more likely to go vegan for non-moral reasons that directly impact my way of life than I am for moral considerations that are mostly neutral for me. I indeed morally lean toward freeing all animals from our oppression but not enough to actually take the initiative to affect changes; and it is unlikely that you will be able to make me lean further by solely relying on the "animals rights" argument. My entrenched behaviors are difficult to overcome and I only have so much willpower to go around. I enjoy what meat I do consume (and it isn't a daily habit) and I do not experience the realities of the industry first hand and can mentally suppress that which I know to be occurring in order to sleep at night and focus my time and efforts on making a living for myself (which this discussion is really cutting into since - anyone know how I can get paid to do this...).
Hi thank you I am enjoying this, I appreciate you taking the time to respond because I am new to this and just learning how to debate this issue and I am trying very hard to be most effective. Honestly this is the last thing and then I will let you get back to your... introspection, I guess maybe is what it is. I know what you mean my eyes are burning from attempting these debates all night on my computer when I would rather be sleeping.
OK here goes:
"I indeed morally lean toward freeing all animals from our oppression"
yet "for the purposes of consuming them I find no moral fault...."
Also you mention you enjoy what meat you do consume, I guess that is why you continue to consume whatever quantity of it you consume... So, if you do truly lean morally towards freeing all animals from our oppression, I would think that logically speaking that would lead to the conclusion that you would be leaning towards not consuming them at all, no matter how much you enjoy the taste? Although, if on the other hand, you find no moral fault for the purposes of consuming them, you will continue in that case to consume them because you enjoy the taste every now and then? It seems ambiguous (sp?). Take care and peace to you.
If I could choose to live in one of two worlds, without any baggage from this reality, I would choose to live in a world where we do not raise animals for consumption. Not from any feeling that doing so is wrong but because the benefit of doing so is unclear - I would have never tasted meat and thus would not have to give up an existing luxury. I don't really think eating meat makes me a better person and it is likely that I would not be malnourished with my only additional source of food being meat - thus discarding necessity. That would not preclude me from necessarily caring for one as a pet or using one to assist in farming my fields.
It is an interesting exercise that I don't have time to continue;but because the requirements are impossible AND the fact that we are isolating a single issue and not concerning ourselves with the evolution of our species and lifestyles overtime, it is of limited usefulness anyway.
One last point. Ask for alternatives when presented with such a question (should be do such and such). No decision is made in a vacuum so debating whether change is desired without actually presenting a plan to affect that change is missing a significant amount of data upon which to form an opinion and ignores issues that can be used to support your position.
well ok but you can't choose, we live in this world, THAT kind of thinking, may I opine, is of limited usefulness. Question: what requirement is impossible? to partake in a thought experiment? Of course it is not useful to people with your attitude "...Not from any feeling that doing so is wrong..." we already established that you don't care about the morality. I don't understand you reference to plan, to me it is not a plan really, it is a person by person individual decision cease to cause unecessary suffering IF you believe that causing unecessary suffering is wrong. I believe the logic when examined leads to that conclusion. There is ONE alternative to engaging in exploitation, and that is NOT to engage in it. You clearly have chosen not to make that change - I get it. So the logic is irrelevant to you - you do not believe it is wrong to cause unecessary suffering. You value satisfiying your personal luxury over the lives of the animals. I am not debating whether or not change is desired, I am stating that change IS desired. Also, I am isolating a single reasoning, but it effects a lot of issues - environmental, wildlife extinction, health etc etc. The whole issue has many facets, but all will be affected if everyone uses one particular reason to go vegan; whatever their reason may be, the effect is widespread, and covers many things as mentioned above. The personal reasoning can be individual, I just feel the moral reason is the most effective. Except in the case of individuals such as yourselves, in which case i hope someone else can convince you using other reasons that you may feel important. anyway we are going around in circles, i look forward to your reply.
The requirement I state as being impossible to fulfill is to go from this current state to the alternative state without any form of change occurring; both in transition as well as in how those states came into being in the first place. This applies mostly to societal change although the implications it has on individual choices is meaningful.
A different way of looking at it is that I value accepting the status-quo over making the effort to change. Lacking net external forces an object in motion will continue is the same direction at the same speed; human behavior is not so different.
[Note: The following is not a coherent or complete set of thoughts - consume with caution]
As for the "we live in this world", you left out the most important part of the thought: but desire this other world so how should we get there. Life is a journey and during this journey we make decisions to influence where we end up. Our ability to affect a master plan is, in my opinion, pitiful; though I do not discard that we should have a vision and do our best to guide individual and groups decisions toward that vision. To use a religious analogy we cannot have God without the Devil or Yin without Yang. More simply there is always someone who has a different vision. This is the sadistic game we are forced to play; no wonder people embrace organized religion.
Anyway, hope that gives you at least a little insight into my neurotic ways ;)
i retract my statement "..I am not debating whether or not change is desired, I am stating that change IS desired.." : we are debating, not everyone agrees, therefore we are debating whether or not change is required i retract that statment.
The thing that you people are not getting is: it is very simple. Why are you making it so complicated? It truly is, almost more than anything else, a matter of personal choice. You can go vegan. Children may not have that choice if they are living with meat eating parents. But if there is a shift in the world to veganism on a global scale, far into the future though that may be, then that issue will be moot, because there will be no meat eating parents. If this issue bothers you so much, the answer is so simple; once you are an adult and in charge of your own nutrition as the VAST MAJORITY of adult humans are (note: I didn't say all, there are always exceptions, don't go off on another tangent), then it is a very simple choice to make. The thing is, it is so ingrained in our culture and our psyche and our economics, that people cannot get their head around a life without animal products. I have a suggestion. Why don't you try it? If you care so much about the issue, why don't you try to live without animal products, even for a day? Please believe me - it is very easy to do. It is as easy as saying, now, shall I have the pork or shall I have the chick peas? Hmmmmm. Not too much of a stretch, IF you care about the issue. However if you have real economic interest in animal exploitation, you are going to justify it and "beat your chest" until the "cows come home". That's a motive I recognize, it exists on a massive scale, but it is not to those whom we are looking for change. It is a grass roots "movement" if it can be called that. What is your personal position, in your own life? I am just curious.
Jimmy P has offered us justification for every atrocity humans have engaged in by invoking the timeless “food chain” argument, which is just another form of the “might makes right” argument. If we have the power to torture and kill, we ought to torture and kill. If Simon takes pleasure in torture, then Simon ought to torture, because Simon is more powerful (“higher on the food chain”) than his hapless victim.
Sorry, Jimmy P, I’m not buying it.
This fails specifically because acts require decisions and those decisions involve consequences. I have the power to kill other humans but do not because I would in turn be killed. More generally I value the fact I can buy food from farmers and thus do not have to grow my own. I would not kill the farmer selling me food even if though I can.
Might/Power, like a gun, is merely a tool and, even if you support the notion of good and evil, is indifferent - and unaffected - to why it is wielded.
So if I understand you correctly, polobo, you would have no moral issue with killing humans except for the fact that you might not “get away with it” or there may be negative consequences.
Most people would say that they refrain from killing humans primarily because they think it is wrong, not because there might be negative consequences. In fact, if I didn’t think killing was wrong, and I was feeling suicidal, I might well go on a random killing rampage before killing myself. Fortunately, I’m not suicidal and I do think killing is wrong.
You pick a fairly easy topic (human murder) where you indeed find a vast majority of the human population agrees on the morals. Consider, however, homosexuality (avoiding animals intentionally) and the response it has been given by the population of the United States. Society has deemed it proper to grant certain right and privileges to a singular man and woman who wish to be married. I assert this has nothing or little to do with children as they are not a certain in any particular marriage nor required to receive these benefits. Our society has decided to withhold these rights to homosexual couples. ** I personally find this immoral **. On what basis, given the previous definition of sentience, would you attack this position (either side) without resorting to "might makes right" and utility. I do not want this to sidetrack too much and don't really need or expect a detailed answer but consider this in light of the previous post as well as generally as relating to your own concept of morality.
The easiest approach to this one is because they're using The God of Abraham to justify their moral position. Not that I really want to get into that here, but the best way for the Supreme Court to bring something as foolish as this back to the table and disregard the decision is to come to terms with the fact that Superman should not be telling us what to do, and neither should some scattered accounts of some other mythical being FAR less consistent than Superman and chock-full of dogma. The decision must be based on logic and reason.
Again, it comes down to interests. But, to be fair, something as arbitrary as US Marital Laws can simply not come under the realm of morality. A moral discussion would be based on the consequences or benefits that come from the enforcement of this law. The law, by itself, is meaningless.
They are using "The Congress" to justify their moral position; which I have no inherent problem with as that is the way that this society, which I have accepted to have authority over my actions in exchange for protection and other desires, works. God is merely the attributed source for their inner moral position. Where does you compassion for animals come from? The Supreme Court(s) can only "disregard" this on the basis of contradiction with regard to existing law since otherwise the will of the people living today ultimately decide what is morally right for the society in which they reside. I disagree with their position but acknowledge that they are both entitled to it and have the fundamental right, afforded by our laws, to make me oblige as well - or move. I cannot say their position is wrong since I can not disprove (to their satisfaction) the existence of their God or more generally the source of their feelings/morals.
My moral US marital law argument would be based upon the exact same core assumption being used to attack animal ownership: Humans are sentient beings who have desires and the right to be treated the same as any other sentient being. If we give a right to one sentient being we should give the same right to all of them. Quibble on whether marriage is a right but given it is granted by the society I would assert that it therefore must be.
My understanding and acceptance of feedback/consequences/utility does not preclude my having a set of morals which also guide my actions. Our morals generate internal emotional feedback that makes us feel happy/guilty/angry/etc whereas utility concerns are external and generally provide tangible feedback. It is somewhat apparent (to me at least) that different people have different sets of morals; although the fact that you cannot have actions without both utility and moral considerations makes identifying such differences difficult.
I am individually no more "qualified" (or effective) in judging another's morals as they are in judging mine. We give such authority to the societies we form (forming a composite moral set of its members) but otherwise if I insist in having you adopt my moral code either I need to apply leverage, convince you to change (a form of leverage - getting you to realize there is more benefit in the alternative), get the society to enforce it, or else.
I assume "you" (meaning and/or others) agree that killing is OK (morals aside) in some circumstances (e.g., defending yourself or others facing untimely death) thus even your moral position has conditions and valuations. I also assume you do not sabotage industrial animal farms for some practical reason because, by these arguments, their treatment of animals is worse than the treatment of Jews, etc... during WWII where a good portion of the world went to war and killed each other to enforce a moral position. Even then the U.S. needed a direct attack on Pearl Harbor to formally enter the war instead of basing its decision on recognizing the immorality of the situation.
Hi polobo,
The major religious and secular moral codes of the world urge compassion and proscribe harming others whenever possible. There are exceptions for things like self-defense that are generally understood to be valid. I assume we generally agree on moral principles such as the golden rule, and on basic moral guidelines such as having mercy toward those less powerful than you.
But I would also appeal to your sense of empathy and compassion. Why harm other sentient beings if you don't need to, and if doing so can be easily avoided?
Just some specific theoretical thoughts:
The Golden Rule works well we you have a reasonable expectation that indeed "someone" could do to you what you do to them.
How are you defining mercy? One could find it merciful to put someone "out of their misery". One could also ignore them and let them fend for themselves (probably resulting in their death if they cannot provide food and shelter on their own).
I would suggest that empathy and compassion only truly apply for someone sharing a similar moral code as the one you seem to possess. Appealing to it when you cannot get them to acknowledge your moral position seems incongruous. A similar situation results when consider religious codes; and secular moral codes are those related to the society one has "chosen" to live in and thus represent utilitarian concerns anyway.
The golden rule can also mean treat the other as you would want to be treated were you him, in his situation - i.e., if the roles were reversed.
I agree with your example of mercy. Mercy, kindness, and compassion stem from the heart. If your dog was in pain, you would try to help him, out of empathy and kindness. When you stop the car to let the duck and her ducklings cross the road, you do so out of kindness. It does not matter if the duck has the same moral code as you.
We come from different societies but "thou shalt not kill," the Buddah's first precept not to harm sentient beings, and our capacity for empathy and desire for peace and to be treated kindly are near-universal.
Applying those desires and principles to food, we try to refrain from killing and harming others in our pursuit of feeding ourselves. Being vegan is only part of that evolution. We rid ourselves of the desire to exploit others against their will and for our pleasure. We see animals as compassion-worthy individuals rather than units that are created only to be killed. In addition we try to limit our negative impact on the earth and its inhabitants. Within practical limits, of course. For most people in the West, it is easy to give up eating animals, except for trace amounts in various products. (But those trace amounts, which are leftovers from the slaughterhouse, will go away once people stop consuming animals.) We should also consider eating locally, supporting organic agriculture, supporting businesess with fair hiring practices, and so forth.
Getting back to putting an animal out of his misery. That can be an act of kindness. Animal agriculture, particularly factory farms - the source of the vast majority of animal products - creates misery. Simply the way we have engineered farmed animals creates misery. As do routin practices in animal agriculture. Slaughterhouses create misery and numb empathy. Killing a living being because we like the taste of his flesh is unkind. And it may create more misery - the individual may be the best friend of another. Animals have emotions. Killing in volume nearly guarantees pain and suffering. Liking the taste of the victims' flesh does not justify any of this.
We could go on and on. I realize there is always one more loophole, one more angle, one more marginal case, and so forth. Arguments can go on forever. I would just ask, try not to defend avoidable violence, cultivate empathy, act freely on kindness and compassion, see where it leads you. Try some vegetarian options, buy a vegan cookbook, expand your diet horizons a bit...it's possible that 6 months or a year from now this arguing on behalf of killing will seem pointless.