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! :))

Practical lines must be drawn. Using a taboo that overly restricts behaviour, and making the mentally retarted and young infants out of bounds, is far more practical than actually measuring this. And the benefit to eating babies and mentally retarded people is small, so the taboo is low in costs.

There are other reasons not to kill/experiment/eat retarded people and infants, but I believe the above is sufficient.

As an aside, I suspect that a number of animals deserve protection. Some sea mammals (Dolphins, Whales), as well as some of our closer kin on dry land.

As a second aside, I am aware my decision to value intelligence and reason is arbitrary.

I eat meat.......I enjoy the flesh of dead animals. I could not kill an animal. I am a walking Hypocracy.

If you really wanted to create the implied scenario reality......Force people to kill that which they eat, I would likely starve.

i've asked this question elsewhere. if it indeed is wrong to kill animals because they are equivilent to humans...where does this leave lions?

Are they murderers?

So your decision to not treat infants and the mentally handicapped in a cruel manner is one of practicality, rather than any real moral commitment.
So a mother who physically abuses her child is not really doing anything wrong? Her punishment that she would recieve is just the result of technical loop-hole, due to the fact that we must keep practicallity in mind when deciding on the law?


Why does biological relation to us and/or living on land have a bearing on our responsibility to treat them morally?

Indeed it is. As arbitrary a trait as, dare I say it, sex, religion or skin colour?

We cannot judge lions in this manner.
They do not have the mental facilities to engage in moral reasoning. They can only do what comed naturally them. As 'ought implies can', what they do cannot be judged as moral or immoral.
Furthermore, even if a lion 'wanted to' it would be unable to survive on a vegetarian diet. It is not biologically equipped to do so. We have the luxury of being able to make a choice.

Life forms high up on the food chain wreck much havoc on the life forms below them. I wonder what it must be like to be a wheat plant when the combine comes thrashing me and all my fellow plants ripping us apart.

(For the record; this post is done in a purely 'devil's advocate' manner. I love my bread, bisquits and pancakes! :))

But wheat does not have the ability to feel pain.
This should be quite clear from the point of view of evolution: Wheat simply cannot take any action to avoid the threat to its well being (source of 'pain'), hence it would not evolve the entirly usless ability to feel pain.
This is in confirmation with what we observe: the reaction of wheat to being cut up does nothing to suggest to us that it feels pain (unlike a dog or a human).

This is also backed up from the anatomy of wheat: its lacks a central nervous system and a brain!

Hence eating wheat and other plants is acceptable. Eating animals is not.

Life feeds on life. This is necessary.

At least until we learn how to photosynthesize, I suppose. But the earth hardly needs an unchecked human population.

I am not denying that. There is a readily available food source, which we can avail of without causing widespread sufferring.
There is nothing wrong with eating plants, as they do not have the capacity to suffer.

Well sure, we are mammals and high up on the food chain. It's easy for us to ignore any pain that the plant might feel after all they are not like us.

When a combine mows down a field of wheat, literally hundreds of creatures are slaughtered in the form of voles and mice.

How are these creatures any less deserving of life than a cow? Because of their relative size?

To live means to strive with your fellow creatures for precious resources and to deprive them of the same.

Our cities and roads deprive them of habitat.

Our use vehicles means we hit them and kill millions every year.

But we are no different than any other species would be if they had risin to the top of the scrum.

Any morality I see has to do with the responsible use of our resources for all life and the minimizing of suffering whenever possible.

Fortunately, you can do this and still enjoy a good steak :)

Eating meat is something that allowed humanity to survive. Animals provide a food source during the winter when vegetation is scarce. And as the saying goes, old habits die hard. Besides, a nice medium-rare steak is just sooooo gooood.

In your argument your making a division yourself those that can express/feel pain vs. those that can't. Your entire argument supporting that we should not eat meat is at a basic level supporting that we should not eat at all, because we will be making an "exclusion". Your contradicting your own argument with your argument. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and unfortunatly for the cows, chickens, pigs, etc., they got put on the shitty side. That's life, everyone and everything suffers in some form or another, although to different extents.

My reasoning behind it is that no matter what you eat to survive, you are killing a living being. Even if you subsist purely on fruit, you are eating "baby trees". May as well eat things that taste good and provide protein as well.

An Itemized response:
It is not true that we know someone feels pain because they express an aversion to pain. There is hard physical evidence, based on nerve patters, that some animals feel pain more acutely than others. The fact that they do feel pain is unfortunate, but there are increasinly humane means of killing them.
The fact that eating meat is natural does make it good. Vegetarians and vegans are required to supplement their diet (or get sick) and this means that they would be unable to survive in nature. The idea that men might be naturally dominant over women is irrelevant, because both must survive in order for the species to survive, and people and meat animals are similarly codependant. If predator species were wiped out, prey would die out because of high competition for resources.
Modern farming processes are disgusting. The food that comes from them is inferior, and often causes problems for the consumers. It would doubtless be better if we had more "organic" practices, but as long as corporation control this, it's not gonna get any better.

I can go with expermenting on animals. that I can see being argued as "wrong". However, you know those two lagre pointy teeth you have near the front of your mouth? Canines? You know the only reason for them is to rend, tear, and chew fleash, right? We are meat eaters. Veggies to, but really, at least meat has a chance to run. Saying eating meat is wrong is like saying breathing is wrong. Makeing the animal suffer mor then is need to kill it, that is wrong, sure, but killing it to eat? Go right ahead.

Besides, if God didn't want us to eat them, he would have made them out of something other then meat.

I agree. We need the vitamins/minerals/nutrients from animals.

Vegans and Vegetarians, unless taking a high level vitamin or supplement combination, have been show to have teeth that are less healthy (chewing softer foods), more susceptible to colds/flu/other ailments, bone loss occurs earlier, etc.

Animals are a source of life-sustaining nutrients. They are not poison. If they were, we'd know then that it was wrong to eat them.

A plant does not have a central nervous sytem or a brain. There is no reson to believe that it is sentient. Sentience is a necessary condition for pain, hence there is no reason to suggest that plants feel pain.
Similarly a loud-speaker connected to a pressure sensitive pad the beeps everytime it is struck would not be considered to be feeling pain.

Yes, it is unfortunate that these creatures die. It is almost certainly unavoidable. However we should still make an effort to minimise the slaughter.
The majority of crops harvested are used as feed for farm animals. If we were to eat the crops directly, we would need to grow much less, and hence we would reduce the amount of sufferring in the world even more (by not slaughtering animals for meat, and not killing creatures living in crop fields.

Could a similar argument be made to extend this from specisim to racism?
Does your ultimate moral philosophy boil down to 'let might make right'? Presumably not?

This is similar to the "but it's natural" argument I wrote in the orignal post. Just because things are the way they are does not imply that this is right.

Indeed. We should minimise sufferring. And we can take a major step in that direction by becoming vegetarians. Eating meat is not a necessity for us. It is a luxury.

Eating meat most certainly was ncecessary for humans in the past. My point is that it is no longer necessary.

Indeed a line must be drawn somewhere. What I am challenging is where the line currently rests. My proposed criteria is that we should minimise the sufferring in the world. Many animals show obvious signs of sufferring, so we should avoid eating them. Plants do not suffer so there is no reason not to eat them.
There will always be borderline cases. I accept that. (e.g. is killing insects ok? maybe, maybe not). But the point is that cows, chickens, pigs and sheep are not borderline cases.

My argument does not rest on killing. It rests on sufferring and pain. "baby trees" have no ability to suffer or feel pain.

Yes. Not all animals feel the same amount of pain given the same stimulus. But that does not change the fact that they do feel pain, and as such we should not mistreat them.
To use the racism analogy once more; if some particular race were shown to process pain in a somewhat less severe manner than others, would that justify putting them into slavery, and mistreating them in whatever manner we choose?


But the point is that we are now in a possition to abandon meat eating. We have vitamin supplements and the like, and so we should use them.

Most animals would survive just fine in an environment without humans. There are plenty of other "natural" predators around for an equilibrium to be found.

I already addressed the point that "we evolved to eat meat, therefore eating meat is morally right". Are you really suggesting that we should look to evolution (arguably the most wasteful, cruel, entriely amoral process on the planet) for moral guidance?

The analogy with breathing is not a useful one:
We must breathe in order to survive. We have no choice in the matter. We do not have to eat meat. There are alternatives.

In that case we should all become vegans and take vitamins and mineral suppliments.

I see your connection between racism and 'specisim', however, I don't think it applies to this situation: "These cruel practices must end if we are to be able to condemn racism (among other things) without being morally inconsistent."

Humans arn't entitled to any rights. Neither are animals entitled to any rights. Morals are based on the notion that living things are entitled to things in the first place. Given this, how can there be any inconsistencies with treatment of anything vs. another?

"Indeed a line must be drawn somewhere. What I am challenging is where the line currently rests. My proposed criteria is that we should minimise the sufferring in the world. Many animals show obvious signs of sufferring, so we should avoid eating them. Plants do not suffer so there is no reason not to eat them.
There will always be borderline cases. I accept that. (e.g. is killing insects ok? maybe, maybe not). But the point is that cows, chickens, pigs and sheep are not borderline cases."

I believe there is a classification error here though. You're assuming that the only manifestation of "suffering" is that of pain. However, the term "suffer" is also used to describe a sustained loss or injury. Plants do get injured, plants do suffer- but only to the point where they are forced to endure a situation that they have no control over. Eating plants causes them to suffer, as they have sustained a physical loss, which by definition, is suffering.

Why do you consider plants incapable of suffering? Or is it that plants don't suffer in a conventional way? Is it suffer the verb or suffer the noun?

We would feel no guilt at smashing up rocks or concrete with a sledge hammer (yet this could be considered 'a sustained loss or injury'). This is because rocks and concrete are not sentient and cannot feel pain. Feeling pain (either physical or psychological) is how I would describe suffering in this situation.
The word 'suffer' can be used in another manner as you point out: E.g. an economy can "suffer". This is however not the manner in which I use the word. Plants 'suffer' in the same way that an economy 'suffers'. Animals suffer in the same way that humans suffer.

(see the fallacy of equivocation)

Of course you can apply moral subjectivism to justify anything that you so wish (including racism).

http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol26/vol26n19/2.txt

Humans are omnivorous. Humans are not carnivores or herbivores.
Until soylent green is available animales will have to do.

cs...the whole reason why we confront racism is that it is in fact not true that one race is supirior to another as social, spiritual, moral beings.

To apply the same reasoning to beings that cannot possibly understand nor recriprocate the favor...is to demean the very impetus that lead to anti-racist movements.

aslo...what the hell are you going to do with all these animals? they aren't natural at all...and turning them loose would be an act of mass cruelty. The final chapter of animal captivity would have to be a mass slaughter, and probably the elimination of some species that could not live in the wild.

I have to admit that I am a specisist. There is simply not enough evidence to treat other species with more "equality". One of your preemptive arguments relies on intelligence and the ability to reason, based on the statement that infants aren't intelligent. However, intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, which human infants have in great amounts. There is no evidence that any of the food staple species are actually intelligent. While animals may be sentient, there is also no evidence of a conscience or any real self awareness.

Further, regarding the mentally retarded. The fact that we, as a society, show a social conscience strong enough to support people with disablities proves that there are real distictions between humans and other species. I am not claiming that humans have never committed acts contrary to our current social conscience, but I am arguing that our food source speicies have never shown the capacity to do so. Having a social conscience is a result of having an individual conscience, which is in turn the result of being intelligent. Thus, this species distinction is not arbitrary. Further, it has been stated that other animals, such as lions, are not capable of morality. It follows that species incapable of morality should be distingished from those that are moral, as illustrated by the penal system. I am not proposing we eat or test on criminals, I am suggesting that the ability to have morals is another real distinction between humans and other species.

To extrapolate this into another current issue: I support to same sex marriage, I support differnt sex marriage, I support inter-faith marriage, and I support inter-racial marriage. However, I don't support inter-special marriage. Based on the initial 'in-group, out-group' argument, do you propose that we should someday accept inter-special unions?


On an unrelated note, I would suffer, as would many others, if society imposed a meat ban. While I don't presume to be able to quantify 'suffering', I would on a personal (and nutritional) level suffer. Millions of people involved in the food industry would lose their livelyhood. All the current 'meat' animals would need to be culled... there is no reason to keep them around other then consumption. The transition to a meatless society would create a great deal of human suffering.

She's displaying severly aberrant behaviour. And what do you mean by 'real moral behaviour' -- I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about taboos and morals. A moral system that doesn't take into account practicality is functionally bankrupt.

And, as I mentioned, there are other reasons. They include the intense emotional response of other people, the continuity of the child into the person, etc. I am just claiming that the practical taboo reason is sufficient, not the only reason.

I was describing a class, I wasn't justifying the class. Many of our close relatives are damn smart cookies.

On some level, yes. Of course, on that level, the valueing life more than non-life is arbitrary, or animals vs non-animals.

Hell, you seem to be implying that pain is bad -- yet another arbitrary choice. Pain is just another sensation -- many people enjoy non-damaging pain (be they people who like to exercise, or BDSM-aficionados, or just people who like being nibbled on).

Well killing them isn't the problem as far as pain goes. It's just their living conditions.

I think saying people cringe at Us v. Them justification is incorrect.

Depriving criminals of their rights is fundamentally an Us v Them justification, but I don't think pointing out that forcing someone to live in a tiny room for 30 years isn't very nice will garner much sympathy for Free the Murders. Because people feel that the division between The Law Abiding v. The Criminal is a valid one, and so much treatment that would be protested if applied to Us is acceptable when used on Them.

People cringe at the Us v Them justification for racism because many people don't accept race alone as a sufficient justification for different treatment, or find claims of racial superiority/inferiority to be invalid. It's not the type or structure of argument, it's the quality of the argument as presented.

I think most people will readily agree that species is sufficient and valid justification for how we treat an organism. So Racism Bad, Speciesism Good.

So you're arguing one of two things.

Most likely you're arguing that we should eat plants instead of animals, but then your logic breaks down because we are now putting plants in the "out-group." After your passioned argument about how animals can feel pain (I agree, they can), you surely aren't going to sit there and tell me that plants absolutely cannot feel pain even though you have no evidence to back up that proposition. Therefore, if you're willing to put plants in the out-group, you're no better than the rest of us.

The other possible argument you are making is that we not eat anything lest something be in an out-group. The obvious logical flaw in this concept is that by doing so we would starve ourselves, and therefore be putting ourselves in the out-group.


Fact is, the world's cruel. Some things must be eaten so that other things can live. Sucks, but until we come up with protein synthesis replicator systems a-la Star Trek, that's how it goes.

Animals eat animals. We are animals. Nuff said. If anyone wants to make the choice not to, good for them. Don't tell those of us that do that we are wrong. It IS evolution and the food chain. Human+no advantage+big predator= human lunch. Something that honestly could, and finds humans to be tasty would not think twice.

Define pain in an usefully observable way.

It's all well and good to look an the non-human analogue of pain receptors and observe how they respond to stimulation. But it does not follow that a more intense response in those neurons translates directly to a more intense sensation of pain in the animal's brain. Many anesthetics work by attenuating nerve signalling so that a pain signal fades out prior to reaching the brain. If we observe the nerves at the site of a surgery, it would look to be excruciatingly painful. But the signals never reach the brain to be converted into pain.

Aside: Formerly, anesthetics also functioned as paralytics. To decrease recovery time, and to lessen the dangers of anesthetic use, doses are decreased and more modern localized anesthetics are used. This has a problem in that signalling might not reach the brain to be percieved as pain, it may still be sufficent to trigger a reaction in local tissue or a spinal bounce reflex. So, often a paralytic is given in concert with a lowered anesthetic dose. Now, go read some of the stories about where they miscalculated the anesthetic dose, but got the paralytic dose correct.

If we define "experiencing pain" as aversive reaction to damaging stimuli, we have a pretty good fit for spotting painful things... though, technically, someone chemically paralyzed on an operating table with no anesthetics isn't expereincing any pain by this definition. Further, certain plants DO present aversive reaction to damaging stimuli... though on a predicably slow timescale.

Which leads us to another interesting question. Maybe cutting a flower is excruciating for a rosebush, but because we observe no physical reaction on an animal timescale we assume plants are insensate. A number of plant species are also known to release chemical signals in response to damage, infection, and/or infestation. Neighboring plants may then respond in way to reduce their own chances of being infected or infested or the severity of such an attack. Hmmm.

This is totally aside from the fact that many people simply don't care if it's painful for a cow to be made into tasty steaks.

It's one of the most essential aspects of survival: the idea of predator vs. prey. Sure, we humans took it a step further and applied the assembly line principles to it. Almost every creature in this world eats other creatures. It's just the way it is. Some people might think it's wrong because we have a conscious. Insects eat one another, aquatic species, mammals and even plants! Ever seen a venus fly trap eat a fly? It's fascinating. In those days during the last ice age, when there were no plants to eat. How were people supposed to survive? Don't get me wrong. I've had to go to a slaughter house once or twice for work. I think what we do to animals is horrible, but it is necessary for our survival.

"If a representative of any species can come to me and explain why thier species should not be killed and eaten by my species, then I will refrain from eating them forever, and I will advise my fellow humans to do the same."

I said that to a vegetarian after an extended argument in which neither of us were getting anywhere. I then stole his sandwich.

I'm a cunt :D

Anyway, to provide an actually useful answer, I think the reason humans generally accept the mass slaughter of food-animals to be acceptable is very similar to my bastard-response above. We may not admit it, or be able to defend the position, but I think humans generally look down on other species as inferior. If I worked in a slaughterhouse, and one day I was just about to kill a cow when it said "Excuse me, old chap, would mind... you know, not killing me? Ta." I would of course reconsider immediately.
Wouldnt you?

Perputation of the human species. Racism back in the day served a function, now it only creates internal strife we'd be better off without. With me, killing animals for food isn't morally inconsistent as you depicted. I don't care about a cow, or a chicken, I care about the ecosystems, life is good, but sometimes life eats life, we kill to live. I have no qualms with that, decimating ecosystems for the purpose of human advancement I have problems with.

Interesting thread.

According to Aristotle, animals are NOT capable of reason because they do not have a soul, which is unique to humans...We, as humans, DO have a soul, and thus can act in accordance with reason. So that is a major difference between homo sapiens and other mammals.

Also, young infants, by the pure definition of it, do possess intelligence. Just because they cannot speak or move around easily does not mean tthey do not have the capacity to acquire knowledge.

Furthermore, the function of animals in the world is to simply to survive, unlike humans who have the added responsibility of living a moral life (we can have morals because of our soul and ability to reason). Thus, as part of the natural course of events, animals will be consumed by those on a higher level in the food chain. It is not immoral to participate in the natural order of the world.

To bring in another philosopher, according to Kant, it is not immoral to eat animals. This is because the concept of animal consumption can be applied as a universal law of nature, without destroying the concept in the process (e.g. most people with access to it consume animal meat in the world).

/runs away

Let me get this straight. You are basing your argument on the opinion of a man who lived 2384 years ago and who believed the universe was 55 concentric crystal spheres with the earth at its center?


No offense, but this guy isn't exactly Dr. Science. I don't think I'd base my ideas on animal intelligence on someone who not only lacked expertise in so many things, but who insisted on believing in the infallibility of his thoughts despite evidence to the contrary ;)


Besides, how does he know animals don't have a soul? How does he know humans do?


Bah.

soul Audio pronunciation of "soul" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sl)
n.

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

Link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soul

Yes, it is true that he lived over two thousand years ago and incorrectly interpreted the geography of the universe. However, this discussion is not about the galaxy...it is about human philosophy.

That being said, the fact that Aristotle's perception of the soul exists in the very DEFINITION of the modern sense of the term suggests his lasting appeal, so to speak.

A soul is DEFINED as a human trait...and this is based off of Aristotle's phislosophical views. Much of his most important work has stood the test of time, and his view of the geography of the universe, although now known to be inaccurate and scientifically proven incorrect, was quite advanced at the time. On the other hand, his philosophy about human knowledge and morality still remains an important element in discussing those issues.

Out.

I'm not seeing the parallel between racism and eating meat....protein is necessary for survival, racism is not acceptable in modern society.
I do not agree with experimenting or causing an animal to suffer, but I do eat meat. I far prefer wild game, and usually kill what I eat. It is my goal to make the kill as quickly and cleanly as possible, to minimize any suffering to the animal. This is my responsibility and a matter of honor to keep my skills honed to make this happen.

Well here we go. Prove the existance of a soul before you continue your argument.

Hint: Only verified sources count (the bible is not a verified source, and the dictionary defines words, it does not verify facts)

This is a very interesting thread. Alot of divserse opinions here.

"If slaughter houses were made of glass, no one would eat meat"

My take on eating meat is:

I only eat what i know i can kill . . .

Hence, i only eat chicken and fish.

adding to the fact that i don't agree with the slaughter methods used for beef and pork . . .

That's my choice. I don't lecture people or anything . . . just my own personal opinion.

Thanks,

Sweetpea :)

Aristotle was full of bullshit on this one . . .

animals ARE capable of reason and they DO have souls, feelings, emotions.

Humans think we are so superior . . . we are such idiots for thinking this.

How can humans be superior when we are stupidly using all the resources on the planet at a rate of consumption that cannot sustain our global population? And we're the most "intelligent" beings on this Earth . . . i think not.

peace,
Sweetpea

I think part of the issue here (a similar issue that I find in many debates) is that morality is subjective. Being subjective, it is subject to taking on a sort of "collective truth". Killing people is immoral because a significant majority of society has deemed it to be so, and society has upheld that belief for a significant amount of time, giving the subjective moral issue a seemingly objective component of "truth". It can not be stated in a similarly quasi-objective manner that eating meat is immoral, because that is not the accepted viewpoint of society. Eating meat is fine and perfectly moral because we say it is, and have had that consistent viewpoint for a very, very long time with only a few, minor exceptions throughout history.

Following a similar logical pathway, we see that inflicting damage to other animals is seen to be quasi-objectively "immoral" (although this has generally only been applied to vertebrates - very few cringe when you kill a snail). Now we have two "truths" that are in direct conflict. Killing and eating animals is okay, but harming animals is not okay. Being that killing animals for food has been moral longer than harming animals has been immoral (by societal standards), eating animals wins the moral battle and remains an acceptable practice.

In which case, saying "animals can be eaten because they do not have a soul" is the same as saying "animals can be eaten because they are not human".

The word "soul" in the sentance becomes nothing but obfuscation.

Most (or at least many) animals do the same thing, given the opportunity. The difference is, humans are better at it.

So reciprocation is what makes something right? We have no moral responsibilities towards those who can not re-pay us at a later date?

It would not have to be a mass slaughter. Return to the wild those who we can reasonably expect to survive. Those who we have rendered unable to fend for themselves due to generations of artificial selection, we can allow them to live out the rest of their lives. Or we can perhaps justify eating them, as a means to achieve the end of widespread suffering.

I accept that there are many ways you could come up with the differentiate between humans and other animals. For instance humans are the only animal that have the property of 'being a featherless biped'. My question is how you go from the assertion of
"humans and animals have difference X"
to
"therefore humans have no moral responsibility to humans"

You suggest that we should not experiment on, or eat criminal. My question is: Why not?

Interesting come back.
But the reason I would not support marriage between species is for functional reasons.
Marriage bestows upon two people many legal rights. Applying these legal rights to a "couple" consisting of a human and an animal is meaningless.
Also marriage is (usually) associated with romantic and sexual attachments. There are very good reasons to not support sexual relations between two different species.
If you take "marriage", remove the legal benefits, remove the romantic and sexual associations, you are left with a different type of 'contract'. This is what occurs when a humans brings a pet into his house to live.

The suffering on a nutritional level is not necessary. It is possible to live a healthy life without eating meat.
The suffering of "but I like the taste" is much slighter than the amount of suffering an animal must go through to relieve you of this.
As for the cost on society...
It is unlikely that overnight the entire world is going to stop eating meat. If anything is ever going to happen it is almost certainly going to happen slowly over a long period of time. So the food industry should have plenty of time to adapt. Also due to the fact that there would be a much greater demand on other types of food, plenty of jobs would be created along side those which have been lost.

Ok. Ignore the law. Ignore how people would react to her. Also ignore considerations of aberrant behaviour.
My question is:
Is a mother who physically abuses a very young child doing anything morally wrong?
If the answer to this question is 'yes', then why is it wrong.?

So socially defined taboos are sufficient to determine an act morally wrong?
I certainly accept that taboos can be functionally useful (e.g. the incest taboo). But incest is not wrong by virtue of the fact that there is a taboo against it - if it is wrong, it is wrong for other reasons. One need only look at historical examples of what was once considered taboo to realise this.


In these cases there is much psychological pleasure to be had (for differing reasons) from the occurrence of physical pain. The psychological pleasure wins out over the physical pain - this is why it is enjoyable. The net result is pleasure, not pain.

I am a carnivore. I feel no more guilt about eating something that once had uncontrollable urges to breathe oxygen, then I would assume a lion feels chomping on freshly killed gazelle.

I don’t believe in killing, wounding, or traumatizing for sport. I would gladly choose to eat free range cattle, over penned and not allowed to walk Veal.

I make these choices because I believe it will prolong the world for my future generations, andI think that is “right”.

If you choose not to eat a cow because you couldn’t bring yourself to kill one, that’s fine. You are an adult and can make up your own mind. Personally I find a nice slab of cow grilled over an open flame, quite satisfying.

indeed.

_______

But there are very good reasons for locking criminal up. In doing this we reduce the amount of suffering in the world. It is certainly true that the criminal in question does suffer. And if there was a solution that would reduce this I would support it.
The reasons for locking up criminal include:
-To prevent the criminal in question from causing further harm to the general public.
-To discourage other would-be criminals from committing crime.
-To rehabilitate the criminal so that he can be released without fear of him committing more crimes.

but why will people "readily agree" that this is the case? You do not need to go very far back in time when it was the case that "most people will readily agree that race is sufficient and valid justification for how we treat an organism."

Very little philosophical work can be conducted via absolutely certain propositions. (I cannot be absolutely certain that the table in front of me exists, for instance).

Instead we must work from what can reasonably be believed, due to an evaluation of the evidence. (e.g. that the table in front of me does in fact exist).
There is plenty of evidence that animals feel pain.
I do not see any evidence that plants feel pain. The arguments presented seem to show the possibility of 'pain' in a very abstract and loosely defined manner.

Let me ask you a straight question:
Do you honestly believe that every time you mow your lawn, your grass spends the entire ordeal in excruciating agony?

This seems to be a popular recurring argument, despite the fact that I countered it in my first post. None of the posts seem to address the point I made. Just because we evolved a tendency towards something does not make it morally right.

It is at least plausible that humans evolved an instinctual xenophobia. There is no need to go into the actual evidence for or against this trait as my point comes in the form of a hypothetical:

if xenophobia was a natural, evolved trait of humans, then would that morally justify racism?

There have been times in our past when eating meat was necessary to survive. That is clearly not the case today. Vegetarians and vegans get on just fine.

So the inability to use language is what makes it acceptable to be cruel to a creature.
So an illiterate mute is fair game for abuse as we see fit? Maybe not, after all he may have the ability to communicate with sign language. Assume he doesn't - then what?
Also we mustn't forget young infants and the severely mentally handicapped. All without the language ability. All fair game to eat, experiment on and even torture if we so desire?


"I think humans generally look down on other species as inferior" wasn't long ago when "humans generally look down on other species as inferior".

Meat eating is not necessarry to achieve this end.

So, Hitler's aims were noble when he set out to reduce the strife within his country by getting rid of Jews and other groups, the presence of whom was causing an amount of social unease.

(Don't freak out on me for bring Hitler into the equation. It is a rare situation where it is a useful example to bring up).

With me, killing animals for food isn't morally inconsistent as you depicted. I don't care about a cow, or a chicken, I care about the ecosystems, life is good, but sometimes life eats life, we kill to live. I have no qualms with that, decimating ecosystems for the purpose of human advancement I have problems with.[/QUOTE]

But a racist could just as easily justify himself by asserting the (obvious) fact that "I just don't care about [insert racial epithet]! I don't want to wipe them all out though, (then who would tend my crops for pittance?)".

re: Aristotle.

He was a very wise man, and great things have come because of his philosophy. But the simple fact is that no scientist on the planet takes Aristotle's views on biology or physics seriously anymore. We have moved on.


re: The soul:
I specifically asked for religion to be left out of this thread. There is no reason for a person to postulate the existence of a soul, save for the fact that his religion has told him to do so.

(from my starting post)No more souls please.

false. Vegetarians and vegans survive quite well.

EDIT: obviously we do need protein. But we don't need to eat meat to get it.

Indeed. Morality is subjective and very difficult (impossible?) to rationally ground.

Coming up with a 'descriptive' theory of morality is not too difficult - it can be done at least reasonably objectively (I have my own particular views on this, but they are irrelevant to this thread). However merely having a 'descriptive' theory is not sufficient. We need a prescriptive theory. One that will tell us what we 'ought' to do, rather than one which merely tells us what 'is'.

Your post leads me to believe that your morality could be described as
"agree with the status-quo".

So were Martin Luther King and other equality activists behaving in an immoral way? they were, after all, going against the status-quo. Are all people who dissent from what is socially acceptable at that time, acting immorally?



The reason I started this thread the way I did (by comparing specism to racism) was so I could avoid having to construct a 'moral theory of everything' from the ground up.

This and another thread is causing me to think about ethics and morality as a whole - and whether it is possible to define a self-consistant set of morals and ethics (the other thread is the one about the TFP Christians)

I'm not sure yet, but I'm vearing towards a model where one does what one is comfortable doing themselves - i.e. causing to be killed only what one would be comfortable killing oneself - I think this would apply to food habits, euthanasia, warfare, abortion etc - the important thing is to take careful consideration and ask whether you feel comfortable taking responsibility for the death of another creature.

Many of us would say yes, and others no - but we should all at least think about it.

For example, if I am happy to kill for food (or other reasons), I should not be surprised when someone (or something) else wants to kill and eat me for food (or other reasons). I should at least not expect to start berating it or them on their ethics of the matter if they decide to turn the tables on me.

Probably in their plantlike way. But it's easy to discount because plants are not much like us. Sure we are both alive and strive to survive and we do share the planet and sunlight with them but it's harder to kill things whose screams of pain can be heard. Why don't we just admit that we are blood red in tooth and claw like many of our fellow lifeforms on Earth are.

I gave you one reason already, which I hold to be sufficient.

No, a socially defined taboo can be moral. Breaking a moral socially defined taboo is immoral (up to extenuating circumstances -- it is immoral to steal, but there are circumstances where it would be immoral not to).

Your statement changed my implicit 'can' to a universal 'are' -- socially defined taboos can be moral, as opposed to socially defined taboos are moral.

And I gave you one reason why such a taboo would be moral. Distinguishing between non-intelligent infants and mentally crippled people, and intelligent human beings, is an overly difficult and dangerous act -- failure is EDIT easy and expensive. A taboo against harming such non-intelligent human-shaped things is thus moral -- and currently, it may be the only moral solution availiable.

As I have noted, there are other reasons not to eat small children and mentally crippled people. I stand by my arguement that the above reason is sufficient.

If you want some practical results:
I find nothing morally repugnant about brain-stem-only cloned human organ banks, assuming a zero rate of failure on the brain-stem-only part.

I find nothing morally repugnant about stem cell research in general (specific stem cell research is different).

In both of those cases, the benefits would outweigh the costs of distinguishing 'stem cells' and 'organ farms' from 'human beings'.

For different reasons than the above, if someone where to hurt someone's pet, I would find that immoral. But not on the same plane as hurting a human. Under the catagory of a practical moral taboo-widening, I'd extend that to non-pets that "could be pets" -- the exact width sufficient or nessicary would be a hard problem.

I'll be more blunt.

I am not a utilitarian. Your arguement seem to assume utilitarianism is correct, and some correct units of utility are pleasure and pain.

The world is not a better place if you made tonnes of hypothetical 'happy' machines, in my opinion.

As an example, there is a rare genetic condition that results in someone being unable to feel pain. Harm to this person still occurs.

MY morality is not necessarily "agree with the status quo", however the averaged, socially acceptable moral standards probably could be described in such a fashion.

About the Martin Luther King deal (and others who challenge social standards)... A lot of people in that time would say yes, they are acting immorally. Of course now we live by todays morals so we would say "how could they have thought that to be an acceptable moral standard!?!?" and act all appalled and the like, but hey... that's how a lot of people thought back then, and they defined their own morals just like we define ours.

Without constructing and defining a standard moral theory (or at least one that is all-inclusive to the issue at hand) and giving a convicing argument for it, then you have no way of saying what IS moral and what ISN'T. You can say "these are what my morals are" but we don't have to listen to you. You telling us "eating meat and animal research is immoral" is the equivalent someone saying to another "Judaism is right". Without an acceptable social standard our argument simplifies to a wordy yelling contest of "yes"s and "no"s.

Well, all I can say to this is that I don't believe plants do feel pain. My reasons for believing this is because I don't believe plants are conscious (in the same way that rocks are not conscious).
My reasons for beliving that...well that's just way beyond this thread (and beyond this forum). It would mean that I would have to explain in detail and defend my particular views on consciousness, and I know that they would be very unpopular (by animal lovers and meat-eaters alike! :)).

<HR>


And now that we have come to an almost certain impassé I feel that this is a natural place to bring my experiment to an end.

Wow. That was exhausting! I don't think I've ever seen a single opinion on this board provoke universal condemnation accross the board! I was surprised that there was not a single vegetarian around who was willing to lend me a hand!

I have never before attempted to defend a position that I didn't actually believe was true. I have to say that it is a completely different ball game. I found it much more difficult that usual (also I am sure the fact that I was recieveing absolutely no support was a contributing factor also! :lol: ). I was forced to use some argumentative techniques which I normally would not use (Hey, I'm not proud...I'm just saying).

Anyway, there's no need to close this thread. People can continue to post their thoughts on the subject - it's just that I wouldn't be attempting to vigourously defend this position.

The small point i was trying to make about humans using up the resources at an alarming rate is that WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!!!!!

You made a point that "animals would do the same thing" if they could . . .

But IF Humans are So SMART and "above animals" why are we doing it at all?

hence my point that we are really not as smart as we think nor are we above animals . . . we are behaving without intelligence to the consequences of our actions . . . Just because the human mind has harnessed technology, does not make us superior in all forms . . .

peace,

Sweetpea :)

I was briefly popping in some feedback on the racism element of this discussion, the post was kept fairly short, and as such didn't have much room to elaborate. Racism served a function back in the day because it gave us a tendency to aggressively defend our shit as per an engrained tendency to consider one's own varient superior on account of you being it. Your culture, phenotype, etc. were asserted. Now adays, we're not just social critters but critters of civilization, and what functions racism serves works against us all, because it creates internal strife. That strife is undesirable not because it's presence reduces functionality, but because it works agaisnt the members of the civilization indiscriminantly. Hitler sought to fulfil the ignoble aim of his staggeringly unnecessary levels of racism.

We're critters of civilization, as per the basics of residing within comtemporary civilization, one oughtn't be racist as it is counter productive, it retards social enlightenment and advancement.

As for animals, I'll need some info before I can really make a response, so I've got to ask, why are you for what you are for? What is it about what you want to eliminate that makes it worthy of elimination? I’m not sure how to address this item.

Because the individual benefit from consuming those resources is in many cases positive. The negative externalities often overwealm that individual benefit, but that's a collective problem, not an individual one.

I'll assert that humans are/can be intelligent. I will not claim that humanity is intelligent as a whole. We have attempted to make structures (governments) that act in the best interests of larger numbers of people than one. This seems to be a hard problem.

It isn't in any one person's best interests to conserve petrol. It is quite possibly in the best interests of society as a whole to conserve petrol.

So, would an intelligent person conserve petrol or not?

This possibly holds on larger scales. It might be in humanities best interests to conserve petrol, but it is in each nation's best interest to consume as much petrol as they can.

If you view gaia as an organism, intelligent technological life could be viewed as a reproductive organ. There is no guarantee that this gaia or this organ will result in successful reproduction -- personally, I'm hoping we get lucky. =)

I eat meat because i like the taste. I also hunt. Me killing an animal with an arrow or a bullet is a lot better way to cash in the cards than being mauled by a band of hyenas or having your neck held in a leopards jaw until you bite it. Big fish eats the little fish. It's the way of nature. Everybody's gotta eat, if you want to kill innocent plants for your food, have at it. For me to survive, somethings going to have to die.

Eating meat is tastey. so is eating vegatables. Of course killing animals causes the animals pain. so can we gass them while they are sleeping? also, a faclile argument would say that How do we know that plants don't feel pain? Maybe they do, we just don't understand how they perceive it.

so. Until we evolve to the state of subsisting on nutrients derived from the air we breath... these arguments are superfluous. (what can i say? I'm a pragmatist) Plus, eating meat is tastey.

Moral guidance? No. Just nutritional intake. Eating a hamburger has nothing to do with morals. It is simply a part of life and nature. And yes, it is amoral. That is why it is so wonderful. The problem with humans is that we ARE moral. There is no needless cruelty in the animal kingdom. They do what thay have to to survive. Plain and simple. We, on ther other hand, take something as simple as dinner and turn it into a moral delema, and then break out into 2000 years of war because someone said "Hamburgers are evil!", even though we have been eating hamburgers for the last 2000 freakin years. That is not the moral high ground. That is fucking with the system.

I'd just like to contribute a few points to the thread-

First, if you believe that animals have consciousness, they have reasoned behaviors- they weigh benefit vs. risk. But why does a cat "play" with a mouse? The benefit to the cat is not immediately apparant, because it's prolonging it's meal, wasting it's energy, and is at risk of the meal escaping. If the cat truly had reasoned behavior wouldn't it eat it right away instead of creully batting it around? Instinct and evolution motivates the cat to practice it's hunting skills with a captive target. This argues against conscious behavior and for instinctual reactions.

Second. Our type of vegetarianism is a new phenomenon, where people don't eat meat because they're squeamish (morally outraged) about killing animals. I don't think it's because of a new, higher sense of moral awareness, but rather a disconnection from the earth. We live in a world where many people that have grown up in cities have barely even seen animals, let alone raise them. The majority have never killed an animal for their supper, dressed a kill, gone hunting. We don't spend much time thinking about where that hamburger came from. We keep pets that function as family members. We personify the actions of cats and dogs, and lend these attributes to most life on earth. A lot of vegetarians have a "turning point", where they witnessed an animal being butchered/killed/slaughtered, seen a PETA video, or simply realized the cute picture they had in their head of what it was to be a cow was now on their plate.

This disconnection and subsequent return to reality is a shock. "How could this animal, that has all these human attributes (that i've given to it) be killed outright just for my meal? I'm going vegetarian." Personally, I don't think vegetarians have a firm handle on the delicate cycle of life and death. Earth is a Zero sum game. We have to compete for scarce resources. For you to have, another has to "have not".

Then by your argument humans do not have consciousness. Why did I buy that sports car last year? I could have saved the money to use if I ever lose my job so I don't starve. Buying the sports car reduces my net worth, wastes my money, and puts me at risk of having MY meals cut off due to lack of funds.

Why do people play music? There's no survival reason for it. Grog the Caveman did not escape from the sabre toothed tiger by using a cello.

If you want to argue that observing an organism doing something that does not specifically relate to personal or species survival automatically means the organism has no consciousness (I think the word you're actually searching for is sentience) then humans are not sentient either.




Or perhaps people are not as arrogant as your argument suggests they be, and do not automatically assume that "that which is not human is a mindless automaton that can't feel anything."

In fact, I would submit that it is YOU who have no connection to the earth and its animals, because it doesn't take much observation to see that animals can indeed feel emotions, pain, and generally everything humans can feel. They're just generally not as intelligent and therefore may react differently. If you don't know that, you must not have interacted with very many animals.

Why would I discriminate any more against lettuce than I would a chicken?

Why eat anything other than fruit, or tissue designed by a plant/living being for consumption alone? Plants use fruits to perpetuate their species. They are produced for the sole purpose of consumption by animal life. When expelled in excriment, the seds are surrounded by a nutrient source and ready to grow. Seed dispersal by way of animal digestion is a plant's best method of dispersal.

Stealing the leaves off from a lettuce plant is the rough equivalent of eating a person's lung. It is a vital organ that the plant intentionally grew for its own benefit. It performs a vital function - respiration. It also collects sunshine to fuel photosynthesis, and even sweats.

If we're going to talk about human rights in relation to animal rights, I want to start talking about Plant Rights. It's about time, look at all the captive trees and bushes around your home and office building. Start looking at your food and notice - hey, this is a plant's lung. This is its skin. This is disgusting!

humans kill animals,humans kill humans, animals kill humans, animals kill animals. survival of the fitest. we kill to survive, we kill to eat just like animals because we are animals.

Under the current system, there is no real way to support a population as large as we have on our planet without killing large quantities of animals. Eating animals is a lot less wasteful than just running them over with wheat harvesting machines. It is morally acceptable to attempt to survive, even in my opinion if it causes the death of other creatures. To quote Maddox:

<A HREF="http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html">http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html</a>

You assume that we want to abolish any form of racism/discrimination of other life forms. You say that we now draw the line between humans and animals. What if we draw the line between human-animals and plants? How can we be certain of a plants faculties? They also have purposeful behavior. A bit of discrimination is necesarry.

And your arguments are based on the belief that we have absolute objective morality. I believe that morality is relative. I could've believed in it too, but real life is different. We arent pure creatures of reason, and therefore we cannot rely on reason to make all our decisions. As you said; you love your steaks even if you can argue quite well from a vegetarian point of view.

In my personal opinion I think many of the great philosophers have proved themselves wrong with the passing of time. Plato, Sokrates and Aristotle all believed in objective morallity, yet they all believed that women were inferior to men. They were radical in their time, and if they lived today they would all have a different view. That just shows how morallity will adjust to the time you're living in, and therefore there cannot be a absolutely objective morallity.

Oh, and I suppose I broke a taboo when I posted before I read the entire thread. :) My apologies if I repeated someone elses arguments.

My Argument for Meat:

1) As has already been noted, the only way to determine if something experiences pain is the response it has; if it struggles or tries to prevent damage then it can be called pain. Humans and animals experience pain by these standards, as well as plants. Obviously we are going to have to kill and cause pain to something or we will starve.

2) Everything alive feels pain, and some of it has to die for us to live. What is it going to be? Choosing randomly would be a method of last resort, and would result in waste (and today we choose... sea cucumber. Everyone grab a bowl!). This brings us to a good method of deciding what we should eat: Is it tasty/efficient/otherwise good to eat? Obviously we should pick stuff that we can grow/raise well, and like to eat rather than something that is difficult to get and nasty when we do. We should note that we are not judging the pain of these groups to be more or less than any other.

3) Different people can have different ideas on balancing the killing with their enjoyment/gain. When you really think about it, eating algea and eating meat do not differ in numbers all that much.

What you call 'fruit' isn't what exists in nature, for the most part. Humanity bread most of the fruits we eat from much smaller, less sweet original lines.

Eating fruit is like breeding an animal to have a useless limb, cutting it off, and eating it for meat.

Really, to be certain, we should make a creature that wants and enjoys being eaten, and is intelligent enough to articulate it. (STR)

Care for a bit of my liver? It's very tender - I've been force feeding myself for months. I'll just nip off and shoot myself - don't worry, I'll be very humane.

I think you missed my argument. The actions of the cat are related to species survival, although at first glance it may seem the cat is just cruelly playing. Anyways this argument was just me pondering on stuff- it's not really related to the second argument.




Slow down there. I never said animals don't feel pain, and a lot more besides. I've just come to terms that it is natural to eat them. We're at the top of the food chain. Any (meat eating) animal, given the chance, would eat humans if they made it to the top. If they don't, it would be because we taste bad, not because they would have a moral directive not to eat us.

Things die. Sometimes quickly and humanely, and sometimes slowly and painfully. I think that since we have the capacity for empathy, we should end the life of our prey as painlessly as possible. But not to just stop eating them because it reminds us of that dog we had when we were growing up. You know the one- it "ran away" when it was old, blind, and started shitting on the carpet.

Re-reading, I didn't answer this enough.

First, the reaction of other people to the act is has impact on it's morality.

Second, if that newborn grows into an intelligent being who is affected by the abuse, there is harm.

Third, I could concieve of a situation where a mother kills a newborn infant, and has done nothing morally wrong, as far as I am concerned.

My apologies for being overly flippant in my initial response.

In that case, we are in complete agreement! :thumbsup:

The maddox link is a nice one. The problem you run into with this argument is that no one really cares. If you want to convert someone to not eat meat, then encourage them to take a class on parasites. If nothing else, people may eat less pork and fish and make sure they cook their steaks well!

I saw a poll on CNN.com asking whether people felt that lobsters felt pain when boiled alive. I don't understand why CNN would ask such a dumbass question! Wait, yes I do. Questions like this are stupid because of course it will feel pain. If someone boiled you alive, would you thank them? The real question should be whether you care if it feels pain. I don't care.

Really to even address issues like this, you can't try to define what pain is. You would have to break it down to several biological characteristics such as the animal's nervous structure.

The real problem with your arguments in the original post is not the logic. The problem is that your arguments are unrealistic. Honestly, it's just a naive way of thinking. The reason for this is how do you define wrong? Just one example is that there has been many advances in understanding genetics. How can you say something that benefits all of mankind be views as morally wrong? Also, how about the use of cow insulin being made illegal? Alot of people are allergic to synthetic insulin.

Now, if you're wanting to eliminate aspects of puppy farms where puppies are mistreated, I doubt many people will disagree with you.

I'm afraid so, yes. The reason that evolution is amoral is that morality is merely an artefact of evolution.

Morality is something we have evolved because it perpetuates our own genes by helping to perpetuate the genes of our relatives. Although we are able to use our critical faculties to dissect, analyse and discuss morality, it remains a biological trait. The reason that racism is generally immoral is that killing or otherwise disadvantaging other members of our species, except where it would disadvantage us not to do so, is not fit behaviour. That is to say it is not beneficial to the human genome. Killing other species does not have the same detrimental effect.

The extension of human empathy to non-domestic animals is nothing but a neurosis (albeit a rather endearing one)

I can't see that the point about 'pain' is very strong because they will probably feel a worse, slow pain if they died naturally.

All I can say is that it is Gods earth and Jesus ate meat.

Reading this, Tecoyah, I agree that I will also starve since I cannot bring myself to kill an animal, either. However...on second thought...I wouldn't starve...but I would miss it while I eat my salad...

Ah, you mean like intensive farming? ;)

I believe in the harm principle, but I also think that experimenting on animals is wrong.

I don't know if everyone knows about the harm principle but it basically means that Any right adult of a civilized community can make a choice without interference by another except when it affects others or if the harm of interfering is lower than the original harm.

This means that eating meat, I don't tend to find bad, infact I love the taste of a nice roast or a big juicy peice of steak, because when I'm eating this I'm not putting anyone in harm (physical, psychological or indirect), sure vegetarians may not like it, but if they interfere i believe that the harm of their interference is worse than the harm of me eating the meat in the first place, because they are pretty much volunteering to be a vegetarian.

Killing animals on the other hand (and scientific testing on them) i think is wrong. I believe that interference in someone killing an animal is ok, this is because people tend to be psychologically and emotionally attached to animals, no matter if it's a random cow in the middle of the paddock, people (like my self) think it's morrally wrong, therefore interfering is allowed because it is affecting other people than just the person commiting the act.

(sorry if this doesnt make sence, I'm typing stuff down as I think it hehe)

you have no rights but the ones we give you.....animals have no rights but for the ones we give them. Faced with a lion there are no rights but the ones he gives me or that I can assert. Absent an underlying framework (ie. religion) might makes right.

I'm hungry...I'm tired of wheat.....why not an antelope steak. what's stopping me.

oh man, sorry, i'm serioulsy not reading any replies before i post. i just want to say i disagree with you, and that your suggestions for "possible objections" seem like obviously stupid objections.

We need to eat. What would you do if you were hungry?? i personally believe the only reason there are vegetarians, is because people are too picky - you do that, great.

What do you suggest i eat? plants? have they no feelings? do they not feel pain? did we not evolve to eat them? did they live good lives? are they not intelligent? is it okay to conduct experiments on them because it benefits humans??

think.

Great read iamnormal, and that's from my University! Cool beans.

We must then reject a great deal of our cultural and societal advances so that we do not bring suffering upon any sentient creature. We cannot build/pave large expanses of land because of the suffering and killing it does to numerous creatures. We cannot use chemicals that may cause damage to creatures. We cannot turn animal habitat into farmable land because this is again hurting the animals. In fact, just about everything we do in life is somehow going to negatively affect some animal somewhere.

It's a bit simplistic, and forgive the religious reference but I've always summed up the gist of this argument with the following:

If God hadn't intended for the crows to eat the grasshoppers, he would have given the grasshoppers shotguns so the crows wouldn't fuck with them.

At it's basic form all I'm saying is that the differentiation between lower animals and humans is that regardless of their capacity for feeling or understanding pain, they lack the cognizance to do anything about it. Humans are afforded certain rights because they can fight for them and they earned them (no going back to babies doesn't change that, a child given 15 years will gain the capacity to represent itself, no matter how old the cow is it will still just stand there), until that cow can tell me that it doesn't WANT me to eat it I'm going to continue to enjoy it's meat. I don't feel there is a moral situation here owing to the fact that through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution all that's really occurred is that these animals have become easier to consume, and yes I understand that they are bred that way, however; they niether recognize their peril, or attempt to avoid it, until they are already dying.

As for the experimentation on animals, most cosmetic experimentation is done on rodents, or on animals that are very well treated because the results are highly valuable to the institution or organization conducting the experiments. You seem to have overlooked one underlying fact with your accusation that these experiments are preformed for nothing more than curiosity and that is that the type of testing that you describe is by nature and situation very precise and usually very expensive. Even grant programs that require relatively little investment from the person performing the work are closely guarded by the committees that present them owing to amount of investment that is related! Though if you do happen to know someone that is willing to give me money just so I can screw around and satisfy my curiousity about some things I'd love to hvae their number, I'm curious as to what the effect would be of having somebody pay all my bills so I can sit on my ass all day for years.

I came into this thread hoping for an open discussion on the matter. However, it appears that it's just somebody [CSfilm] stating his opinions on a matter, not allowing for any sort of debate where he is willing to give value to a reasoned statement from the meateating side. So, with this said, I'm going to say what I was planning on earlier, but I won't expect any sort of interesting dialogue to evolve from it.

First of all, CSFilm, you make hypocritical statements - you essentially say 'animal feel pain, because I know they do', then turn around saying 'plants don't feel pain, I know they don't'. You cannot assume either the former or the later! Sure the animals may react to being hit, but they may not consciously understand that they are in pain.

Also, what's to say that killing animals is wrong? It's simply a construct of reality that you've created for yourself! You have no ability to judge, in the objective manner, what is right and what's wrong. You act as if you are the supreme authority [looking at your title under your name really proves this notion], and that you are right, even when proven wrong! Don't you place any value in the betterment of humans? Curing cancer and other diseases at the cost of some monkeys and white rats is a small price to pay, don't you think? If not, we might as well just stop eating!

No, it's not absolutely necessary to eat meat, but are you really going to argue that not eating meat is healthier? Cows as a species would probably not even exist if they weren't useful; we would have forced their nondomesticated ancestors into extinction long ago. How did these animals get domesticated in the first place? It wasn't because humans wanted them as pets. From the very beginning we've been killing and eating them. They became domesticated because it was BETTER for them to be cared for by humans for some number of years, bred, and killed instead of fending for themselves in the wild and then dying anyway in less time because they starved or got eaten by a wolf or something. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. Animals do not value living a long and full life like humans do. They simply want to eat and reproduce as much as possible before dying (which is also a goal of humans of course). There are a hell of a lot more cows and chickens on the planet than there would be without us and they probably live longer than they would wild. From nature's point of view, that is success.

Perhaps next time you decide to respond with such vitriol to a thread, you should consider reading at least the initial post first, rather than just the thread title. If you find you can cope with that, then maybe you should have a go at reading the whole thread. That way, you would see that what CSFlim has actually done here is tried to engage in objective philosophical debate (an activity which is apparently becoming increasingly alien to this forum). Had you managed to read anything more than one sentence before responding, you would have seen that CSflim actually disagrees with the sentiment expressed in the thread title and is merely trying to establish what distinguishes racism from "speciesism".

Plants are more than you realize. Studies of desert shrubs in the American west show that when a bush becomes infested with bugs its system starts producing a greater quantity of toxic and noxious resins and exhalations, which insects tend to avoid, what with their small bodies (and don't forget their defenseless eggs which do not tolerate high quantities of toxic substances either). The interesting thing is that non-infested shrubs within miles of the buggy ones also begin to produce these specialized substances, and the relationship between wind pattern and bush defense system activation was apparently rather well correlated.

An incidental byproduct of having delicate electrical sensors on tobacco plants in a controlled testing environment showed that the plants developed an interesting reaction to the morning visit of the quality assurance man. He would cut a sample from each plant and burn it in an analyzing device for, well, analyzing them I guess. Anyway, the timing of the mans approach (governed by the clock, probably a good due paying union man) resulted in a very high rate of activity in the plants, and this went on until the test was over and he left the room. The rest of the day they were calm.

There is a lot to be said on the other questions as well, but I better read this thread and see if I double posted someone elses response here before I blather any more.