Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 121 of 173 (550568)
03-16-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-16-2010 11:28 AM


Re: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
Why is it wrong to kill an intelligent animal that gives its consent?
Sounds like a Catch-22. It is ok to eat someone who gives their consent as long as they are not insane being that it is immoral to take advantage of the mentally ill. However, anyone who consents to being eaten must be insane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-16-2010 11:28 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-16-2010 12:10 PM Taq has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 122 of 173 (550571)
03-16-2010 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Taq
03-16-2010 11:49 AM


Re: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
JUC asks:
Why is it wrong to kill an intelligent animal that gives its consent?
Taq responds:
Sounds like a Catch-22. It is ok to eat someone who gives their consent as long as they are not insane being that it is immoral to take advantage of the mentally ill. However, anyone who consents to being eaten must be insane.
OK, I agree to a certain extent, although the question was "why is it wrong to kill an intelligent animal that gives its consent?" not why is it wrong to eat it.
There may be extenuating circumstances, such as sacrificing oneself in a survival situation, or possibly even in a euthanasia situation, where it would not so obviously be a case of insanity and immorality. (Although I believe those situations may not apply to the specific cases given.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Taq, posted 03-16-2010 11:49 AM Taq has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 123 of 173 (550573)
03-16-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-16-2010 11:28 AM


Re: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
There was the german cannibal who killed and ate a willing victim - and I believe there was a japanese one too, probably more - if you think about it (and Douglas Adams did), why should we think killing dumb beasts for food is right when we think that killing intelligent animals that can give their consent to it wrong?
Why is it wrong to kill an intelligent animal that gives its consent?
I don't think I can adequately defend either position, but it would seem to me that it should be legal for a sane person to decide to end their life (after all, it's their life and their actions - an intelligent animal can presumably be thought to have free will, so by what right should that free will be blocked?)
As a consequence, I have to submit that it should be right for a sane person to choose to end their life for any reason, and seeing as their body becomes property upon their death, it should be right for the now-deceased to have their body willed to any person for any use, including consumption.
I don't have to like the idea, I don't have to want to do it, but it's none of my business to intervene, so long as we're sure that there is no taint of threats, extortion or blackmail (I was going to include bribery, but hey, what's wrong with bribery?)
I hold the rather oddly contradictory viewpoint that whilst might makes right, that you don't get to claim the moral highground if you DO push your viewpoint through with the barrel of a gun.
We eat animals because they know no better - they cannot speak up. We decide for others who cannot speak up. We do unto others who cannot speak up. I object to bringing the word "morality" into it, because it is either utility or it is opinion, and in either case it is the decision of somebody in power, who will get their way by the threat of the weight of the civilization we live in, who decides - and our civilization's "morals" change rather frequently, ergo they are arbitrary and mutable.
I don't go hunting, but my friends do, and I've pet the head of the cow that became stew the next day. I know a milk farmer or two as well. I'm not going to go without milk simply because thousands of calves are slaughtered to provide sustenance to the human race. I salute those who do (at least for the right reasons - PETA can suck a dick), but I equally know that if we ever rid ourselves of meat production, milk production, leather production and so on, that it will put whole huge swathes of the population out of work and end our access to traditional sources of a hell of a lot of materials.
The burden my conscience carries might be lightened by the ending of the manufactured plight of the dairy cow, but it would then be burdened with making sure that the cow can survive naturally without our assistance (it couldn't, we've genetically engineered many breeds to be dependant on humans for so long) and actually have a better life as food for the wolves than as food for humans - we'd probably have to look after them AND the wolves! We'd have to find jobs for the truck drivers, the farmers, the skinners, the curers, the vets...
I'm rambling, I know, but that's because it's not so simple as one may think. Changing the way we live would entail changing absolutely everything about our world, it will be as painful a change as getting off oil (which has taken us 30+ years and we're not much closer).
Should we change? Yes, I think we should because it's possible to let nature takes it's course without us! - but I'm not going to lose any sleepless nights over the hamburger I had yesterday whilst I wait because it's obvious to me that I am an animal, built to eat meat, thrust into a world where the only real way our society can survive is through the wholesale objectification of other animals (including our own kind, it seems, though very, very rarely as a food source). All this bullshit about pictures causing riots whilst the murder of innocent women and children needs to stop. All the whining about food tubes being taken out needs to be dropped. All the distractions about what a women does with her own body needs to be forgotten - first.
If aliens showed up, I'd certainly hope they didn't see us as two-legged cattle, but really, if they were powerful enough to get here in the first place, made life comfortable and easy for us, you can bet there'd be people popping up saying what a great idea it is, and you can bet we'd have a hell of a lot of trouble fighting them, and we'd probably lose, so you'd better hope they're already at where I think WE should be!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-16-2010 11:28 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 124 of 173 (550576)
03-16-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Taq
03-16-2010 11:44 AM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
Hi, Taq.
Taq writes:
The whole argument seems to be centered around whether or not a well developed central nervous system is subjective or arbitrary...
Bluejay writes:
Better yet, why don’t we assume that they will modify all organisms with central nervous systems so that they can get their energy from photosynthesis, so nothing has to be killed for any reason?
Wouldn't you need to ask their permission first?
You would only need to ask for permission if the wrongness of killing or harming organisms with central nervous systems is situational and subjective.
Otherwise, those with moral awareness, and the technological capability of preventing the suffering and death, are morally obligated to prevent it.
-----
Taq writes:
The difference being that they, unlike "animals", make these choices based on their own morality. Does a shark stop to think about the pain it causes? Do sharks have a moral code? Are they moral agents? Are basking sharks a result of morally conflicted sharks opting for a more vegetarian lifestyle?
Basking sharks still eat things with central nervous systems: most plankton are animals.
There seems to be a contradiction here. Should moral exemptions be granted to things we deem worthy of moral protection?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 03-16-2010 11:44 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 03-16-2010 2:01 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 125 of 173 (550580)
03-16-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by greyseal
03-16-2010 9:06 AM


Re: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
Hi greyseal
Just had a thought on this point you raised:
I'm a helpless techno-utopian, so I firmly believe than when we CAN do away with farming animals for skin, bone, meat, organs and other biproducts, we SHOULD. We should move our heavy industry off of the Earth and let it be fallow, we should move our population off Earth or live with zero negative impact and we shouldn't eat anything with a nervous-system because we have the brains to do otherwise, and therefore the responsibility to do so. Bacteria and plants don't count. Vat-grown meat doesn't count. If we could grow cows without a brain, THAT wouldn't count.
Is it morally better to stop all farming of animals for meat, milk, skin, etc, which would undoubtedly greatly reduce in number if not altogether extinguish many domesticated species, rather than concentrate on ensuring that they lead healthy, happy lives up to the point that they are killed (quickly and as humanely as possible)?
I'm thinking of your cows without a brain. Do they have a better life for never feeling anything at all, never having any kind of awareness of anything at all, compared to a cow that enjoys a happy life grazing in a meadow, mating, and reproducing only to possibly end its life by feeling a bolt in the head for a split second? I don't think so.
All life has to die in the end. Is it not better to live and be eaten, than never to live at all? And for something like a cow, that cannot live out its old age in a comfy armchair playing bingo, what better way to go than a quick bolt in the head it never saw coming?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by greyseal, posted 03-16-2010 9:06 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 2:59 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 126 of 173 (550582)
03-16-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Blue Jay
03-16-2010 1:20 PM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
You would only need to ask for permission if the wrongness of killing or harming organisms with central nervous systems is situational and subjective.
How can an amoral animal commit an immoral act?
It would seem to me that only a moral agent is ruled by morality. An animal that is amoral can not, by definition, commit an immoral act so there is no need to genetically modify these animals to prevent them from consuming other animals. A shark eating a squid is no more immoral than an asteroid slamming into the Earth and wiping out entire groups of species.
Basking sharks still eat things with central nervous systems: most plankton are animals.
Plankton do not have a CNS.
Should moral exemptions be granted to things we deem worthy of moral protection?
Whenever there is a conflict between moral imperatives one will have to lose out, or both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Blue Jay, posted 03-16-2010 1:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Blue Jay, posted 03-16-2010 4:15 PM Taq has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 127 of 173 (550593)
03-16-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Taq
03-16-2010 2:01 PM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
Hi, Taq.
Taq writes:
How can an amoral animal commit an immoral act?
If the act is objectively immoral, it shouldn't matter who or what perpetrated it: it should still be our moral imperative to prevent it, shouldn't it? That's the principle upon which the entire field of medicine is (allegedly) based.
If we have the power to stop an immoral act, refraining from preventing it can itself be seen as an immoral act, can't it?
At least, I thought that was a principle being promoted here. Maybe I was wrong.
-----
Taq writes:
A shark eating a squid is no more immoral than an asteroid slamming into the Earth and wiping out entire groups of species.
Wouldn’t we consider it our moral imperative to do something about a major impending disaster like an asteroid? At least to try something?
Why doesn’t this imperative translate over?
-----
Taq writes:
Plankton do not have a CNS.
Maybe some don't, but arthropod and mollusc larvae certainly do, and they're a significant proportion of the plankton (krill, for example).
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 03-16-2010 2:01 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 03-16-2010 4:57 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 130 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 3:06 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 128 of 173 (550603)
03-16-2010 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Blue Jay
03-16-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
If the act is objectively immoral, it shouldn't matter who or what perpetrated it . . .
I disagree. Morality only applies to moral agents. In our own court system we excuse people from moral judgement if they are incapable of discerning right from wrong. As an example, Brinkley shot Reagan, but he was not found guilty of attempted assisination because he was nucking futs. In fact, Brinkley may be released in the near future due to the fact that his psychosis appears to be gone.
Wouldn’t we consider it our moral imperative to do something about a major impending disaster like an asteroid? At least to try something?
Are we trying to stop the asteroid because the asteroid wants to commit an immoral act or because we want our species to continue?
But then again, how much of our morality is based upon the best set of rules needed for a working and self perpetuating society? How much of our morality is tied up in the imperative of survival?
Maybe some don't, but arthropod and mollusc larvae certainly do, and they're a significant proportion of the plankton (krill, for example).
My mistake. I wrongly associated "plankton" with "unicellular photosynthesizers". Plankton denotes a lifestyle or niche, not a particular taxonomic group.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Blue Jay, posted 03-16-2010 4:15 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Blue Jay, posted 03-17-2010 10:37 AM Taq has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 129 of 173 (550658)
03-17-2010 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-16-2010 1:45 PM


Re: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
Is it morally better to stop all farming of animals for meat, milk, skin, etc, which would undoubtedly greatly reduce in number if not altogether extinguish many domesticated species, rather than concentrate on ensuring that they lead healthy, happy lives up to the point that they are killed (quickly and as humanely as possible)?
That's a really powerful question - like I was saying, we look after cows rather well. They get food, shelter, water, don't really suffer from diseases that would be crippling in the wild, are protected from predators and generally lead a good life for a being with very little wants ("grass!" "water!" "sex!") and their death is supposedly painless and quick. Be under no delusions that a "wild cow" would have a pretty harsh life, and that the domesticated cow probably would not survive trying to be one.
If we could return cows (and pigs, goats, dogs, etc) to their "wild" state and then leave well enough alone, we'd see them dying of disease, dying of broken legs, being torn apart by predators (we'd need the wolves and bears back), starving to death, drowning and generally suffering in the day-to-day melee that is the natural world. I'd be happy with that, because "the wild state" is the default and my opinion of the wild state has no bearing on it's reality. I don't think it's possible to domesticate the entire planet (although we're giving it a damned good try, and hopefully realising before it's too late that it's futile) and live in some PETA wet dream that could never happen.
Babysitting the entire planet is a ridiculous idea, but stopping all farming and just mass-slaughtering the unwanted animals would be a bigger crime in my book than continuing to use them with respect.
I'm thinking of your cows without a brain. Do they have a better life for never feeling anything at all, never having any kind of awareness of anything at all, compared to a cow that enjoys a happy life grazing in a meadow, mating, and reproducing only to possibly end its life by feeling a bolt in the head for a split second? I don't think so.
I think a cow without a brain would basically be a meat vegetable. Having no wants, desires, thoughts or even urges of any kind rules out needing to empathise with it. We wouldn't have to care about the welfare of the meat because it's just meat. You would have to care about quality, but that's an entirely different problem.
All life has to die in the end. Is it not better to live and be eaten, than never to live at all?
I think the simulacrum you're running in your brain breaks down at that point. You cannot compare non-existence with existence, you can't even sensibly ask the question. If you could call up one of the quadrillions of sperm and eggs that never made it, and somehow instantly get the resultant animal to speak, and say "are you glad you don't exist?" you'd not get a very coherent result...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-16-2010 1:45 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-17-2010 10:10 AM greyseal has not replied
 Message 135 by Apothecus, posted 03-17-2010 2:12 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 130 of 173 (550659)
03-17-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Blue Jay
03-16-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
If the act is objectively immoral, it shouldn't matter who or what perpetrated it: it should still be our moral imperative to prevent it, shouldn't it?
I don't know if that's off topic, but lions commit patricide, fratricide, homicide and infanticide at least. We have the power to exterminate all lions that do this - but then there'd be no lions.
We could drag a lion up before the court, but you'd have a hard time convincing the jury that the lion knew it was wrong or that lions fall under the jurisdiction of humans...
A lion is, of course, amoral - and therefore his actions (or hers) cannot be labelled as "immoral". I find it bizarre when captive (wild) animals that kill their keepers are more or less put on trial for their actions, and there is talk of "destroying" the animal for it's natural actions in an unnatural setting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Blue Jay, posted 03-16-2010 4:15 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Blue Jay, posted 03-17-2010 10:57 AM greyseal has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 131 of 173 (550682)
03-17-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by greyseal
03-17-2010 2:59 AM


Re: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
JUC writes:
All life has to die in the end. Is it not better to live and be eaten, than never to live at all?
greaseal replies:
I think the simulacrum you're running in your brain breaks down at that point. You cannot compare non-existence with existence, you can't even sensibly ask the question. If you could call up one of the quadrillions of sperm and eggs that never made it, and somehow instantly get the resultant animal to speak, and say "are you glad you don't exist?" you'd not get a very coherent result...
I take your point, but if we're talking about whether or not we should farm animals, this really is the dilemma we're faced with.
Again, it raises the question: is our moral concern to do with our behaviour (i.e. is it simply "wrong, period" in any circumstances to eat meat), or is the concern to do with the welfare and survival of the animal to be eaten?
I think I've said more than enough on this subject already, so I would summarise my view as follows:
- There is nothing fundamentally wrong with eating meat; it is perfectly natural. I still don't think anyone has made a case for it being "wrong, period" on a point of pure principle.
- In modern cultures and societies, many people are so removed from the slaughtering process that they have caring instincts that are much more highly developed than their kill-to-eat instincts, and so they are squeamish at the idea of killing and eating animals. Those people are free to make the choice not to eat meat.
- It is wrong to farm an animal to eat it if the animal in question is intelligent and sensitive enough to understand it's fate (as in the hypothetical case of aliens farming humans), which would cause it great distress.
- It is wrong to cause any needless suffering or low quality of life to any farmed animal (such as intensive factory farming).
- It is wrong to hunt any animal to the point of extinction, if for no other reason then at least because you won't be able to sustain the activity!
- The above wrongful actions can be superseded by emergency survival necessity. Pretty much anything is fair game in an emergency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 2:59 AM greyseal has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 132 of 173 (550683)
03-17-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taq
03-16-2010 4:57 PM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
Hi, Taq.
Taq writes:
Bluejay writes:
If the act is objectively immoral, it shouldn't matter who or what perpetrated it . . .
I disagree. Morality only applies to moral agents. In our own court system we excuse people from moral judgement if they are incapable of discerning right from wrong.
No fair! You didn't quote my whole sentence:
Bluejay writes:
If the act is objectively immoral, it shouldn't matter who or what perpetrated it: it should still be our moral imperative to prevent it, shouldn't it?
Even in the case of a person being found morally incompetent, we take the necessary measures to stop them from repeat offenses, don't we? We certainly don't let them go out and kill, rob or rape again.
So, doesn't it make sense to take the necessary measures to stop animals from killing other animals?
-----
Taq writes:
Are we trying to stop the asteroid because the asteroid wants to commit an immoral act or because we want our species to continue?
I'm not really asking about whether it's moral for an asteroid to hit the planet: I'm asking about whether it's immoral for somebody to not try to help when they have the means to help.
I guess I need to ask this a little differently:
Does morality dictate that we seek to not cause harm ourselves?
Or does it dictate that we seek to prevent harm in all its forms?
In other words, do we define something as immoral based on who do it, or based on what happens to the victim?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 03-16-2010 4:57 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 11:05 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 133 of 173 (550689)
03-17-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by greyseal
03-17-2010 3:06 AM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
Hi, Greyseal.
greyseal writes:
A lion is, of course, amoral - and therefore his actions (or hers) cannot be labelled as "immoral". I find it bizarre when captive (wild) animals that kill their keepers are more or less put on trial for their actions, and there is talk of "destroying" the animal for it's natural actions in an unnatural setting.
I wasn't condoning capital punishment for amoral beings, and I think I'm generally against it philosophically.
My original contention was in response to genetic engineering: if aliens have the ability to alter themselves or their diet to avoid eating meat, then do they or do they not have the moral imperative to alter other organisms that eat meat so that no organism need be killed for meat?
My basic position is that morality is the obligation to prevent suffering. To clarify, I'm not sure this really is my philosophical position: but, in this discussion, this is the stance I'm taking.
The alternative position is that morality is the obligation to avoid causing suffering.
They differ in that the first includes the moral imperative for moral agents to actively prevent suffering that is caused by amoral agents.
It seems to me that Taq is taking the latter position (that morality only deals with the actions of moral agents). I'm not sure if I'm right about that, so I'll wait for Taq to either confirm, deny or clarify; but, that's the basic discussion between the two of us up to this point.
You're welcome to jump in at anytime.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 3:06 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 3:59 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 134 of 173 (550693)
03-17-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Blue Jay
03-17-2010 10:37 AM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
No fair! You didn't quote my whole sentence:
Sorry if you feel misquoted. I was trying to show that I disagreed with the premise of your argument, the "if" part.
Even in the case of a person being found morally incompetent, we take the necessary measures to stop them from repeat offenses, don't we? We certainly don't let them go out and kill, rob or rape again.
Yes, until such time that they demonstrate their competency. However, we don't punish them for their acts, nor find them to be immoral. It is no different than capturing a cougar found at a day care. The only difference here is that an amoral human probably couldn't survive on it's own so we supply shelter, food, etc.
I'm not really asking about whether it's moral for an asteroid to hit the planet: I'm asking about whether it's immoral for somebody to not try to help when they have the means to help.
Fair enough. This relates to human morality. It is a crime (i.e. immoral act) to show depraved indifference towards other humans. For example, if your actions lead to a situation that threatens another human being and you do nothing to prevent it you can be convicted of depraved indifference. This can even extend to domesticated pets, such as the awful conditions found at puppy mills.
But does this extend to the rest of the animal kingdom? I would say no. I think this is tied in with the Naturalistic fallacy. The fallacy is that if something is natural it is good. That is wrong. I think it can go the other way as well. Just because it happens naturally does not make it bad. Nature is amoral. We look at wolves predating on elk as natural. It is their nature. We humans transcend nature as moral agents. I think that is where the difference is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Blue Jay, posted 03-17-2010 10:37 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Blue Jay, posted 03-22-2010 11:25 PM Taq has replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 135 of 173 (550714)
03-17-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by greyseal
03-17-2010 2:59 AM


Re: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
Hey greyseal.
...we look after cows rather well. They get food, shelter, water, don't really suffer from diseases that would be crippling in the wild, are protected from predators and generally lead a good life for a being with very little wants ("grass!" "water!" "sex!") and their death is supposedly painless and quick.
Yes, but isn't this subjective? A cow's relative well-being depends wholly upon the conditions in which it is kept. It could be argued that a cow shitting on itself and its neighbors because of the close, fetid, disgusting proximity to other shitting cows is the definition of inhumane treatment. It could be argued that the only acceptible way in which any moral human could possibly eat meat would be from grass-fed beef which have lived a relatively happier life (again, subjective). Personally, I see no moral dilemma. But as a whacko PETA activist and I would have a 180 degree difference in our views, there are an infinite number of subjective views of humanity between the two extremes where the treatment of eatable livestock is concerned.
When considering the mass feedlots, I think where the disconnect lies is that we consign artificial emotions or desires to what we think cattle should prefer as to their "lot" in life. Anthropomorphism, if you like. Cattle would be "happier" relaxing in idyllic pastures, whiling the days away until getting the inevitable bolt in the head, yes? Can a cow comprehend the depravity of its conditions without a frame of reference, assuming a cow was able to comprehend anything except eat/sleep/shit/sex? Humans are not a cows, and vice versa...
Now although I would argue that, from a personal health standpoint, eating grass-fed vs. mass feedlot beef can't help but be a better choice, I've eaten both and can see no difference in my health (or lack thereof ). But as another distinction, I've eaten both and enjoyed them both, but for some reason feedlot beef just taste better than their natural, grassfed counterparts. But I don't know why this is. Genetics? Tasty growth hormones?

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 2:59 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 4:23 PM Apothecus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024