Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
Now you may DISAGREE with the logic used, you may DISAGREE with a belief system, but to suggest that vegetarianism is not a moral choice is beyond the heights of hubris.
|
I'm not saying there are not good reasons for becoming a vegetarian, what I'm saying is that the Argument from Morality for Vegetarianism is fundamentally flawed. .
Here is the argument(s) as I understand it, and some of the associated flaws.
1) Animals are better off or happier in the wild than domesticated.
The flaw here is that you're taking a human value - Freedom and applying it to non-human entities. This argument is flawed because it Begs the Question: Are they? As I said in my previous post, animals in the wild are subject to a great number of threats that domesticated animals don't have to face, such as predation, starvation, increased vulnerability to disease and habitat disruption. It's not difficult to argue that domesticity is a
desired state for a non-human animal.
2) Domesticated food animals suffer from the conditions they live in.
Again, we're using morals which are applicable to humans and applying them to non-humans. While I admit that there are many examples of food animals being kept in conditions which I would agree are unethical, there are laws in place in most countries to limit or eliminate this practice - and it has much improved recently. Veal, a classic example, is no longer acceptable as the laws governing veal production are extremely strict and largely prevent any perceived 'suffering'. Notions of calves prevented from moving are simply not true.
3) Killing animals, for any reason, is morally wrong
An easier case to argue, but again flawed because to stop killing animals for food or other reasons would inevitably result in mass death from a host of vastly more excruciating causes than a bolt of metal to the brain. Also, it would result in the continuing death of animals from 'Natural causes", most of which are by and large, pretty unpleasant.
Finally, my opposition to the Argument from Morality is rooted in what I think is a misapplication of energy. What they are essentially doing is choosing to focus energy on getting animals who are in an arguably
better position as domesticated creatures into a "state of nature" instead of focusing this energy on protecting and conserving the animals that already exist in this state, which Moralistic veganists have arbitrarily decided is better.
If a person is genuinely interested in animals being treated ethically, their primary focus should be on conservation efforts and environmentalism, NOT spreading some gospel of the morality of vegetarianism, because that argument doesn't carry any water.
And you misused the word 'hubris'.