Ethics of Killing Animals

[azelismia]

The last I checked, killing animals for food is not considered murder by anyone but the strictest vegans. Killing humans is almost universally considered as murder.



I consider killing animals murder. People like to put up a wall between the suffering of other types of animals and humans because they couldn't live with their actions if they admitted the truth. it's never going to be a popular notion for that reason, but really.. what we do to other animals is quite barbaric and holocaustic. We just have conditioned ourselves not to care.

[Moriarty]

I consider killing animals murder. People like to put up a wall between the suffering of other types of animals and humans because they couldn't live with their actions if they admitted the truth. it's never going to be a popular notion for that reason, but really.. what we do to other animals is quite barbaric and holocaustic. We just have conditioned ourselves not to care.


That's getting a bit into the silly side of things. Ever watch the Discovery Channel? How do you feel when a cheetah catches a baby antelope and crushes its throat?

I'm the kind of guy who picks bugs up and throws them outside if I find them in the house, but to say that I'm eating a murder victim if I grill a burger is just silly.

[azelismia]

That's getting a bit into the silly side of things. Ever watch the Discovery Channel? How do you feel when a cheetah catches a baby antelope and crushes its throat?

I'm the kind of guy who picks bugs up and throws them outside if I find them in the house, but to say that I'm eating a murder victim if I grill a burger is just silly.


yup, a cheetah killing a baby antelope is murdering it. Has to do it for survival but there you are, murder anyway. We subject food supplies to pretty bad lives. Free range critters don't have it so bad but commercial farming is brutal. Torture and murder. We like to make other species less than us, justifying it that way. but the truth is other animals have awareness. (notice I say "other ANIMALS") Other animals can experience fear, pain and suffering. There isn't a lot of difference between the way we treat cattle for instance and the way the nazi's treated the Jews. Justify it away to ease your conscience but the truth is brutal.

[Sara27]

It's interesting to me that most people site the beef industry when making a point about how food animals are treated. The beef industry is one of the best at providing good lives to their animals. There are always exceptions, but I wouldn't condemn every parent because child abuse exists.

There is a HUGE difference between the way animals are treated and the way the Nazi's treated the Jews and I resent the parallel. Just because PETA says that it's true doesn't make it so. I wonder if you've ever been to a farm? How about worked on one?

I agree that animals experience fear, pain, and suffering, but besides the Great Apes there is no reason to believe in your self-awareness statement. I strongly believe that we need to treat all animals in our care with love and compassion. I have raised animals for food and have loved them and treated them very well while they were in my care. Yes, I sold them for meat. That was their purpose, the reason they were bred in the first place.

Do you also belive that forced coppulation in the avian world is the same as a man raping a woman?

[rwyatt365]

Technically, in the English language, "murder" is the killing of one human being by another human being. Given that, an animal cannot be murdered, but it can be killed.

Putting that out of the way, and accepting the premise that an animal CAN be murdered, I see nothing unethical about killing ("murdering") an animal for food. I understand clearly that every steak, chop, leg and thigh that I eat comes from another living entity, and that it had to die in order that consume it. I can easily live with that action. It's not a matter of whether I care, or not. It's a matter of whether I care about myself, and my life over that of the animal that died for my benefit. And frankly, the answer is - I care about me.

Selfish? Yes. Realistic. Absolutely

The fact of the matter is that I am not so far removed from the cheetah that runs down the baby gazelle. It kills to survive - so do I. The difference is that the cheetah performs it's own killing, whereas I don't. But, indeed, I have. I have gone out to the chicken coop and caught (with a great deal of difficulty) the chicken that ended up in the pot that evening (thanks Grandma!). I had no qualms then, and I don't now. I know exactly where on the cow my Porterhouse came from and I'm not ashamed to savour every bite (and be thankful).

I will agree that the conditions that many of our feed-animals live (and die) under are deplorable. I won't apologize for any of that. So, if you're up in arms about that, I'm right with you. But if you're suggesting that humans "cease and desist" from eating meat because animals have feeling too then I'm out. My conscience is quite clear.

[azelismia]

It's interesting to me that most people site the beef industry when making a point about how food animals are treated. The beef industry is one of the best at providing good lives to their animals. There are always exceptions, but I wouldn't condemn every parent because child abuse exists.

There is a HUGE difference between the way animals are treated and the way the Nazi's treated the Jews and I resent the parallel. Just because PETA says that it's true doesn't make it so. I wonder if you've ever been to a farm? How about worked on one?

I agree that animals experience fear, pain, and suffering, but besides the Great Apes there is no reason to believe in your self-awareness statement. I strongly believe that we need to treat all animals in our care with love and compassion. I have raised animals for food and have loved them and treated them very well while they were in my care. Yes, I sold them for meat. That was their purpose, the reason they were bred in the first place.

Do you also belive that forced coppulation in the avian world is the same as a man raping a woman?


the issue at hand has nothing to do with the avian world and breeding. pls stick to the topic.

What is this huge difference in the way nazi's treated the Jews and the way animals are treated on large farms and slaughter houses? You say there is a huge difference but do not back it up.

I am not just citing the beef industry. I am citing all of the industry. humane practices are for the most part, not in place. keeping cows in stalls all of their life (Except possibly when they are calves still) is humane adn unlike the treatment the Jews got in Concentration camps? the method of death is kinder perhaps? it isn't done enmass?

What makes you so sure other species are not self aware? We have tests that we give them. but that doesn't mean they care about the things we care about enough to follow our testing methods. they are built differently than we are with different survival needs. why should they show the same signals or respond to the same signals that we do. but it's a mistake to assume they are not self aware because of this.

I've seen examples from my cats and other peoples dogs that certainly show self awareness. My cat knows who he is in the mirror and he knows where I am in the mirror behind him. He watches things going on behind him and then attacks when the time is right. When you give one a bath the other knows to be on alert. so on and so forth.

[Double Victory]

I have a problem with animal cruelty as well. I can't watch those discovery animal shows, because I feel bad if the cheetah catches the antelope because the antelope has to die, but I also feel bad if the cheetah doesn't catch the antelope, because then it's cubs are going to go hungry.

It might be a little stupid, but when I have to think about the wild, I always think the Lion King, and Mufasa's speech to Simba, where he talks about the circle of life. At least that helps me with the wild a little bit.

But when it comes to humans.... we can be horrible. I understand killing animals to eat. It's necessary. I don't have a problem with it, as long as the animals are treated humanely. But the problem is that they aren't.

I don't listen to PETA--they've been accused of animal cruelty themselves, and they have been proven time after time to flat out lie about things.

Cattle do have it good compared to other animals waiting for slaughter, like chickens. I read a story quite some time ago about how an autistic girl revolutionized the cattle industry because she sort of acted the same way that cattle did--she helped design a system that would alleviate cattle anxiety, and therefore made it a little bit more humane.

But chicken? I won't pretend to have absolute fact, but I've heard so many horror stories about the poor things.

That and animal cruelty in general--dog and cock fighting? I watch a lot of those animal rescue shows on Animal Planet.... some of the animals that get rescued make me cry because of how much they've suffered. I think there should be much tougher penalties for animal cruelty like that. I mean, you look at a dog, and it absolutely loves you, and can't wait until you get home, and all it wants is a little attention, and then these people go and leave them tied up alone with collars that cut into their skin, and no food, shelter, or water for days. Animals shouldn't have to live like that.

About animal self-awareness--what about dolphins? They've been proven to communicate, not only with themselves, but also humans. Cuttlefish? They are extremely intelligent. Cats--some of them chase laser pointers, and some of them stare at your hand where the laser pointer is coming from. I think there's a lot more to animal self-awareness and intelligence than we know about. They have varying IQs among themselves, just like we do. Everyone's known a super smart dog, and a "dumb" dog.

[Beery Swine]

I consider killing animals murder. People like to put up a wall between the suffering of other types of animals and humans because they couldn't live with their actions if they admitted the truth. it's never going to be a popular notion for that reason, but really.. what we do to other animals is quite barbaric and holocaustic. We just have conditioned ourselves not to care.

Okay, let's forget this idea of murder for any animal, including humans, and just look at suffering. What is suffering? Pain is too narrow a definition, I think most will agree. What then? I suppose psychological trauma of any kind. After all, pain is just what the brain interprets.

So, can we agree that murder = just one possible byproduct of suffering, which is really what we want to avoid, and that suffering = psych trauma? We can go into tedious definitions of psych trauma if you want.





Beery Swine added to this post, 2 minutes and 51 seconds later...

I understand killing animals to eat. It's necessary.

Okay, I think that is the worst argument in the context of modern society. It is not necessary for humans to kill any animals, in fact I'm pretty sure its detrimental to world hunger and poverty.

[Mozzes]

I'm half in agreement with azelismia but for different reasons. I'm generally against animal consumption for two reasons. The first is that there's a lot to suggest commercially raised animals simply aren't very healthy to eat - it's most likely grain feed which throws the fatty acid profile of the meat out of whack. The second is that commercial animal farming is environmentally destructive.

That being said I do still eat fish regularly much of which I catch myself and if you want me to stop you'll have to pry my fishing pole from my cold, dead hands!

[hauteur]

What is this huge difference in the way nazi's treated the Jews and the way animals are treated on large farms and slaughter houses? You say there is a huge difference but do not back it up.

I am not just citing the beef industry. I am citing all of the industry. humane practices are for the most part, not in place. keeping cows in stalls all of their life (Except possibly when they are calves still) is humane adn unlike the treatment the Jews got in Concentration camps? the method of death is kinder perhaps? it isn't done enmass?


I live in Kansas City, MO - one of the primary beef capitals of the U.S. We are best known for all of our fountains and, you guessed it - BBQ. What this means is that I've seen lots of cattle farms. Lots and lots and lots of them. I even lived on one for a couple of years. Of the hundreds of cattle farms I've seen, I've yet to see one where all the cattle are kept in pens.

Where I think what you are looking for are the big corporate farms and I would agree that they are deplorable. Same thing for pigs, chickens, turkey, you name it.

The fact that the large corporate farms do this does not mean that it is unethical to eat meat. We're built to do it and we like to do it - most of us anyway. What it does mean is that there should probably be stricter enforcment and I'm not opposed to that.

Besides, if God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat. :laugh:

[TheLastMohican]

Okay, I think that is the worst argument in the context of modern society. It is not necessary for humans to kill any animals, in fact I'm pretty sure its detrimental to world hunger and poverty.

The Inuit are a bit short on agricultural development.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Justify it away to ease your conscience but the truth is brutal.

Natural selection is also brutal. The world is brutal. That's the way it is. I wouldn't bother trying to fix it.

[Monte314]

I believe "kill" means "take a life", whether human or animal.

I've always thought of "murder" as "the unauthorized taking of a human life".

If this is adjusted a little bit (by removing the word "human"), it becomes:

"Murder is the unauthorized taking of a life." I suppose this could be shortened to, "Murder is unathorized killing."

Of course, these definitions make a distinction between "killing" and "murder"; the issue is the "authorization" part. If someone breaks into my house, and I believe they have unlawful intent, I can kill them without having committed "murder". This is because the State of Florida has explicitly authorized people to kill intruders they believe pose a threat. This killing is NOT murder as far as the state is concerned.

Back to the animal question, then: I believe that the humane killing of animals for reasonable uses is "authorized" by a morally competent authority, so it isn't murder.

[replicant]

I have lived on a farm. We grew things versus processed things. We did have a nearby tributary from which we fished. We hunted deer, rabbit etc. I eat meat. I am unapologetic about my need to acquire the nutrients that I need to survive. I don't eat excessive amounts of meat. Living things require each other for survival. It is sad that we have to take life from animals and plants but its the circle of existence.

I won't pretend that the mass gathering of livestock and such isn't disturbing. I would prefer they have a healthy life that allows them to live naturally before we chose to kill them for survival. Killing is indeed brutal. And yes, I do look down at my chicken and get sad but I would do so with a vegetable. Yes, it sounds sappy but it does hurt to know that I played a part in their demise, but I can only feel but so bad. I want to survive and yeah that is selfish.

I definitely do not approve of animal cruelty.

[lambpox]

I'm a strict vegan, and yes I consider killing animals for their meat murder. Some might view it differently, but killing animals is the worst choice for the earth today and the population. Do you know how much money is spent feeding livestock grains, and other foods that the STARVING could have easily eaten? Unless we stop wasting food, water, and other resources by producing meat, dairy products, and eggs, there simply will not be enough food to go around! It takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. We can just eat the grain. Yeah, whatever, I understand that beef, chicken and fish can be tasty to some. But, I'm not asking for everyone to change, because I know that will never happen. I just find it wrong how humans can mutilate weaker things and use it for their own good...if the world found out that a company was producing farms full of domestic dogs and cats for our own consumption, people would flip. Humans today sadly just view livestock as objects made for eating, and not living beings with emotions and feelings. People have changed their status to justify their wrongdoings. /rant

[replicant]

I think what I disagree with Lambpox is the idea of "wrong how humans can mutilate weaker things and use it for their own good" idea. This sort of statement leads one to believe that we are better than the rest of nature. More endowed in our own opinion of ourselves are we but in truth we are but a rung on the latter of life. Animals kill us as well. If the opportunity presents itself, a predator will prey upon a human being. By sheer number, we have an advantage as well as and we have a keen intellect that aides us as well.

I respect your right to be Vegan.

However, certain health conditions can make a vegan lifestyle very hard on a human. Vitamins alone will not cure things.

And it is of your opinion that killing animals is a wrongdoing but we are animals and that is what animals do. It's not an unnatural thing.

What I can agree with is the misuse of resources.

[lambpox]

And I respect your right in eating meat; trust me, I have argued since I was a tot, I think. Everyone has their own right to pursue something, and I can't stop that. I understand the health conditions, and I try to live the best I can. I feel happy though, not consuming any animal products. It has made me a better person, more aware of the things around me. Yeah, I am only 15. But, I try to live the best I can.

[thegnat]

I say killing animals to eat for food is the circle of life. Cruel, but true. We aren't any superior to other animals. I completely respect vegans/vegetarians' choices. It is a more green way to live. I don't eat a lot of meat though.

Raising them to eat? Iffy on. Depends on how they raise them and kill them and how good the animals' lives are before their deaths. And I'm uncomfortable with slaughter. But I try not to think of that when I eat meat.

Euthanasia: To end suffering, absolutely for it. For example, Eight Belles, a racehorse (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) broke both her front ankles on the track. She was euthanized. She couldn't have lived well no matter how hard they tried to save her. Animals that aren't savable who are living poor poor lives, I hate to say it, but I'm for euthanasia.

Animal Cruelty: Unforgivable.

[Lucid]

I say killing animals to eat for food is the circle of life. Cruel, but true. We aren't any superior to other animals. I completely respect vegans/vegetarians' choices. It is a more green way to live. I don't eat a lot of meat though.

Raising them to eat? Iffy on. Depends on how they raise them and kill them and how good the animals' lives are before their deaths. And I'm uncomfortable with slaughter. But I try not to think of that when I eat meat.

Euthanasia: To end suffering, absolutely for it. For example, Eight Belles, a racehorse (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) broke both her front ankles on the track. She was euthanized. She couldn't have lived well no matter how hard they tried to save her. Animals that aren't savable who are living poor poor lives, I hate to say it, but I'm for euthanasia.

Animal Cruelty: Unforgivable.

I agree with all that except being uncomfortable with slaughter. It's the way of things. I was fortunate enough to be born at the top of the food chain, they weren't. That sucks, but really, life isn't about sunshine and hugs and smurfs. For a lot of species and a lot of humans a lot of it really sucks (and that's with or without humans interfering) and that's just the way it is. I am against humans being cruel to animals, but they suffer with or without us.

[thegnat]

Yeah, I realize slaughter is the way of things. But I couldn't go "YEAAAAH! I'm pro-slaughter!!!" Like...selling an animal just for slaughter bugs me. Or treating it like crap then sending it to slaughter because "it had problems" bugs me. Or rounding up animals to knowingly most likely go to a slaughter house...bugs me. Which, the reasons for the rounding up and calling them "pests" are lame. This is all from what I've read on horse slaughter....A couple of those are just things that I don't really like which really could be argued from a "it's life" standpoint, but treating it like crap is unforgivable animal cruelty in my book. So I can't really say it's all bad either.

[GrimWizard]

It is sad that we have to take life from animals and plants but its the circle of existence.

I'm glad someone actually mentioned taking the life of plants.

Isn't being a Vegan just saying you value one type of life over another? Is it because plants don't have a face that makes it ok to kill them and not animals? Will no one speak for the trees!!

All life is pretty much equal to me, if I must kill to live then I might as well be fair about it. Tasting good helps too...

[TheLastMohican]

I'm glad someone actually mentioned taking the life of plants.


Oh, shoot. I guess we'll have to eat snow.

[Mozzes]

Oh, shoot. I guess we'll have to eat snow.

And kill our eukaryotic bretheren (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? You heartless bastard!

[Lucid]

Oh, shoot. I guess we'll have to eat snow.

Yeah. Life survives on other life. Kind of a crappy system, but what are you going to do? And animals suffer in the wild too. In fact, there are many many worse ways to go than anal electrocution. While I'm against cruelty to animals (very strongly against), suffering is a pretty big part of life for everything involved.

[Mozzes]

I'm glad someone actually mentioned taking the life of plants.

Isn't being a Vegan just saying you value one type of life over another? Is it because plants don't have a face that makes it ok to kill them and not animals? Will no one speak for the trees!!

All life is pretty much equal to me, if I must kill to live then I might as well be fair about it. Tasting good helps too...

It's probably for a couple of reasons. Plants don't think and they are naturally sedentary and as a result don't suffer trauma from factory farming. They also lack a nervous system so any mistakes in the slaughter (harvest) process isn't going to cause pain to the individual.

You also have to keep in mind that in many cases we don't actually eat plants - we eat the fruit of the plant. That's actually what most vegetables are.

[schwartzie]

At least part of the problem with eating meat isn't just an ethics issue--rather, it's just that meat is gross. Modern animal husbandry includes feeding to birds, cows, sheep, goats, and pigs assorted animal-based proteins. The result, among other things, is that when cows are fed ground up sheep bits, they are at risk of contracting sheep-borne diseases. Like "mad cow." Bleah!

So this is maybe not an ethical dilemma from the consumer's perspective, but would seem to be for the producer. One would think that farmers would learn to not use methods that undermines confidence in food integrity. The result of stuffing cows full of 'bovine growth' hormones is that consumers questioned the wholesomeness of milk, found it wanting, began buying milk labelled as containing no BGH, and, overall, drank less cow's milk. Ditto for poultry. Most chicken factories keep birds alive long enough to be butcherable only because they are fed, in every bite of feed, nasty growth hormones and antibiotics in amounts sufficient to keep the beasts alive in otherwise unhealthily stressful conditions. We get to eat the unmetabolised drugs in their system along with our poor-quality meats.

Somewhere someone urged bison consumption; good advice. Bison are generally grass-fed, more flavorful, and advertized as being organic. There are also free-range, organic, and halal options for most meat. When these products are laid along the more usual ones, the difference to the palate is pretty amazing.

So far as the ethics-related issues, it is not a defense that some creature would not have been bred but for the demand for its flesh. It would be better to not exist than to endure the brutal life in many modern meat factories. There are ethics implications to the wastefulness of meat-growing. Vegetable-based proteins are significantly more efficient; one can shift one's diet to include more plant proteins: gluten, mock duck, bean curd, tempeh, TVP, quinoa, soy, beans, corn, etc. and to to include "recyclable" proteins, like eggs and cheeses. Fewer resources would be needed to feed us, and could at least theoretically be available to feed people where food is scarce.

[Beery Swine]

...if the world found out that a company was producing farms full of domestic dogs and cats for our own consumption, people would flip.

I wouldn't. I'd say "So that's why these burgers taste better/worse."





Beery Swine added to this post, 7 minutes and 12 seconds later...

Euthanasia: To end suffering, absolutely for it. For example, Eight Belles, a racehorse (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) broke both her front ankles on the track. She was euthanized. She couldn't have lived well no matter how hard they tried to save her. Animals that aren't savable who are living poor poor lives, I hate to say it, but I'm for euthanasia.

Animal Cruelty: Unforgivable.

And unforgivable? Really? How does that translate for you into legal penalty? What punishment/reform would you institute for animal cruelty?

[thegnat]

I wouldn't. I'd say "So that's why these burgers taste better/worse."
Trust me, people would flip. I know a *ton* of horse people that would freak out and might even go protest if they saw that horses were being raised in order to be slaughtered (and sent overseas because here we don't eat horse meat). I realize there are people like you out there, but you're not going to be the majority.


Beery Swine added to this post, 7 minutes and 12 seconds later...



And unforgivable? Really? How does that translate for you into legal penalty? What punishment/reform would you institute for animal cruelty?

Aren't there already groups that penalize animal cruelty? I'm not calling killing them for food, cruelty. I'm calling mistreating them and making them suffer while living, cruelty. I would absolutely punish people who are cruel to their animals. But I'm not a law maker nor enforcer nor law student. So I wouldn't be able to place a specific punishment for something specific. But IMHO animal cruelty is unforgivable.

[sam988]

I consider killing animals murder. People like to put up a wall between the suffering of other types of animals and humans because they couldn't live with their actions if they admitted the truth. it's never going to be a popular notion for that reason, but really.. what we do to other animals is quite barbaric and holocaustic. We just have conditioned ourselves not to care.


Well it's not like these same animals wouldn't kill us if they had the upper hand and wanted to feed... and in fact that's what they used to do when we as a race were still more primitive.

This is nature, i believe that killing animals, when there is a reason, is naturally acceptable. Of course it's better that we kill them with no suffering or not much suffering, and that's what we do most of the times.

[Mozzes]

Well it's not like these same animals wouldn't kill us if they had the upper hand and wanted to feed... and in fact that's what they used to do when we as a race were still more primitive.

This is nature, i believe that killing animals, when there is a reason, is naturally acceptable. Of course it's better that we kill them with no suffering or not much suffering, and that's what we do most of the times.

Cows, chickens and pigs used to kill us for food? :thinking:

We were talking abut farmed animals in this thread, right? If so I'm definitely going to watch my step next time I go to a farm.

[bricklayer]

If you kill it, you eat it.

[sam988]

Cows, chickens and pigs used to kill us for food? :thinking:

We were talking abut farmed animals in this thread, right? If so I'm definitely going to watch my step next time I go to a farm.


Well the one person who started the topic said nothing about cows and chickens, so why should i be supposed to assume that we're only talking about cows and chickens? I'm talking about the animal world in general.


If there's one thing that i really dislike is a person making silly sarcastic comments about someone else's opinion when the person herself is the one who's misinformed.

[Mozzes]

Well the one person who started the topic said nothing about cows and chickens, so why should i be supposed to assume that we're only talking about cows and chickens? I'm talking about the animal world in general.


If there's one thing that i really dislike is a person making silly sarcastic comments about someone else's opinion when the person herself is the one who's misinformed.

And yet nearly every post in the thread had to do with feed animals, cows, commercial farming, large-scale slaughter, etc.

I was only teasing you a little bit anyways. Lighten up a bit.

[sam988]

And yet nearly every post in the thread had to do with feed animals, cows, commercial farming, large-scale slaughter, etc.

I was only teasing you a little bit anyways. Lighten up a bit.

I normally take jokes well but yours i considered too arrogant.


Anyways, now that the matter is explained, yeah i didn't read the whole thread i just went from reading the first post to my answer so i may have missed a few stuff.

Just misunderstandings then, no resentments :)


As for my first post in this thread, i still hold that opinion if anyone wants to challenge that i'm always up for a good discussion.. but when i get back. now i'm leaving.

[GrimWizard]

If you kill it, you eat it.

Heh, I thought it was "you keep what you kill"

[Sara27]

the issue at hand has nothing to do with the avian world and breeding. pls stick to the topic.

It's relevant since you are comparing an animal killing for food in the wild as murder. It's the same as saying that forced copulation in the animal kingdom is rape.

What is this huge difference in the way nazi's treated the Jews and the way animals are treated on large farms and slaughter houses? You say there is a huge difference but do not back it up.

You've got to be kidding!

I am not just citing the beef industry. I am citing all of the industry. humane practices are for the most part, not in place. keeping cows in stalls all of their life (Except possibly when they are calves still) is humane adn unlike the treatment the Jews got in Concentration camps? the method of death is kinder perhaps? it isn't done enmass?

Humane practices are in place. Of course there is improvement to be made which is why I got into animal behavior and welfare. Happy animals are better producers and we should be keeping our animals comfortable and happy. I'd like to know if you've ever been to a farm? It's easy to read about the horrors of any industry and make a blanket statement. A lot of people are so far removed from agriculture that they don't really know what's going on. In the US: Beef cattle are not kept in pens all their life. They are raised primarily on the range and are the best of all the animal ag industries when it comes to raising livestock. They are grouped pen before they go to the processing plant. If you are refering to dairy cows on corporate farms than they are housed in group freestall pens. Freestall pens are large pens that have beds for the cows to rest. Producers make sure that cows have the proper room and enough resting places. Happy cows produce more milk and a happy cow is one that is with the herd, chewing cud (the highest rate is when she is lying down).

What makes you so sure other species are not self aware? We have tests that we give them. but that doesn't mean they care about the things we care about enough to follow our testing methods. they are built differently than we are with different survival needs. why should they show the same signals or respond to the same signals that we do. but it's a mistake to assume they are not self aware because of this.

The methodology for determining the same self-awareness as we have is in the mirror test. A smudge is put on the animal. If the animal tries to remove the smudge by seeing it in their reflection than the animal has proven their self-awareness. All Great Apes show this self awareness. The Lesser Apes do not. Again, I am talking about the same level of awareness that all Great Apes (we are part of that family) have.

I've seen examples from my cats and other peoples dogs that certainly show self awareness. My cat knows who he is in the mirror and he knows where I am in the mirror behind him. He watches things going on behind him and then attacks when the time is right. When you give one a bath the other knows to be on alert. so on and so forth.

See above. I don't have the hang of quoting.


I'm interested that you think that meat is murder, yet you have pets. Don't you liken that to slavery? If your cats are strictly indoor or have collars I really don't understand. You are seeing awareness in dogs and cats, not self-awareness. Awareness is on a continuum; Great Apes are at the top dogs and cats are not at that level. When your cat looks in the mirrow he is seeing another cat. Not himself. I never said animals are stupid. I've trained my cat like a dog. She comes when I wistle to her, knows key commnad words, and turns to meow when she sees me in the mirror. She has shown no signs of self-awareness. When one cat gets a bath and the other knows to be on alert they use past experience and knowing that the other cat is freeked out. People put Canada goose cutouts on their lawns to keep other geese from landing and ruining the grounds. These cutouts have the goose with an upstreatched neck and beak which is visual alarm cue. Cues, communication, and learning is necessary for the animals survival. Certain behaviors are learned and some are genetic.

The ag industry has a lot of changes before it is where I would like it to be, but so are most industries. I love animals and want each one to have as good a life as possible. We are their gardians. I want progress and I think you do too.

[TheLastMohican]

And kill our eukaryotic bretheren (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? You heartless bastard!

Haha, I was expecting that response.

[Mozzes]

Haha, I was expecting that response.

Of course I was in such a hurry to throw that quip in that I only now realized I typed "eukaryotic" instead of "prokaryotic". And you just had to go and immortalize my mistake by quoting me didn't you? :laugh:

[rwyatt365]

I'm glad someone actually mentioned taking the life of plants.

Isn't being a Vegan just saying you value one type of life over another? Is it because plants don't have a face that makes it ok to kill them and not animals? Will no one speak for the trees!!

All life is pretty much equal to me, if I must kill to live then I might as well be fair about it. Tasting good helps too...
Well said, and my stance precisely. Any living thing subsists on the living things that are "below" it in the food chain. Generally, it stops at the plants and micro-organisms which "consume" non-living matter and energy sources. To say that it's ok to kill a plant (or it's fruit, which is essentially killing it's "babies"), but not an animal is to be a "plantist" (a plant-racist).

I don't discriminate, I'll kill 'em both, plants and animals.

It's probably for a couple of reasons. Plants don't think and they are naturally sedentary and as a result don't suffer trauma from factory farming. They also lack a nervous system so any mistakes in the slaughter (harvest) process isn't going to cause pain to the individual.

You also have to keep in mind that in many cases we don't actually eat plants - we eat the fruit of the plant. That's actually what most vegetables are.
So, because plants "don't think", and don't move then it's ok to kill them. Would the same apply to a coral polyp, or a tube worm? They don't move - once attached - and they don't have a nervous system, is it ok to kill them and eat them? By your evaluation...yes it is. But they are classified as animals, so then, no it isn't. A paradox, it would seem.


I would propose a scenario for those that oppose the killing of animals. What if people were required to catch and kill their own food, would that be acceptable? The concept would be to level the playing field, so to speak. If you can catch it, you can eat it. Would that make the killing more palatable?

[Mozzes]

So, because plants "don't think", and don't move then it's ok to kill them. Would the same apply to a coral polyp, or a tube worm? They don't move - once attached - and they don't have a nervous system, is it ok to kill them and eat them? By your evaluation...yes it is. But they are classified as animals, so then, no it isn't. A paradox, it would seem.

The entire idea is based around minimizing harm - harm to individuals as well as harm to the environment. I never put forth an argument of absolutes. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Anyways we have to eat *something* to survive.

Plants don't feel pain, can't be psychologically traumatized, to a large extent aren't consumed whole (most vegetables are botanical fruits - we eat the fused ovary of the plant not the individual plant itself) and the plants that are destroyed in harvest are typically grasses which can go from seed to sexual maturity in a season of growth.

Would that not fit the criterion of minimizing harm?

[sriv]

Human beings are social creatures. Our lives are enriched with the companionship of other humans. To prevent absolute chaos, human rights exist.

Animals do not apply to our rules. Human rights need not be extended to animals.

[bricklayer]

Well a human life is certainly more valuable than an animals, so I have no problem with lab rats and things like that.

[rwyatt365]

The entire idea is based around minimizing harm - harm to individuals as well as harm to the environment. I never put forth an argument of absolutes. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Anyways we have to eat *something* to survive.

Plants don't feel pain, can't be psychologically traumatized, to a large extent aren't consumed whole (most vegetables are botanical fruits - we eat the fused ovary of the plant not the individual plant itself) and the plants that are destroyed in harvest are typically grasses which can go from seed to sexual maturity in a season of growth.

Would that not fit the criterion of minimizing harm?
So, then if we harvest the genitals of fast-breeding animals then that would be ok? Or if we harvest the limbs of reptiles or other animals which can regenrate, that would be ok? Either, or both would be minimizing harm.

Of course, I'm reducing your argument ad-absurdium (is that a word?) to attempt to point out (what I see as) the flaws. My point is that life is a continuum, and that if we set rules that venerate one end of the spectrum to the detriment of the other then we are simply being arbitrarily exclusionary. Either all life is sacred, and none die - or we recognize the inherent cruelty of "nature" and deal with it realistically.

And before some start to jump down my throat, nothing that I have said condones brutality or cruelty to animals (or plants, or protozoa). When I say that "nature is cruel" I mean that life destroys life, without regard for status or privilege - and that is a fact.

[Mozzes]

So, then if we harvest the genitals of fast-breeding animals then that would be ok? Or if we harvest the limbs of reptiles or other animals which can regenrate, that would be ok? Either, or both would be minimizing harm.

Plant reproductive organs regrow once the plant flowers. I do not think we can say the same thing about mammal genitalia. Harvesting the limbs of any animal would cause physical pain to the organism and even if you locally killed the pain you'd inhibit the individual's ability to survive in the wild and if the animal were kept in habitation we're back at the original argument concerning the barbarism of commercial farming. I fail the see in what way harm to the individual is being minimized compared to eating fruits (including vegetables and seeds).

[rwyatt365]

Plant reproductive organs regrow once the plant flowers. I do not think we can say the same thing about mammal genitalia. Harvesting the limbs of any animal would cause physical pain to the organism and even if you locally killed the pain you'd inhibit the individual's ability to survive in the wild and if the animal were kept in habitation we're back at the original argument concerning the barbarism of commercial farming. I fail the see in what way harm to the individual is being minimized compared to eating fruits (including vegetables and seeds).
Agreed - now what of my second paragraph (i.e. the continuum of life and being exclusionary)?

[thegnat]

Well a human life is certainly more valuable than an animals, so I have no problem with lab rats and things like that.

I agree, I don't have problems with lab rats. Researchers really do things as humanely as possible and they die very quickly. They're treated well while living. They're also extremely valuable for research. And the people I know who worked with them, had huge respect for the mice they worked with.

[Mozzes]

Of course, I'm reducing your argument ad-absurdium (is that a word?) to attempt to point out (what I see as) the flaws. My point is that life is a continuum, and that if we set rules that venerate one end of the spectrum to the detriment of the other then we are simply being arbitrarily exclusionary. Either all life is sacred, and none die - or we recognize the inherent cruelty of "nature" and deal with it realistically.

Crikey, how did I get roped into defending this argument anyways? I'm not even a vegan/vegetarian. Well, I'll give it a shot anyways.

If pressed I think I could make an argument that my argument is the most realistic way to deal with it. Minimizing harm to the individual was only one aspect of it. The other was minimizing harm to the environment. Implicit in that is sustainable ways to deal with human hunger. It's more thermodynamically favorable to eat plants rather than eat farmed meat. If fed grains, as most factory farmed animals are, some of the energy in the plants are going to be lost in the form of heat in the animal. As a result we can feed more people with plants than we can with the meat gained from feeding those plants to farm animals instead.

The animals can be grazed, of course, but that would only be a valid argument is the land they're grazing can't be used for traditional agriculture and if that land wasn't deforested in order to create land for grazing. In many places cattle grazing also experiences difficulties during the winter season when grain may have to be used to prevent starvation.

There's also the argument that plants are significant carbon sinks and O2 producers while animals(particularly cattle) are carbon producers which may play a role in climate change at least as significant as carbon emissions from industrial processes and automobiles.

As a result while the consumption of one type of life is excluded in favor of another it's not an arbitrary decision but one that can be considered practical as well as ethical.

[Beery Swine]

Well a human life is certainly more valuable than an animals, so I have no problem with lab rats and things like that.

While I agree that most humans' lives are more valuable than most animals' lives, I qualify it with "most" in both cases because surely not all humans are equal. I know this isn't exactly PC to say, but in a crisis situation I'll be far less concerned with trying to save a "mentally handicapped" person than the average Joe/Jane.

[schwartzie]

Crikey, how did I get roped into defending this argument anyways? I'm not even a vegan/vegetarian....

hahahahaha!

Frickles! I'm in love! You are so... intj!

Only one of us would, for the sake of the duel, stake a position and dutifully defend it. Reasonably, capably. To the end.

And I got to spend the last several minutes walking around laughing.

*makes a gratuitous appreciative frickleshuggle*
:thumbsup:

p.s. Cows: the menace (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)!! (yeah, I know its the LATimes, but still--the story is consistent with all the other stories on Dread Cows (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Caesar]

Quite a few people arguing for this position:
I say killing animals to eat for food is the circle of life.
So, is it really? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[TheLastMohican]

Of course I was in such a hurry to throw that quip in that I only now realized I typed "eukaryotic" instead of "prokaryotic". And you just had to go and immortalize my mistake by quoting me didn't you? :laugh:

This fell into place just like an entry in the "You might be an N if..." list.

I thought nothing of it back when I wrote the response, but just a few minutes ago it randomly came to my attention - impromptu memory burst - and I thought "Wait a minute..."
So I came back here to check the thread again, and sure enough, there was your response. :rolleyes:

[Sara27]

Lab animals have limited rights in the US. Food animals don't yet.

I think that they should. I'm not talking voting or an hour lunch break. I don't always get the lunch break, so what do I care if Wilbur gets a cigarette break with Charolette.

Animal rights are providing a legal definition for the basic standards of keeping and working with animals.

Great Apes are another story. I think we should ensure that our cousins are respected. Humans are part of the Great Ape family and we know that they have family units, exhibit humor, think about death, and create language. They may not be human, but they seem to fit the definition of people.

[JusVisiting]

I tend to think in terms of a hierarchy of value when it comes to humans in relation to non-human animals. I would rather 20,000 chickens die than one person. I do think animals are capable of suffering. I don't know how complex their emotional lives are and if they feel sadness. As far as I know chimpanzees don't sit around questioning whether killing a rodent for meat is cruel and wasteful. I've never understood the nobility people try to attach to animals with regard to having human characteristics -- of course all the characteristics are positive. Let's forget that cats have been known to kill for fun or that what would be considered rape were it to occur between humans happens routinely throughout the animal world.

People hear a story about a chimp that nestled a boy in her arms when he fell into her zoo enclosure and we're amazed. Yet something like adoption, where people take in a child that isn't biologically theres and raise it as their own is yesterdays news. If someone wants to get into animal liberation and devote their lives to helping PETA I'm fine with that. Are we at a point in our development as a society that putting in place laws that protect farm animals is an option? Yes. But I see the current factory farming methods as a result of the upheavals experienced by mankind in the last 200 years. We are playing catch-up to figure out how to regulate the influx of new technologies; including factory farming. However, looking back longingly with rose-colored glasses to a time when shepherds lovingly tended to their livestock out of the goodness of their heart would be a lie.

I think what concerns me and seems especially insidious is the contempt for humanity that accompanies many of these ideologies. Humans become evil, greedy, etc. while animals are elevated to this place of worship -- with them being pure and innocent due to the imposed simplicity of their minds. The qualities I admire in humanity such as our ability to ponder how ethical a certain method used to kill animals for food are treated hostilely. It makes me wonder if in a way someone has to secretly hate humanity to ever put on equal footing the suffering experienced by Jews in concentration camps to the suffering experienced by farm factory chickens.

[schwartzie]

I tend to think in terms of a hierarchy of value when it comes to humans in relation to non-human animals. I would rather 20,000 chickens die than one person. Agreed. And die they do. The 2006 avian flu epidemic, for example, was spawned in the factory poultry farms of south east asia, and is generally believed to be spread along routes by which humans traversed (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), carrying the virus. In the most recent outbreak, in Bengal, between mid-january and early february, 2008, 3.7 million birds were killed, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) destroying small flocks, pets, and every bird to be found, in an effort to create a buffer zone around the poultry factories owned by the politically influential. What a nightmare for the birds and their owners. We are playing catch-up to figure out how to regulate the influx of new technologies; including factory farming. There is not much "catching up" going on. At least in the US, there are no efforts of any significance to deal with the very real inefficiencies, economic waste and environmental harms associated with factory farming, except for minor local regulation over odor and waste dumping, mostly initiated by suffering non-farmer neighbors. Consumers take only sporadic action against particular products (like BGH milk or pesticide contaminated apple juice).

Most of the injury here is inflicted, like so much environmental harm, on our own grandchildren and the children of the third world. We do not pay the full freight for eating so overly-well that the main food-related problem in the U.S. is obesity. Weird.

And so...it is the factory farmers who take steps; in many factory farms, response to disease threats is NOT to reduce the awful conditions, but rather to try to isolate the beasts from infection long enough to get them to market--reducing traffic, installing disinfecting stations at entryways to buildings, routinely feeding antibiotics as a prophylactic, etc. Having said that, there have been positive steps. There are farmers attempting to move to organic farming, which is much less expensive, and yield high sale prices; these are still "boutiques," though.

... looking back ... to a time when shepherds lovingly tended to their livestock out of the goodness of their heart would be a lie....
...especially insidious is the contempt for humanity that accompanies many of these ideologies...
...our ability to ponder how ethical a certain method used to kill animals for food [is], is treated hostilely. I don't think anyone here has openly expressed the opinions you are concerned about, esp not contempt for humanity. I saw contempt for specific bad behavior. For myself, I've repeatedly expressed preference for halal meat, which is from creatures raised and slaughtered in a manner that isn't loathsome.It makes me wonder if in a way someone has to secretly hate humanity to ever put on equal footing the suffering experienced by Jews in concentration camps to the suffering experienced by farm factory chickens. I don't think hate for other people enters into it. Just the opposite. I think there are those of us for whom some things are too beyond the pale to contemplate and come to terms with. The holocaust is really really difficult.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me, based on some people I've known who had the most awful childhoods--under the whip of crazy f*cked-up parents--some of us are just not able to bridge the gulf to a horror like the holocaust. Small innocent beast-suffering, on the other hand, is something one can get one's mind around and even do something about. So, I don't know, I tend to try to cut people some slack if they seem a bit soft, figuring there's probably a reason for it, esp. among INTJ, who aren't naturally soft.

[Antares]

I learned from my health class that we only need a 3-ounce chicken breast per day; that's all the meat we eat. Of course, consulting another site, it's 5 - 7 ounces. Still not a lot, but that is all we need. Predators eat meat to survive; just as much, or less even, than they need (because it isn't that easy to subdue prey). As humans, we're omnivores, so it makes no sense not to eat meat. It's enjoyable as well as provides vital nutrients. But if we value animal life, I suggest that we only eat as much as we need. Good for the environment, the animals and our health also. I also am for quick, painless killing. Kill the fish before you take out the scales; kill mammals and poultry with one swift stroke of knife.

[schwartzie]

I learned from my health class that we only need a 3-ounce chicken breast per day; that's all the meat we eat. Of course, consulting another site, it's 5 - 7 ounces. Still not a lot, but that is all we need. ...

The info from your class is right at the edge of sustainability; if you do any activity involving something beyond breathing, having a heart beat, you need more than 3 oz. Depending on size and activity adult bodies need 6-8 servings to sustain moderate activity levels (some walking, standing, sitting,etc.) each day.

Youth and athletes, who are growing muscle, need more. Protein is easy to keep track of because an ounce of meat or cheese, one egg or a cup of milk gives you a serving. (That's 6-8 grams per serving.)

[bricklayer]

I agree, I don't have problems with lab rats. Researchers really do things as humanely as possible and they die very quickly. They're treated well while living. They're also extremely valuable for research. And the people I know who worked with them, had huge respect for the mice they worked with.

They do have respect for the animals they work with. I knew a scientist who was doing research on some sort of lung disease and had to cut the lungs out of rabbits every morning. He said he had nightmares about 50 foot rabbits chasing him with a pair of scissors. Anyways he explained to me the reason why the animals they use are all albino is because they all look the same. They become a piece of equipment. There's no uniqueness to the critter so they don't identify it as an animal, and don't get attached to it. That way the scientist can sleep at night. :)

[Sara27]

Anyways he explained to me the reason why the animals they use are all albino is because they all look the same. They become a piece of equipment. There's no uniqueness to the critter so they don't identify it as an animal, and don't get attached to it. That way the scientist can sleep at night. :)

The reason is because they have similar genetics. We need to have a sample set of animals with similar genetics so that genetic variables are ruled out. It doesn't have anything to do with taking their uniqueness. Each animal has their own personality, even lab rabbits and rats. A certain distance is needed when doing the type of work your friend does. Just as the people working in meat processing plants have to remove themselves emotionally. Same as health care workers to a certain extent. You'd burn out in a month if you don't compartmentalize.

[bricklayer]

The reason is because they have similar genetics. We need to have a sample set of animals with similar genetics so that genetic variables are ruled out. It doesn't have anything to do with taking their uniqueness. Each animal has their own personality, even lab rabbits and rats. A certain distance is needed when doing the type of work your friend does. Just as the people working in meat processing plants have to remove themselves emotionally. Same as health care workers to a certain extent. You'd burn out in a month if you don't compartmentalize.

I completely disagree. They're not doing DNA research so an albino rabbits lung is just the same as any other rabbits lung. They wouldn't choose to find a cure to lung disease ONLY for albino rabbits.

And I think I'll believe the scientist ;)

[Xenolar]

I have not bothered to read the responses in this thread. To reply to the main topic:

Killing [sentinent] animals is as justifiable as killing humans. Killing without reason is counter-evolutionary and thus has been engrained in our minds as fitting the subjective and perhaps non-existent category of "immoral." Killing with defendable purpose (for the greater good, personal survivial, etc.) may have evolutionary benefit. And, from a strictly rationalistic/reducionist standpoint, cannibalism is as justifiable as eating the flesh of other animals as long as it surves evolutionary purpose.

But we get into a bit of a philosophical rut when it comes to non-sentinent life-forms. Primitive members of kingdom animalia, such as insects? And what of plants?

[zibber]

I might have dropped this in somewhere in a previous incarnation of this debate, but here's what makes eating meat ethically problematic for me: I didn't kill the animal, nor was I part of the processing of its meat. I am completely alienated from the process, yet I am in great part responsible for it. All I get is an abstract slab of stuff in a plastic wrapper. I have never killed for food. (Before you start: this is not the same as the production process of, say, my computer or my shirt, since the base materials are not animals.) I feel that it is unfair, that I should get my hands dirty in order to deserve this animal's meat. Maybe it's about respect for the particular animal in question, maybe it's about resenting how abstract such a basic thing as obtaining food has become.

[comet]

I don't have a problem in eating meat. Mind you I don't eat it all that often, maybe once a week at the most. Humans are omnivors, so just get with the program and stop being anal about things.

[zibber]

Humans are omnivors, so just get with the program and stop being anal about things.

Natural fallacy.

I'm really just jealous, though, excuse the bluntness. You have no ethical thought process? Are you opposed to the whole notion of ethics?

[Xenolar]

Natural fallacy.

I'm really just jealous, though, excuse the bluntness. You have no ethical thought process? Are you opposed to the whole notion of ethics?

But she has a point. Of course, it may very well be wrong to kill animals for things such as hunting tournaments, lab experiments, and for animal shelters that are too full, yet killing animals for food is quite natural. Carnivorous or omnivorous animals kill other animals for food--why exactly is it wrong that we, omnivors by nature, kill animals for food as long as it is carried out in a humane way?

[comet]

Natural fallacy.

I'm really just jealous, though, excuse the bluntness. You have no ethical thought process? Are you opposed to the whole notion of ethics?

Of course I have ethics, I was simply saying that I don't have a problem in consuming animal meat, it's a natural thing for humans to do. I don't believe in killing unnecessarily for things like sport, that in my view is morally wrong.

The use of animals in science should be as humane as possible, no creature deserves to be tortured. I do get riled up when I hear that the Japanese go out hunting whales on the pretext that it's for scientific purposes, when in actual fact it's to provide a luxury food item to rich Japanese.

[Saint]

Addressing the original statement of this debate, that "Killing animals is murder,"

What azelismia said is a strange statement. It depends on your definition of murder, of course, but either way it seems to be a ridiculous statement unless supported by some conditions. Since you gave none, infact even saying that a cheetah killing its prey is murder, I wonder if your definition of murder is simply "killing."

If that's true, then what you're saying is "Killing animals is killing."

Deep.

Any conclusions drawn from trivializing "murder" to "killing" is debasing the term murder and not even making a statement.

What implications did you hope to draw from this? Do you dislike murders? Those fucking lions? Those shithead owls? Those heartless seals? Those wrongful Eskimos? You're going to have to make more meaningful statements before you can make an argument.


Jarno, your notion that you need to somehow get your hands dirty seems disjoint, since you already live in a society where you give "money" for "things-you-didnt-make." One of those things is your shirt. One is meat. It has been this way in every society for thousands of years. The ancient Egyptian farmer did not get his hands dirty, yet had no problem trading his crops for meat, clothing, or other supplies. Since you, I imagine, accept this my-skills-for-yours part of society for everything else (you have a job to make money, which you use to buy X from a person that makes money off X) what makes it so wrong for meat? Why, you even pay money to support human killing in the name of your nation, should your tax-funded army ever wish to engage in a war. Why again, do you refuse to pay for meat? Where precisely does your "ethics" come in to this? Are you more ethical than the Egyptian farmer for refusing to buy/trade for meat?

[SnakeFeather]

I try to eat as many different kinds of animals as I can in one sitting. A good way to do this is to put bacon on top of everything. Also substituting salad or french fries with fish or shrimp will help diversify your meal. Let's not forget eggs, milk and cheese, the same animal in a different form counts as well. Than there's the more exotic meats you could mix-in and if you're lucky something endangered. The ultimate of course would be to eat animals that are traditionally pets, preferably in its baby form(for the tenderness). That'll really get 'em going.

Seriously, to me the environmental issue is the most compelling argument for a non-animal diet. As far as ethics goes, meh. Hey they got a few more years to adjust to our technology. Hopefully natural selection will throw 'em a bone. Dunno, bigger horns and claws? Bigger respiratory system?

[Vathir]

The unfortunate reality of the matter is that this is a business. The more efficient, although inhumane, businesses will prosper while those practicing "fair" treatment to animals will be crushed under the economic burden. This simply forces the entire industry to gravitate toward the inhumane practices required to survive. The difficult part is assessing what is considered animal cruelty, and what is the proper way to enforce it. I can only imagine the government doesn't want to step in on the issue due to the enormous amount of monitoring would be needed on the issue.

So I ask you this:What system would you implement in order to alleviate the issue of animal cruelty while being fair to business and the taxpayers?

[phantasma]

I think killing animals is just fine so long as the animal is well used. I am fine with killing animals for meat. However, I am strongly opposed to animal cruelty, hunting for sport, or killing animals for a trophy to take home.

Killing a deer for its antlers is a stupid notion in my opinion. However, I'm fine with killing a deer for its antlers, meat, skin, and whatever else can be used.

[Seppuku Savant]

I'm a vegan raw foodist. Though, I never changed my dietary choices because of animal cruelty. I think one diet doesn't really apply to everyone. Some people get really sick on certain restricted diets. I for one, do not care what anyone else chooses to consume.

However, I will agree that the way animals are treated in commercial slaughter houses is pretty deplorable. The majority of people eat more meat than their bodies actually need. Then again, people are consuming way too much of any food group beyond what they need.

[athenian200]

Ethics? If animals aren't sentient, how does their pain matter? How do you even know that "pain" to them isn't just a signal that something is wrong, rather than having the emotional meaning it does for us? What makes pain meaningful is the ability to feel emotions at a certain depth.

Seriously, why are you anthropomorphizing animals? You must be kidding me. We are sentient, they are not. We thus take priority. It's very simple.

There is nothing wrong with killing animals. I don't see how you could think there were. Aren't you concerned with all the meat factory workers, owners, inspectors, or the people who raise these animals? Don't you have any respect for them, and their judgment? You'd just call them all murder participants for no good reason? Do you really want them to lose their jobs? All for the sake of some made-up moral question about, of all things, an animal.

People never cease to amaze me with some of their ideas.

[Chucklebug]

I'm a vegan, I do hate animal cruelty but if animals are killed right that's okay with me, but I don't eat animal products for health and environmental reasons. If you are able to live in an environment where animal products are not your only option I think it's silly to go on eating it - there are much better alternatives in an affluent society.

[zibber]

Ethics? If animals aren't sentient, how does their pain matter? How do you even know that "pain" to them isn't just a signal that something is wrong, rather than having the emotional meaning it does for us? What makes pain meaningful is the ability to feel emotions at a certain depth.

Seriously, why are you anthropomorphizing animals? You must be kidding me. We are sentient, they are not. We thus take priority. It's very simple.

This we/they thing kind of ticks me off. Who's "they"? All other species besides humans? Is there a border? When you're human, suddenly you're sentient? Statements like these suffer from an extreme lack of nuance, and that's a shame. I'll counter your anthropomorphism with anthropocentrism, an equally grave offense intellectually.

There is nothing wrong with killing animals. I don't see how you could think there were. Aren't you concerned with all the meat factory workers, owners, inspectors, or the people who raise these animals? Don't you have any respect for them, and their judgment? You'd just call them all murder participants for no good reason? Do you really want them to lose their jobs? All for the sake of some made-up moral question about, of all things, an animal.


Okay. Your argument is that since the bio-industry creates jobs, you have to think twice before criticizing it? Does this apply to all job-creating industries? The weapons industry? The tobacco industry?



(ps. Here's the angry activist part: Seriously, you italicized "animal"? YOU ARE AN ANIMAL, EINSTEIN!)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

If killing an animal is murder, then why is it murder? Is it murder because it is another living thing? If this is why killing is murder then killing any living thing is murder. Plants are living things.

If killing an animal is murder because it feels pain, then killing a bug, a crab, or anything with a rudimentary nervous system is murder. If I swat a mosquito it's murder.

[zibber]

If killing [a human] is murder, then why is it murder? Is it murder because it is another living thing? If this is why killing is murder then killing any living thing is murder. Plants are living things.

If killing [a human] is murder because it feels pain, then killing a bug, a crab, or anything with a rudimentary nervous system is murder. If I swat a mosquito it's murder.

Know what I mean? The same questions would apply in a discussion about humans murdering humans. I have no idea why there should be special rules for one's own species. I suspect the word "sentient" will come up in the answer, but again, sentience can't be an exclusively human quality.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Know what I mean? The same questions would apply in a discussion about humans murdering humans. I have no idea why there should be special rules for one's own species. I suspect the word "sentient" will come up in the answer, but again, sentience can't be an exclusively human quality.
Totally.

Do you eat meat and plants? Would you eat another human?

[schwartzie]

The unfortunate reality of the matter is that this is a business. The more efficient, although inhumane, businesses will prosper while those practicing "fair" treatment to animals will be crushed under the economic burden.
this assumes that greater profit is always the result of ignoring the offensive agricultural or meat processing practices. that may not be a universally accurate assumption. Farmers sometimes are pleased to find that there is a market for foods prepared in a manner that satisfy the enduser's concerns. Lessee--there is, for example, a substantial market for "free range" chicken. Ones that walk around on dirt and live chicken-like lives, instead of living a few months in small cages. The flavor and texture of free range chicken is as superior to conventional foodfarm chicken as fresh garden tomatoes are to the pale pink box-shaped things one finds in January in the northern grocery stores. Another example is grass-fed beef and grass-fed bison. It is much much richer in omegas than corn-fed cattle-lot raised beef, and much tasier. I personally eat grass fed beef from time to time. Um....salmon. They raise salmon in enclosed water, feeding them whatever it takes to produce saleable meat. Like grass fed vs feedlot beef, this "farm" salmon has almost no omegas (which is the main nutritional reason to eat fish) There is a significant market for wild sockeye salmon, even today.

In addition, part of the reason we may think that crushingly inhumane farm practices are economically efficient is because the farmer is able to push costs of production off to others and obtain a subsidy in that manner. Salmon production, for example. The salmon farmer is likely not paying for the full cost of cleaning up the mess created environmentally by his activity. Beeflots certainly do not. They rely heavily on soy and corn to fatten the animals. The environmental degradation caused by large-scale production of corn and soy in the midwest is enormous. We have not come to terms with the fact that the entire region around the mouth of the mississippi is a massive "dead zone" in which all life has been killed as a result of the chemical runoff from midwestern farms and fields. These types of economic costs are not reflected in the price of corn or beef. Instead, our grandchildren get to pay for it.

This simply forces the entire industry to gravitate toward the inhumane practices required to survive. The difficult part is assessing what is considered animal cruelty, and what is the proper way to enforce it. I can only imagine the government doesn't want to step in on the issue due to the enormous amount of monitoring would be needed on the issue. ...What system would you implement in order to alleviate the issue of animal cruelty while being fair to business and the taxpayers?


There are already laws on this. They regulate some extreme practices. Every
so often, you hear of some crazy farmer letting his animals suffer and of the sheriff going in to take the animals out. I suspect that, generally, these laws reflect community standards for what constitutes animal cruelty. Not so hard. Not harder, than, say, child cruelty, the standards for which vary from community to community. Some communities prohibit corporal punishment altogether, others embrace it. Regulation of animal cruelty doesn't seem esp. hard.

[zibber]

Totally.

Do you eat meat and plants? Would you eat another human?

I acknowledge we have built-in anthropocentrism, as we are humans. I do not, however, think gut feelings should be exempt from (philosophical) scrutiny.

Again, let me stress the importance of nuance. Cannibalism may be completely out of the question, but this has no bearing on other carnivorism (let alone the way in which said meat is obtained).

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I acknowledge we have built-in anthropocentrism, as we are humans. I do not, however, think gut feelings should be exempt from (philosophical) scrutiny.

Again, let me stress the importance of nuance. Cannibalism may be completely out of the question, but this has no bearing on other carnivorism (let alone the way in which said meat is obtained).
"I have no idea why there should be special rules for one's own species."

Does the act of cannibalism give you some idea why there should be special rules for one's own species?

[zibber]

Does the act of cannibalism give you some idea why there should be special rules for one's own species?

Will you explain eventually, or is this illustration all we get?

Again: built-in anthropocentrism, gut feeling, etc. I'm explaining our impulsive reaction to cannibalism. Actually, to adjust what I said, history shows that the taboo may be more of a cultural thing than anything else. Basing ethics on cultural conventions is absurd, as it would be nothing other than the transcription of already existing values.

Oh, and again: even if you demonstrate human cannibalism to be ethically wrong without a doubt, what does that say about eating other animals? What does that say about the way we treat other animals before killing them?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Will you explain eventually, or is this illustration all we get?

Again: built-in anthropocentrism, gut feeling, etc. I'm explaining our impulsive reaction to cannibalism. Actually, to adjust what I said, history shows that the taboo may be more of a cultural thing than anything else. Basing ethics on cultural conventions is absurd, as it would be nothing other than the transcription of already existing values.

Oh, and again: even if you demonstrate human cannibalism to be ethically wrong without a doubt, what does that say about eating other animals? What does that say about the way we treat other animals before killing them?
Sorry. I was not trying to avoid explaining........just slow at it I guess.

"Basing ethics on cultural conventions is absurd..."
Agreed.

Back to the question of murder. I guess we would have to agree on a definition of murder before continuing the discussion of whether killing an animal is murder.

Do we use the dictionary definition ....'the unlawful killing of another human being'? If not, then what do we use as our criteria for murder? Again I ask............is it the fact that something is alive? Is it the fact that it can feel pain?

Do you see where I'm going with this? The OP has stated that she sees the killing of animals as murder.

[zibber]

Back to the question of murder. I guess we would have to agree on a definition of murder before continuing the discussion of whether killing an animal is murder.

Do we use the dictionary definition ....'the unlawful killing of another human being'? If not, then what do we use as our criteria for murder? Again I ask............is it the fact that something is alive? Is it the fact that it can feel pain?

Do you see where I'm going with this? The OP has stated that she sees the killing of animals as murder.

True, but I'm not sure how much use it has merely to establish whether killing an individual of another species should be called murder. Obviously, it is generally less grave than killing another human, a point of nuance that one label (murder or no murder) cannot encompass. In fact, as I already hinted at, the human/animal distinction is as grave a generalization as, say, the pig/(nonhuman) animal distinction. As heartlessly pragmatic as it sounds (to me!), perhaps our best bet for forming a comprehensive ethical system regarding the "wrong-ness" of killing living beings would be simply to create a hierarchy. Any ideas on possible criteria? (Living and pain-feeling are a good start, but only to be able to place plants and certain lower lifeforms below other beings.)

(NB: Excuse me if I've let the flow of the thread stray me from its originally intended path, by the way, I hadn't really concerned myself with that and was specifically addressing athenian's points.)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

True, but I'm not sure how much use it has merely to establish whether killing an individual of another species should be called murder. Obviously, it is generally less grave than killing another human, a point of nuance that one label (murder or no murder) cannot encompass. In fact, as I already hinted at, the human/animal distinction is as grave a generalization as, say, the pig/(nonhuman) animal distinction. As heartlessly pragmatic as it sounds (to me!), perhaps our best bet for forming a comprehensive ethical system regarding the "wrong-ness" of killing living beings would be simply to create a hierarchy. Any ideas on possible criteria? (Living and pain-feeling are a good start, but only to be able to place plants and certain lower lifeforms below other beings.)

(NB: Excuse me if I've let the flow of the thread stray me from its originally intended path, by the way, I hadn't really concerned myself with that and was specifically addressing athenian's points.)
Well it may be of no consequence to you, but the premise of this thread was that the OP considered killing an animal murder. So I'm addressing that comment.

[Tigress]

I consider killing animals murder. People like to put up a wall between the suffering of other types of animals and humans because they couldn't live with their actions if they admitted the truth. it's never going to be a popular notion for that reason, but really.. what we do to other animals is quite barbaric and holocaustic. We just have conditioned ourselves not to care.
pardon I have not read through this whole thread.
I beleive you are referring to speciesism. Like sexism and racism it is the theory that one species is better or more important and has more rights than the other. Such as the right to not be killed(murdered). Your thoughts can be considered anti-speciesiest.

That being said, I'm a speciesest. I can understand that beef cows are treated like animals. They are tastey animals, I can get over that.

[Undead Bonzi]

I always like stirring the pot a bit more so here is a question: Do you view humans as 1) Animals or 2) Above Animals?

If #1 then:

Animals kill other animals for food. Do we expect the lion to feel guilt when it eats another animal? As to cruelty, have you ever watched a pride of lions or a pack of hyenas isolate and take down an elephant? It is not a quick or painless death by any means. Humans are animals, thus it is not un-natural that we eat other animals.

We also raise other animals for food. Did you know some species of ant’s farm aphids for food in a process very analogous to human’s diary industry. Are the ants evil? The only thing we seem to do as humans that other animals do not is argue over whether or not it is right to eat.


If #2 then:

If we are above animals then there is no guilt in using them as resources because we are superior. It CAN be said that if we are above animals then a responsibility falls on us to treat the animals we use well because we are after all, more than animal and should act accordingly.

By either view point raising/killing/eating animals can be justified.


Another question: If you were driving down a road and a deer and a human jumped out onto the road ahead of you and you could only avoid one of them...which would you choose to hit and likely kill? Answer this one and ask yourself where your real priorities lay and why.


I shall hold back my own view and answers until I see how others reply.

[Motor Jax]

I consider killing animals murder. People like to put up a wall between the suffering of other types of animals and humans because they couldn't live with their actions if they admitted the truth. it's never going to be a popular notion for that reason, but really.. what we do to other animals is quite barbaric and holocaustic. We just have conditioned ourselves not to care.

i was thinking about this, and i guess i would already be considered a murderer

i remember growing up with chickens and rabbits for meals. it was nothing for me to grab a chicken by the neck and with a simple twist, break its neck and rip its heads from its neck and watch it run across the lawn. shoot, we used to joke about it as it was running around

i remember petting the rabbits one day only to grab them out of their cages the next, and holding them by the back legs, take a hammer to their heads. and then cutting the jugular and holding them up to let them drain before we skinned them. we used to tan the skins and keep them also

i remember helping out the family with skinning deer, grinding beef with a hand-pulper, raising pigs to take to the slaughterhouse.

i remember helping to kill and cook both turtle and gator also...

heh, i grew up doing it... to me, it was nothing... just a way of life.



but there is a difference in killing and murder, right?

[stasis]

but there is a difference in killing and murder, right?
Murder describes acts of illegal killing. By extension, it can imply an unethical killing. But I have found it more commonly applied to the animal rights debate as a sort of hyperbole, character assassination, that kind of thing.


I have no idea why there should be special rules for one's own species.
We use these rules to normalize our interaction so that social groups can form. All social animals have them amongst themselves in some manner or another. The distinction in my opinion is that we are not able to form human-type social groups with other kinds of animals; they can't be ethical actors in our societies, and therefore they can have no moral substance and no meaningful rights therein. The meaning, or value if you prefer, in generalized rules like "don't kill other people" lies in facilitating our necessary interaction with one another. And that is also the rational predicate.

Humankind cannot at this point exist without consuming other living things. Some animals, usually large and mammalian, are sometimes given special consideration because people empathize more with them than trees or bugs or whatever else. That they don't popularly extend the same consideration to all living systems (and subsequently die of starvation) illustrates that they are making the sort of exclusive judgment that they decry. That's not to say that there are no sound animal protection arguments, of course. But I think those sound arguments tend to be rooted once again in maintaining only our interaction; for example, what kind of negative interpersonal behavior cruelty to certain classes of animals might antagonize or promote.

[blueback]

I consider killing animals murder. People like to put up a wall between the suffering of other types of animals and humans because they couldn't live with their actions if they admitted the truth. it's never going to be a popular notion for that reason, but really.. what we do to other animals is quite barbaric and holocaustic. We just have conditioned ourselves not to care.
I think you just did more to trivialize the holocaust than all the skin-heads and Arab-deniers in the entire world.

There is nothing barbaric about killing and eating animals. Barbaric, from the american heritage dictionary: Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner There might be a taint of barbarism to the way some people kill and eat animals, some of the time, but not inherent in the act of killing and eating of animals.

I'm not saying that animals can't feel pain, I'm just saying that there is a limit to how much pain I am willing to endure to prevent an animal from feeling pain. If a dog is stuck in the crotch of a tree, I'll strain myself to get it down. If a bunch of rabbits are running around in a field I won't starve myself by eating grass.

Ironically, my philosophy is exactly the same one that the animals use with respect to us. Not that they can really comprehend philosophy, but if they could, it is what they would think. Do you think that a pack of hungry jackals will respect your right to not feel the pain of being eaten over their pain of starving? Pain is something you should avoid inflicting unnecessarily, but not something that is inherently bad.

Just because there is pain involved in something doesn't make it bad. There is pain in childbirth, even in child conception sometimes, but that doesn't make birth bad. There is pain in physical development, but that doesn't make it bad. Bad is a relative judgment and it must be based on a consistent standard. That standard is self-preservation. If something aids your self-preservation then it is good to you.

[Shakyamuni]

I always like stirring the pot a bit more so here is a question: Do you view humans as 1) Animals or 2) Above Animals?

If #1 then:

Animals kill other animals for food. Do we expect the lion to feel guilt when it eats another animal? As to cruelty, have you ever watched a pride of lions or a pack of hyenas isolate and take down an elephant? It is not a quick or painless death by any means. Humans are animals, thus it is not un-natural that we eat other animals.

We also raise other animals for food. Did you know some species of ant’s farm aphids for food in a process very analogous to human’s diary industry. Are the ants evil? The only thing we seem to do as humans that other animals do not is argue over whether or not it is right to eat.


If #2 then:

If we are above animals then there is no guilt in using them as resources because we are superior. It CAN be said that if we are above animals then a responsibility falls on us to treat the animals we use well because we are after all, more than animal and should act accordingly.

By either view point raising/killing/eating animals can be justified.


Another question: If you were driving down a road and a deer and a human jumped out onto the road ahead of you and you could only avoid one of them...which would you choose to hit and likely kill? Answer this one and ask yourself where your real priorities lay and why.


I shall hold back my own view and answers until I see how others reply.

A. I take viewpoint 2. We are capable of reasoning and complex intellectual thought, and from a buddhist perspective capable of attaining enlightenment. Animals cannot do the later (i don't want to debate this one in this forum), and it is questionable whether or not *some* are capable of reasoning. Presently, most animals (scientifically classified as animals) are thought to be unable to.

B. I suppose I could kill the human and quote Scrooge "if he's going to die he might as well do it and decrease the surface population" hahaha. good old scrooge. No seriously, I'd kill the deer because I take viewpoint 2.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Animals have never bothered to complain when I kill them- unless you count squealing, flopping around... or tryin' to run off. But their peers don't say anything about it.

And they're yummy.

[notjeffgoldblum]

Many animals are killed during the harvesting process for wheat and soy beans. If you had your way, would you forgo the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the harvesting process to save, say, 99.9% of the animals that would have died otherwise knowing that as a consequence, the prices of wheat would rise leading to at least one more person dying of starvation in the future than would have before?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

The question is....................is killing an animal murder?

[notjeffgoldblum]

Semantics... killing an animal is killing an animal. The real question is why does it matter?

[Mechanical Messiah]

Many animals are killed during the harvesting process for wheat and soy beans. If you had your way, would you forgo the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the harvesting process to save, say, 99.9% of the animals that would have died otherwise knowing that as a consequence, the prices of wheat would rise leading to at least one more person dying of starvation in the future than would have before?


That's an excellent point. A couple years ago, I was running a John Deere 9650 combine, cutting soybeans. That field was FULL of rabbits... and they weren't all that smart. The field was a mile long- and those rabbits would just hop straight down the row- it didn't occurr to most to hop sideways to adjascent rows. Well, they could keep up with the combine for a while... but none of them made it a full mile. I think that after several years, the rabbits in that field are gonna be pretty damn smart... thank Darwin.

Maybe three years ago, I went out on a service call (I worked for a John Deere dealership) on an older combine that "harvested" a deer ass-first (while cutting corn). The guy must've had too many beers... but he got it shut down before the head made it into the feeder-house. It was a 12-point buck with a nice rack (but nothing special by corn-fed Kansas standards). He said he'd have it mounted. I helped cut the head off, then we cleared out the feederhouse, ran it backwards and got everything cleared out.

So it makes me wonder just how much animal tissue is in a given sample of grain or soybeans. There are allowable limits for rat turds and even rodent PARTS (I'm not making this up). So random critter pieced might be lumped in with those.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Semantics... killing an animal is killing an animal. The real question is why does it matter?
Yes. I guess I was trying to establish what people think murder is and then go from that point. This is because 'murder' is considered different from 'killing' morally speaking.

[blueback]

The definition of murder is well established. It is unlawful killing.

I can see where you could tie that into the killing of an animal, but I don't think it's really applicable. Animals are more like property than people.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Again, I'm addressing the OP's statement that she believes killing animals is murder. If we can establish what murder is............unlawful killing, unlawful killing of a human, immoral killing, etc. then we can discuss whether killing an animal is murder.

I realize that the dictionary definition is established, however, I'm attempting to get people's individual ideas of what they consider to be murder vs. killing.

[SirJac]

I think Douglas Adams has the best answer for this dilemma

The quadruped Dish of the Day is an Ameglian Major Cow, a Ruminant specifically bred to not only have the desire to be eaten, but to be capable of saying so quite clearly and distinctly. When asked if he would like to see the Dish of the Day, Zaphod replies: "let's meet the meat." The Major Cow's quite vocal and emphatic desire to be consumed by Milliways' patrons greatly distresses Arthur Dent, and the Dish is nonplussed by a queasy Arthur's subsequent order of a green salad, since he knows "many vegetables that are very clear" on the point of not wanting to be eaten — which was part of the reason for the creation of the Ameglian Major Cow in the first place. After Zaphod orders four rare steaks, the Dish announces that he is nipping off to the kitchen to shoot himself. Though he states, "I'll be very humane," this does not comfort Arthur at all.

[Motor Jax]

well, if a cow talked to me about not eating him, i would definitely put it down...

... what is a cow talking for anyways...?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

It really boils down to whether or not we value an animal's life as we value a human's life.

If you say you will not eat meat or wear fur because you think animals are as valuable as humans, then you must, inevitably, go a step further and ask yourself why you are not chaining yourself to farmyard fences and demanding that the animals be set free. Or giving the family dog a bedroom and sending them off to puppy class every day after a good, nutritious breakfast. If you say this is rediculous, then you must answer why. Why can't we treat our beloved pet exactly the way we treat our children? By this, I mean placing the exact same value on their lives, welfare, quality of life etc.

Someone who doesn't eat meat, or wear fur, or stand by while animals are treated inhumanely may value animals more than someone who does eat meat etc., but does this does not mean that they value them as equal to humans.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Personally, I believe that animals should be given no more value than property. Now, I will admit that if I caught somebody hurting my wiener dog... then they're gonna get hurt right back. But from a legal standpoint, I think my wiener dog should be considered property.

The vast majority of people in this country have no problem with hogs, cattle, turkeys, deer, etc. being killed and eaten. Why should dogs and horses be different? Why should it be a crime to break some arbitrary tradition? I reckon if I want to cook up Thor... it's my wiener-dog and my business.

Same goes if I want to kick him. It's always struck me as odd that it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable to shoot an animal, cut its throat, pop its head off, or give it a lethal blow with a hammer... but a man can go to jail for mistreating a critter? I don't mistreat critters and I don't think much of people who do... but prison time for doing ANYTHING to a dog?? That's insane.

Look at this whole Michael Vick thing a while back. He got into all kinds of trouble for mistreating dogs... but worse happens every day at slaughter houses- the only difference being that the critters are killed and eaten. If Vick had killed and eaten the dogs afterwards... would that make it ok?

[elsdfr]

Someone said a Pig is intelligent as a three year old child yet we eat them every morning. I sometimes ask myself would I rather eat Bacon every morning or have average Vegan sex?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Personally, I believe that animals should be given no more value than property. Now, I will admit that if I caught somebody hurting my wiener dog... then they're gonna get hurt right back. But from a legal standpoint, I think my wiener dog should be considered property.

The vast majority of people in this country have no problem with hogs, cattle, turkeys, deer, etc. being killed and eaten. Why should dogs and horses be different? Why should it be a crime to break some arbitrary tradition? I reckon if I want to cook up Thor... it's my wiener-dog and my business.

Same goes if I want to kick him. It's always struck me as odd that it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable to shoot an animal, cut its throat, pop its head off, or give it a lethal blow with a hammer... but a man can go to jail for mistreating a critter? I don't mistreat critters and I don't think much of people who do... but prison time for doing ANYTHING to a dog?? That's insane.

Look at this whole Michael Vick thing a while back. He got into all kinds of trouble for mistreating dogs... but worse happens every day at slaughter houses- the only difference being that the critters are killed and eaten. If Vick had killed and eaten the dogs afterwards... would that make it ok?
I see what you're saying. I think we're talking about the legislation of cruelty. Human values. I ask you to take complete responsibility for your child's physical, psychological, emotional welfare but, if you do anything I don't like with that child, then I'm going to take it from you and maybe throw you in jail. So you better do everything right. This is an exaggeration but, you get the point.

Your dog is your responsibility.....utterly. Feed him, walk him, scoop his poop, make sure he doesn't disturb your neighbor with his barking, but that same neighbor who complains about the noise your dog is making calls animal control on you when he sees you swatting Thor for barking too much.

How to solve the dilemma? Do we let you torture him as much as you like? Where do we draw the line? This, of course, is based on the particular societies set of values. Does your society eat dogs? No. Do they work dogs? Not much. Are dogs often considered a valued and pamper pet? Yes. So most people get upset when they see someone else 'mistreating' their valued pet. What to do?

[Mechanical Messiah]

What to do?

Tell 'em to mind their own damn business?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Tell 'em to mind their own damn business?
So then............no restrictions on any type of cruelty to animals? If I own it I can do whatever I want to it?

If you could stand there and watch as your neighbor repeatedly tortured his dog, then I can see where you're coming from. But, what if the majority of people cannot? Should they just mind their own business because you don't feel the way they do or should they work to bring legislation against such cruelty?

[g2ericks]

So maybe this is an aside but have you considered that if humans evolved as strict herbivours ther would be far fewer animals on earth. The chicken is the most common warmblooded animal on earth because it is so edible. If the chicken were not so edible or humans did not eat meat then the chicken would only be a slightly confused bird doing its best to survive the jungles of Thailand. As it is there are hundreds of sub species of chicken and they are in little danger of becoming extinct.

The cow is another example. When humans were still largly nomadic tribes the cow was a source of survival. Humans could live of the milk for weeks in enviroments where ther was nothing that was otherwise edible.

If we were herbiviors animals would be competition for edible plants and we'de kill them off so that we could survive.

I personaly enjoy meat though I eat little because of my current budget as a student. Humans have a symbiotic relationship with our domestic animals. We eat them and we propagate their species.

[Kathleen]

What about fat people? And what about people in comas? These are obviously two groups we should be slaughtering and eating....especially the people in comas. They won't feel anything(it would be totally humane), they won't suffer, and they won't even know they died. These are people who are just wasting away, consuming valuable resources... when will people realize that coma victims could be VALUABLE members of society if we could just harvest their meat!

And fat people, do I even need to explain why we should eat them?

Oh, and pregnant women... the baby is totally edible (don't forget the placenta!), and the milk from the mother can be harvested for our delight.

Come on folks, let's give the other animals a break.

[blueback]

That must have been fun. But you should have waited for a better opening. It didn't really flow with the discussion.

[JonD]

I was vegetarian for a few months, and found the health benefits to be kickass. I felt way better (after the initial week of diarrhea... )

However, I live a very active lifestyle, and simply could not stop eating. I'd eat all day long. Before bed I'd have a peanut butter and jam sandwich, yogurt, and still wake up 6 hours later tired but starving.

We have laws against being cruel to animals because we as humans decided it was unjust. Personally, I think killing animals for sport is barbaric. We are killing enough animals every day by expanding civilization. But that's just me.

Predators eat prey. Go ask a tree. It will say: "You're an animal. You consume. Get over it."

Sure, you COULD be vegetarian/vegan, just don't tell me I'm committing murder. Where do you draw the line on animal murder? I just scratched my head, killing mites. Do you think that's wrong? Or is it only animals with fur? Or big brown eyes? No reptiles, just mammals?

[blueback]

And what about the bacteria? Don't they have a right to live? The prions too. They aren't exactly alive, but their right to not be exactly alive should be protected.

[zibber]

Again, people mostly are seeing in black and white. Human vs. animal. Here is human, here is animal. "Animal" encompasses all living things in this discussion, and they are all on the same level of sentience/awareness/lucidity.

.. what?! Are you people serious? Why is there such a taboo on inter-species consideration? It's nice to talk about the emotional and practical sides of this issue, but why can't it have a rational side?

Personally, I believe that animals should be given no more value than property ... from a legal standpoint, I think my wiener dog should be considered property.

What is your argument for that?

And what about the bacteria? Don't they have a right to live? The prions too. They aren't exactly alive, but their right to not be exactly alive should be protected.

Great display of nuance, blueback. I know what you're trying, and it's ridiculous. Micro-organisms and pigs are entirely different organisms, putting them in the same category is as irrational as it gets. That's not ad hominem, but statement of fact.


The distinction in my opinion is that we are not able to form human-type social groups with other kinds of animals; they can't be ethical actors in our societies, and therefore they can have no moral substance and no meaningful rights therein.

Thank you!

So to be eligible for ethical consideration, one must oneself be an ethical actor? The flaws of this argument become clear immediately when the example of mentally handicapped humans is brought up.


Humankind cannot at this point exist without consuming other living things. Some animals, usually large and mammalian, are sometimes given special consideration because people empathize more with them than trees or bugs or whatever else.

Truly? If so, does this practical concern have any bearing on the philosophical discussion?

As for people giving special consideration to large mammals, let's once again not forget that comparing a pig to an amoebe or tree ethically makes little sense. Why can't there be a gradient?

[Airius]

This all sounds very INFJ to me. I'm an omnivore, it makes sense to me to eat meat, and I do. Call it what you will.

[zibber]

This all sounds very INFJ to me. I'm an omnivore, it makes sense to me to eat meat, and I do. Call it what you will.

What, does it come across as an emotional affair? I speak for myself, but I came to be a (de facto) vegetarian by a purely philosophical process. It feels like an almost inescapable duty to consider my actions ethically, especially actions that affect other living things.

[127001]

If we're killing the animals to use them as food or to make tools, that's just us being apex predators.

[Airius]

What, does it come across as an emotional affair? I speak for myself, but I came to be a (de facto) vegetarian by a purely philosophical process. It feels like an almost inescapable duty to consider my actions ethically, especially actions that affect other living things.

It does somewhat from a few of the arguments, relating slaughter houses to concentration camps, and mother nature to murder. And while I don't support animal cruelty, it's something my T still can't grasp.

Could you explain more from your philosphical viewpoint? I'm interested.

[stasis]

So to be eligible for ethical consideration, one must oneself be an ethical actor? The flaws of this argument become clear immediately when the example of mentally handicapped humans is brought up.
Most mentally handicapped humans are capable of participating in human-type social groups; they absorb human culture, they form complete identities, they can be ethical actors in our societies. They may not excel, but there's really no comparison to mice.


Truly? If so, does this practical concern have any bearing on the philosophical discussion?
We can put the practical concern into philosophical terms if you prefer. The primacy of eating is one of several enabling values, without which values of accessory are not possible.


Why can't there be a gradient?
Why should there be?

[zibber]

Most mentally handicapped humans are capable of participating in human-type social groups; they absorb human culture, they form complete identities, they can be ethical actors in our societies. They may not excel, but there's really no comparison to mice.

There are many instances of people being completely unable to be ethical actors.

Again with the mice. How about apes? Considering species where the distinction between gifted individuals and retarded humans becomes slightly vague, my criticism still stands.

We can put the practical concern into philosophical terms if you prefer. The primacy of eating is one of several enabling values, without which values of accessory are not possible.

Non sequitur.

Why should there be?

Because there is? If we share 95+% of our DNA with some creatures and 10% with others, so to speak, how does it make sense to group all of those creatures together without nuance?

I think the key to the misunderstanding between me and what seems to be everybody ever is unrestrained anthropocentrism which appears to me to be messing with logic.. Am I less anthropocentric because I'm so misanthropic? Most of the reason for my misanthropy is people's blinding anthropocentrism.


1. Predators eat prey. Go ask a tree. It will say: "You're an animal. You consume. Get over it."

2. Sure, you COULD be vegetarian/vegan, just don't tell me I'm committing murder. Where do you draw the line on animal murder? I just scratched my head, killing mites. Do you think that's wrong? Or is it only animals with fur? Or big brown eyes? No reptiles, just mammals?

1 is the natural fallacy.

2 is the kind of unnuanced exaggeration I dismissed earlier.

It does somewhat from a few of the arguments, relating slaughter houses to concentration camps, and mother nature to murder.

I think that kind of thing mostly stems from the frustration the OG poster felt, as I'm experiencing a hefty portion of that myself. (The primacy of eating.. ha ha.) People seem to dismiss this topic long before having considered it, which is a shame. I've tried explaining my views throughout this thread and have been mostly mocked, so I won't go through that again and will respectfully withdraw for now, before I start using dirty words.

[Cicatrix]

I'm curious if any of you anti-meat folks draw a line anywhere in the animal kingdom?

What happens if a mosquito lands on your arm and starts sucking your blood? How about a spider in your bed? A mouse in your pantry?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

True, but I'm not sure how much use it has merely to establish whether killing an individual of another species should be called murder. Obviously, it is generally less grave than killing another human, a point of nuance that one label (murder or no murder) cannot encompass. In fact, as I already hinted at, the human/animal distinction is as grave a generalization as, say, the pig/(nonhuman) animal distinction. As heartlessly pragmatic as it sounds (to me!), perhaps our best bet for forming a comprehensive ethical system regarding the "wrong-ness" of killing living beings would be simply to create a hierarchy. Any ideas on possible criteria? (Living and pain-feeling are a good start, but only to be able to place plants and certain lower lifeforms below other beings.)

(NB: Excuse me if I've let the flow of the thread stray me from its originally intended path, by the way, I hadn't really concerned myself with that and was specifically addressing athenian's points.)
If it makes you feel any better..................I think you have insightful and valuable opinions here.

As for hierarchies............I think we already have those (somewhat). Family pets, cute, little baby seals, stranded whales, anything on the endangered species list...................

[gunboatdiplomat]

The question here has nothing to do with the worth of animals, it has to do with our own value judgements on ourselves.
Would you agree that you dislike pain and suffering being inflicted on YOU? You'd probably agree, you'd rather have a happy, pain free life.

Any animal with consciousness deserves the same, not because it's an intrinsic right, it isn't, but because to behave differently is a reflection on us.

So, it's fine to kill an animal humanely for food. It is not fine to hunt and distress an animal for our pleasure, unless you subscribe to the idea that might is right, in which case, please don't whinge to me when you're mugged and robbed on the street.........that's just someone else excercising the same right YOU excercise when you hunt an animal.

[Motor Jax]

heh, i'll shoot him too... no different than shooting an attacking lion, right?

[stasis]

Again with the mice. How about apes?
Your position doesn't seem to be any less "anthropocentric" than any of the others here, with your gradient of lifeforms that are enough like us to have an equivalent significance and your exclusion of everything else because of the differences in resemblance that become obvious to you at scale. Arguments like yours are self-defeating. You bemoan the myopia of "anthropocentrism" while simultaneously aspiring to draw the same sort of "anthropocentric" bounds that other people are drawing, only you'd like to draw them somewhere else.

You go on to support your wanting to draw them somewhere else by observing that an ape is not a mouse, asking 'why not', and talking about how frustrated you are.

As before, I can only suggest beginning by asking yourself why we need to treat one another in one way or another in the first place. You should find that the function and therefore the value of things like ethics and morality is social in essence. Go from there. A social scenario requires two or more actors. Mice can't manifest human-type sociology, which excludes them from being actors in our societies, which should prevent them from having ethical substance since ethics are given value by their functionality in dealing with the societal. Dehumanizing the handicapped, who do manifest human-type sociology and can therefore act in ethical context, looks more to me like evasion than counterpoint.

/shrug

[blueback]

unless you subscribe to the idea that might is right, in which case, please don't whinge to me when you're mugged and robbed on the street.........that's just someone else excercising the same right YOU excercise when you hunt an animal.
Actually, if "might makes right" than morality is simply whatever happened. Since it happened, as opposed to all the things that could have happened, it is right by default. That means that morality is no longer prescriptive, only descriptive, which means there is no more morality. So, might makes right is not a morality.

The most consistent standard for morality is self-preservation.

Things are only right or wrong as they relate to self-preservation and only to an individual. Hunting an animal is not inherently right or wrong. If you are seeking food, it is right. If you are seeking sport, but your target is overpopulated for the area, it is right. The appropriateness of actions must be discussed and justified; bumpersticker morality is not enough.

[Kathleen]

Why won't anyone address my points? I am serious. People in comas are wasting valuable resources!

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Why won't anyone address my points? I am serious. People in comas are wasting valuable resources!
O.K. This is true if you think that a person who is in a coma is less valuable than a person who is not in a coma. This value judgement is based on many different variables, one of which would probably be whether or not you believe these people deserve a chance at waking up from the coma.

[blueback]

Why won't anyone address my points? I am serious. People in comas are wasting valuable resources!
A person in a coma might wake up and contribute to the economy. Additionally, they are generally being supported by someone who values them and voluntarily redirects some of their wealth to maintain their life. Therefore, if they wake up they can make up the difference in resources they consumed.

A chicken, on the other hand, is never going to contribute to the economy. That is why we eat it. The day a chicken opens up an egg stand and starts selling the product of its "labors" (he he he) I will stop eating them.

[Kathleen]

Oh. Money. Right. Money, economy... that's all that matters in this world. Silly me. Hail Mammon!

There is money to be made off of pregnant women. Freshley stewed infant could be a delicacy. Soft, succulent baby flesh.... Plus, we'll be maintaining the population too... keeping more dollars circulating in a smaller group. But I don't know anything about economics, so that might not actually work out.

[TheLastMohican]

And fat people, do I even need to explain why we should eat them?


A modest proposal to be sure, but a naive one. The consumption of beings consisting mainly of lipids is a most unhealthful prospect. A much better approach would be to set the fat people to work generating electricity on stationary bicycles, and then to eat them as soon as they have become lean and muscular, being compact and far more nutritious than before.

[zibber]

Your position doesn't seem to be any less "anthropocentric" than any of the others here, with your gradient of lifeforms that are enough like us to have an equivalent significance and your exclusion of everything else because of the differences in resemblance that become obvious to you at scale. Arguments like yours are self-defeating. You bemoan the myopia of "anthropocentrism" while simultaneously aspiring to draw the same sort of "anthropocentric" bounds that other people are drawing, only you'd like to draw them somewhere else.

You go on to support your wanting to draw them somewhere else by observing that an ape is not a mouse, asking 'why not', and talking about how frustrated you are.

As before, I can only suggest beginning by asking yourself why we need to treat one another in one way or another in the first place. You should find that the function and therefore the value of things like ethics and morality is social in essence. Go from there. A social scenario requires two or more actors. Mice can't manifest human-type sociology, which excludes them from being actors in our societies, which should prevent them from having ethical substance since ethics are given value by their functionality in dealing with the societal. Dehumanizing the handicapped, who do manifest human-type sociology and can therefore act in ethical context, looks more to me like evasion than counterpoint.


First off, nice counterpoint. Obviously, I have an anthropocentric frame that influences the way in which I draw boundaries. I'm human! You've hilariously shown that my misanthropy is influenced by anthropocentrism. It does however seem as if your own view on "ethics" is so colored by your single, anthropocentric definition that you keep coming back to, that you are incapable of imagining any non-species-based kind of ethics, or a supplemental ethics of dealing with other species. Is it less outlandish to you if I phrase it like this? I respect the other creatures who use the Earth, whether they give a shit or not. We have never been given a deed to this planet, let alone a free pass to treat everything but us as we see fit, and it seems to me as if some supplement to our species-specific ethics would complete those. This is my stance apparently incommensurable with yours, and I'm thankfully beginning to see that it's a big post-rationalisation for a state of mind that was already there. I'd have to come up with practical anti-bio-industry arguments to appeal to your wits (and those of all the other torture enthousiasts around the world), but as the issue has nothing to do with that, to me, I'd rather say nothing than make practical, human-related concerns the focus of my case. Bah.