View Single Post
Old 02-04-2005, 02:46 PM   #1 (permalink)
CSflim
Sky Piercer
 
CSflim's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Eating meat & experimenting on animals is wrong.

When we examine racism, we see that the justifications for it came from dividing the world into the 'in-group' and the 'out-group'. We are obligated to extend to those in the in-group (for example, white people) rights and ethical treatment. Those in the out-group are inferior and unimportant and as such, are not worthy of such rights. We are justified in treating them in whatever manner we so choose.

Of course we rightly cringe at such an argument (or at least I hope so!). Yet what is the fundamental difference between racism and 'specisism', wherein the 'in-group' is defined as humans, and the out-group, all other animals. How can we justify allowing them to suffer?

There are two obvious ways in which many are content with allowing them to suffer; eating them and scientifically experimenting on them. These cruel practices must end if we are to be able to condemn racism (among other things) without being morally inconsistent.


EDIT: I do not want to hear arguments from religious beliefs.
If your justification for eating animals is because animals don't have souls, unlike humans, then you are entitled to this belief. But I don't want this particular thread to be dragged down into the messy and pointless (and all too ubiquitous) arguments which have been discussed time and time again on this board.
Any arguments presented must not use religious beliefs as a starting point.







Some possible objections:
1. Animals don't feel pain.
The only reason we have for assuming other humans feel pain is based on the fact that they show the appropriate behaviours in certain situations. They cry and scream and struggle when in these situations. Animals show the same behaviours. Hence, we are presumably justified in assuming that they do feel pain. (Once again, one could make a racist argument by claiming that we don't know if other races feel pain).

2. Animals aren't intelligent like we are/Animals aren't capable of reason.
But young infants aren't intelligent. Can we treat them in whatever manner we please? What about the mentally retarded?

3. We evolved to eat meat. It is natural.
It does not follow that because something is natural, it is good. If it could be shown that humans evolved so as to be naturally xenophobic that it would make racism moral? Or what if it could be shown that male dominance over women is a natural product of evolution?
It simply does not follow that because humans evolved to behave in some particular way, that this way is ethically good.

4. Experimenting on animals prevents suffering in humans.
But a huge amount of animal experimentation is not done for vital medical purposes, but instead, for cosmetic testing; seeing how animals react to shampoos or seeing how large a dose is a 'lethal dose' of some food additive.
What about the cases where the experimenting is not for commercial use, but for medical and scientific purposes?
Many experiments are of uncertain value. They appear to exist solely to satisfy the curiosity of some scientists. In most cases the benefits to humans are either uncertain or non-existant, while the suffering of animals is certain and real.

5. Farmed animals live good, pain-free lives. What more can you ask for?
But this is simply not true. Many farm animals lead miserable lives. Many hens are kept in cages so small that they cannot even move their wings. The cattle which provide most of the beef in America also live in extremely cramped conditions. And when it comes to finally committing the act of killing, the conditions in a slaughter-house are far from 'pain-free'.
Even if these particular practices were put to a stop, farming animals, in general, causes much suffering; castration, separation of mother and young, branding and so on.
Although it is possible that conditions could be set up so as to allow farm animals to lead quality lives, this would not be able to supply us with the large amount of meat we currently consume (and it would not be commercially viable). And anyway, it is beside the point to argue what 'could' happen. The fact is, that by buying meat now you are supporting cruelty being inflicted upon animals.



(For the record; this post is done in a purely 'devil's advocate' manner. I love my pork sausages, hamburgers and chicken nuggets! )
__________________

Last edited by CSflim; 02-04-2005 at 02:54 PM..
CSflim is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360