PETA makes a suggestion to Ben & Jerry's

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

From my understanding, skim milk is just fine. Whole fat milk is a problem, however.

I clarified in my above post. I would say organic skim milk is probably not bad for you, although it's debateable because of conflicting studies.

[jammies]

There is no such thing as "animal rights", which is why the whole PETA world-view is misguided. You cannot have "rights" without consequent duties, and animals do not understand the concept of duty and thus cannot enter into a social contract that includes rights.

There IS, however, such a thing as human responsibility, which dictates that we should not cause unnecessary suffering in animals. This is why banning animal testing for cosmetics is ethical, but banning animal testing for vaccines is not, or why ending the cruelty of foie gras production makes sense, but outlawing hamburger does not.

Humans are animals too, and thus we should feel no more guilty for eating meat than does a fox, and the only place ethics has in the question is to ensure that the meat animal does not suffer unduly. All life is built on death and pain, and the idea that humans can legislate this away and Disneyfy the natural world is absurd; the best we can do is minimize the pain we inevitably cause.

With milk cows, they exist as almost completely human fabrications from hundreds of generations of breeding so that they bear no resemblance to their wild ancestors, and they would not survive without human intervention. We live in symbiosis with these cows where we trade them security from predators and the opportunity to pass on their genes for their milk and meat, and this is no more unethical than any other symbiotic relationship between animals.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by jammies

There is no such thing as "animal rights", which is why the whole PETA world-view is misguided. You cannot have "rights" without consequent duties, and animals do not understand the concept of duty and thus cannot enter into a social contract that includes rights.

Whose philosophy of rights to you adhere to? Or are you just creating your own? There is nothing wrong with that but don't state it as fact when it is very subjective. I would like to point out that mentally handicap people would have no rights under your definition.

There IS, however, such a thing as human responsibility, which dictates that we should not cause unnecessary suffering in animals. This is why banning animal testing for cosmetics is ethical, but banning animal testing for vaccines is not, or why ending the cruelty of foie gras production makes sense, but outlawing hamburger does not.

This paragraph is a contradiction. The death of an animal for hamburger is unnecessary. Also, what basis is it ok to kill an animal for vaccine testing? Are you adhering to the belief that those animals lives are less valuable than human and if so why?

Humans are animals too, and thus we should feel no more guilty for eating meat than does a fox, and the only place ethics has in the question is to ensure that the meat animal does not suffer unduly. All life is built on death and pain, and the idea that humans can legislate this away and Disneyfy the natural world is absurd; the best we can do is minimize the pain we inevitably cause.

So you don't support the meat industry than? Because animals killed by the meat industry DO suffer unduly.

With milk cows, they exist as almost completely human fabrications from hundreds of generations of breeding so that they bear no resemblance to their wild ancestors, and they would not survive without human intervention. We live in symbiosis with these cows where we trade them security from predators and the opportunity to pass on their genes for their milk and meat, and this is no more unethical than any other symbiotic relationship between animals.

We don't offer those cows any security. They are mistreated and live in their own squalor. Secondly, are you saying the species would not survive? That is incorrect. Even if I concede that they have evolved to such a state, I wouldn't concede that because we caused their evolution we should be able to decide whether they live or die. Under this definition if I have a child with a woman than we should be able to do whatever we please with it?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Whose philosophy of rights to you adhere to? Or are you just creating your own? There is nothing wrong with that but don't state it as fact when it is very subjective. I would like to point out that mentally handicap people would have no rights under your definition.

Assigning animals rights is self-contradictory no matter what process you arrive at the philosophy of rights by; rights are abstract concepts and have no meaning outside the understanding of a conscious being.

To illustrate, imagine life before humans arrived - does it make sense to claim that, for example, a tyrannosaurus had "rights"? Rights in comparison to what? Applied by whom? With what legal force? Rights are an artifact of human society and it makes no more sense to apply them to animals as if they are inherent characteristics than it does to claim that the scientific naming convention felis domesticus is an inherent characteristic of a cat.

As far as mentally handicapped people go, they have legally diminished rights compared to the bulk of humanity, for precisely the reason that they have diminished responsibility. The same is true of children, infants, and the insane.

Originally Posted by Sowa

This paragraph is a contradiction. The death of an animal for hamburger is unnecessary. Also, what basis is it ok to kill an animal for vaccine testing? Are you adhering to the belief that those animals lives are less valuable than human and if so why?

No, the death of animals for food (hamburger) is necessary, if you want meat (hamburgers), and there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to eat meat. Nor is there anything wrong with wanting to save human life by creating vaccines, and if animal testing is what is necessary to do so, then animal testing is what should happen.

As far as animal lives being worth less than human, that isn't a belief, that is a pragmatic assessment. Every pound of vegetables YOU eat is a pound of vegetables some animal could have eaten to sustain its life; every slice of bread depends on the slaughter of insects who want to consume the same grain you want to consume, and every fruit you taste has been grown using water that otherwise would go to nurture an ecosystem of animals instead of humans. We bend the world to our purposes, and so does every other animal. There is no zero-sum game you can play where live and let live with the rest of the ecosystem is available - by choosing to live, you put your life ahead of all the organisms who are killed so that you can extract their energy, and you also prevent other potential creatures from existing who would otherwise use that energy you have sequestered to your selfish purposes.

Personally, if I had a choice between killing a (supposedly equally valuable) cow and killing a human being, I'd take the cow every time. Anyone who would think that is some kind of difficult moral decision has blurred the distinction between animals and people, as you can't have it both ways: either humans are just another kind of animal, in which case animal morality (ie - none) is acceptable, else humans are morally different than animals and thus morally distinct from them.

The latter definition - that humans and animals are morally distinct - is what I think to be correct, and I will illustrate with an example. If a tiger kills a man, that is NOT morally wrong, as the tiger cannot comprehend morality (and if it did, tiger morality would undoubtedly classify all but tigers as prey or enemy). If a man kills a tiger, whether it is morally wrong or not depends upon whether the man had sufficient reason to kill the tiger. The tiger and the man are fundamentally different - one understands the difference between right and wrong, and one does not.

That is why it only makes sense to talk about rights - such as the right to life - in terms of humanity. If rabbits, for example, had a "right to life", then we would be obligated to protect all rabbits from foxes, and prosecute the latter when the rabbit's "rights" were violated by being killed and eaten. Obviously this is absurd, and worse, impossible to implement. Only HUMANS can be limited by the concept of rights and the consequent obligations, due to their moral grasp of what these mean - and if animals cannot take on the obligations, they cannot have the rights.

If we go back to the tiger example to show why this is so, according to the theory of animal rights, tigers could kill and eat people with impunity, but people could not fight back and kill the tigers, for the tigers are not bound by the obligation of not killing people, but the people must respect the rights of the tigers. I know there are people that think this way, and frankly, I wish they'd take themselves off into the woods to feed a bear to prove their sincerity and spare the rest of us. For taken to its logical extreme, this philosophy would mean we would eventually die out from starvation brought on by the inability to destroy pests and competitors for food.

Originally Posted by Sowa

So you don't support the meat industry than? Because animals killed by the meat industry DO suffer unduly.

Unduly compared to what? I'm all for stringent regulations which treat cows as humanely as possible, but in the end, if they are being killed for meat there's no way to dress that up and make it happy fun times.

Originally Posted by Sowa

We don't offer those cows any security. They are mistreated and live in their own squalor. Secondly, are you saying the species would not survive? That is incorrect. Even if I concede that they have evolved to such a state, I wouldn't concede that because we caused their evolution we should be able to decide whether they live or die. Under this definition if I have a child with a woman than we should be able to do whatever we please with it?

Cows, like all other organisms, exist to pass on their genes. We supply the certainty of that. What would you define security as, if not this? Certainly the cows are much better off than, say, passenger pigeons.

As far as the child argument goes, it's a flawed analogy, and in any case, I never said we could do whatever we want with cows. For one, I think bullfighting is cruel and should be outlawed everywhere.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by jammies

Assigning animals rights is self-contradictory no matter what process you arrive at the philosophy of rights by; rights are abstract concepts and have no meaning outside the understanding of a conscious being.

To illustrate, imagine life before humans arrived - does it make sense to claim that, for example, a tyrannosaurus had "rights"? Rights in comparison to what? Applied by whom? With what legal force? Rights are an artifact of human society and it makes no more sense to apply them to animals as if they are inherent characteristics than it does to claim that the scientific naming convention felis domesticus is an inherent characteristic of a cat.

As far as mentally handicapped people go, they have legally diminished rights compared to the bulk of humanity, for precisely the reason that they have diminished responsibility. The same is true of children, infants, and the insane.

Rights are a human concept to that I'll agree. However, many human concepts can be applied to animals. Pain, loyalty, fun, etc... You yourself apply rights to animals later on to animals when you say they have a right to not suffer unduly.

No, the death of animals for food (hamburger) is necessary, if you want meat (hamburgers), and there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to eat meat. Nor is there anything wrong with wanting to save human life by creating vaccines, and if animal testing is what is necessary to do so, then animal testing is what should happen.

Wanting something does not dictate necessity. I want a porsche, does that make it necessary? Meat is not necessary for survival as millions of Vegans all over the world dictate.

As far as animal lives being worth less than human, that isn't a belief, that is a pragmatic assessment. Every pound of vegetables YOU eat is a pound of vegetables some animal could have eaten to sustain its life; every slice of bread depends on the slaughter of insects who want to consume the same grain you want to consume, and every fruit you taste has been grown using water that otherwise would go to nurture an ecosystem of animals instead of humans. We bend the world to our purposes, and so does every other animal. There is no zero-sum game you can play where live and let live with the rest of the ecosystem is available - by choosing to live, you put your life ahead of all the organisms who are killed so that you can extract their energy, and you also prevent other potential creatures from existing who would otherwise use that energy you have sequestered to your selfish purposes.

You assume that switching to an all plant would take away food from other animals. That logic is flawed. In fact the factory farm industry, where we breed unnaturally too many animals consumes more of the planets food than is enough to sustain it. I don't believe in a live and let live scenario. Instead I believe in humans, the most advanced species on the planet, doing the most to make sure suffering for the rest of the planet is at a minimum.

Personally, if I had a choice between killing a (supposedly equally valuable) cow and killing a human being, I'd take the cow every time. Anyone who would think that is some kind of difficult moral decision has blurred the distinction between animals and people, as you can't have it both ways: either humans are just another kind of animal, in which case animal morality (ie - none) is acceptable, else humans are morally different than animals and thus morally distinct from them.

You are confusing having morals with what is moral. Under your definition throwing a cat in a microwave would not be immoral because it is an animal.

The latter definition - that humans and animals are morally distinct - is what I think to be correct, and I will illustrate with an example. If a tiger kills a man, that is NOT morally wrong, as the tiger cannot comprehend morality (and if it did, tiger morality would undoubtedly classify all but tigers as prey or enemy). If a man kills a tiger, whether it is morally wrong or not depends upon whether the man had sufficient reason to kill the tiger. The tiger and the man are fundamentally different - one understands the difference between right and wrong, and one does not.

I agree, but this doesn't automatically infer lack of rights. At best your argument so far illustrates that animals have less rights than humans maybe comparable to the insane and/or mentally handicap.

That is why it only makes sense to talk about rights - such as the right to life - in terms of humanity. If rabbits, for example, had a "right to life", then we would be obligated to protect all rabbits from foxes, and prosecute the latter when the rabbit's "rights" were violated by being killed and eaten. Obviously this is absurd, and worse, impossible to implement. Only HUMANS can be limited by the concept of rights and the consequent obligations, due to their moral grasp of what these mean - and if animals cannot take on the obligations, they cannot have the rights.

This is logic is flawed. Foxes consume rabbits to survive their right to life is = to that of the rabbit. Humans are distinct from foxes because they can survive without the death of another animal.

If we go back to the tiger example to show why this is so, according to the theory of animal rights, tigers could kill and eat people with impunity, but people could not fight back and kill the tigers, for the tigers are not bound by the obligation of not killing people, but the people must respect the rights of the tigers. I know there are people that think this way, and frankly, I wish they'd take themselves off into the woods to feed a bear to prove their sincerity and spare the rest of us. For taken to its logical extreme, this philosophy would mean we would eventually die out from starvation brought on by the inability to destroy pests and competitors for food.

Again flawed as their right to life doesn't supercede ours or any other species.

Unduly compared to what? I'm all for stringent regulations which treat cows as humanely as possible, but in the end, if they are being killed for meat there's no way to dress that up and make it happy fun times.

Obviously you have no insight to the factory farms. Also funny that you use the word "humane" to describe treatment of an animal.

Cows, like all other organisms, exist to pass on their genes. We supply the certainty of that. What would you define security as, if not this? Certainly the cows are much better off than, say, passenger pigeons.

So this logic is also flawed. My dog who cannot pass on genes is much more secure than a cow. Not really aware of the plight of the passenger pigeon. However, there lives would have to be pretty terrible to compare to that of a cow that lives on a factory farm.

As far as the child argument goes, it's a flawed analogy, and in any case, I never said we could do whatever we want with cows. For one, I think bullfighting is cruel and should be outlawed everywhere.

Here you are affording cows some rights which contradicts your entire argument. Bullfighting also illustrates cows ability to survive and protect itself.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Rights are a human concept to that I'll agree. However, many human concepts can be applied to animals. Pain, loyalty, fun, etc... You yourself apply rights to animals later on to animals when you say they have a right to not suffer unduly. .

No, I've said that humans have a duty not to cause undue suffering. That is not only not the same thing as animals having rights, it is part of the central point of my argument against such a thing, as animals have no such duty towards each other due to not being morally aware.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Wanting something does not dictate necessity. I want a porsche, does that make it necessary? Meat is not necessary for survival as millions of Vegans all over the world dictate.

Wanting something that is not a necessity is not immoral. It's not necessary to eat potatoes, either - does this mean that eating potatoes is immoral? Obviously not, so the immorality cannot lie in necessity.

Originally Posted by Sowa

You assume that switching to an all plant would take away food from other animals. That logic is flawed.

No, I'm saying that by merely existing every human on the planet necessarily kills, and the degree of killing is all we are arguing over.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Instead I believe in humans, the most advanced species on the planet, doing the most to make sure suffering for the rest of the planet is at a minimum.

I can't argue with this sentence, as long as you are talking about affecting only human behaviour.

Originally Posted by Sowa

You are confusing having morals with what is moral. Under your definition throwing a cat in a microwave would not be immoral because it is an animal.

No, under my definition a HUMAN throwing a cat in a microwave is immoral, but not because the cat has any intrinsic rights, but because the human knows that causing gratuitous suffering is wrong.

You are confusing having morals with not having them, and it's rather difficult to understand how that confusion can arise considering I specifically gave examples to the contrary, not to mention that conclusion not making any sense.

Originally Posted by Sowa

I agree, but this doesn't automatically infer lack of rights. At best your argument so far illustrates that animals have less rights than humans maybe comparable to the insane and/or mentally handicap.

This is logic is flawed. Foxes consume rabbits to survive their right to life is = to that of the rabbit. Humans are distinct from foxes because they can survive without the death of another animal.

This is entirely and completely incorrect in all ways and fashions through the history of this and any other universe containing humans.

You live in a building that animals were killed to erect; you eat food that animals were killed in the making of; you drink water that is purged of organisms before you drink it, sent from a reservoir that killed animals in its creation. Every product you use has undoubtedly killed more animals somewhere along its production, from the beetles that die when trees are felled for paper to the rodents that died in the building of the factory that made the monitor you are reading this on.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Again flawed as their right to life doesn't supercede ours or any other species.

Just a few paragraphs back you said the fox's right to live by killing superseded the rabbit's right to life, so which is it? Either the tiger has a right to kill and the human does not, or maybe... just maybe, the idea of the tiger having a "right" is what is the problem.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Obviously you have no insight to the factory farms. Also funny that you use the word "humane" to describe treatment of an animal.

I've been to a slaughterhouse and to feed lots, so I've probably more direct experience than most. As far as the word "humane" goes, since it is humans applying the treatment, I'm not sure what is "funny" about the term. If I was using to describe the behaviour of animals it would be funny, but that sounds more like a mistake PETA would make.

Originally Posted by Sowa

So this logic is also flawed. My dog who cannot pass on genes is much more secure than a cow. Not really aware of the plight of the passenger pigeon. However, there lives would have to be pretty terrible to compare to that of a cow that lives on a factory farm.

Passenger pigeons are extinct, and your dog might not agree with your assessment of the situation if it were asked and could understand the question.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Here you are affording cows some rights which contradicts your entire argument. Bullfighting also illustrates cows ability to survive and protect itself.

Again, I'm not giving cows any kind of rights, I am stressing the role of human responsibilities. You think I am giving out "rights" because you are stuck on the concept that animals have them, but I assure you that I have no such opinion and the continual misunderstanding of the difference between animal rights and human responsibilities is exactly what I am arguing against.

[CaptainCrunch]

Humans are predators, we have canine teeth, we have a requirement for protein as part of our diet.

Peta and other organizations have forgotten that the universe is founded on the law of the jungle and only the strong survive. By killing animals we provide a service to the natural order of things by cleaning out the gene pool of the weaker species.

Its not our fault that we developed the use of the oppossible thumb and have the ability to use tools or weapons.

And to the whole cruelty and suffering thing, why isn't Peta protesting around Lion Prides in Africa, I'm sure that the animals that the Lions eat alive suffer a pretty horrible death. Why doesn't Peta go and tell off the Aligator that drowns its victim?

Death is suffering, and the desire to use lessor species as food sources, clothing items etc is just the way of things.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Humans are predators, we have canine teeth, we have a requirement for protein as part of our diet.

Peta and other organizations have forgotten that the universe is founded on the law of the jungle and only the strong survive. By killing animals we provide a service to the natural order of things by cleaning out the gene pool of the weaker species.

Its not our fault that we developed the use of the oppossible thumb and have the ability to use tools or weapons.

And to the whole cruelty and suffering thing, why isn't Peta protesting around Lion Prides in Africa, I'm sure that the animals that the Lions eat alive suffer a pretty horrible death. Why doesn't Peta go and tell off the Aligator that drowns its victim?

Death is suffering, and the desire to use lessor species as food sources, clothing items etc is just the way of things.

My belief is that humans have evolved past causing undue suffering to animals. Lions have not.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sowa

My belief is that humans have evolved past causing undue suffering to animals. Lions have not.

Yeah, I've yet to see proof of that.

We're a predatory species, designed to eat meat, kill and wage war, and perform the most evil acts possible without feeling any guilt about it.

Thats not ever going to change.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by jammies

No, I've said that humans have a duty not to cause undue suffering. That is not only not the same thing as animals having rights, it is part of the central point of my argument against such a thing, as animals have no such duty towards each other due to not being morally aware.

But animal death is undue suffering. Meat is not a necessity of human life.

Wanting something that is not a necessity is not immoral. It's not necessary to eat potatoes, either - does this mean that eating potatoes is immoral? Obviously not, so the immorality cannot lie in necessity.

I didn't say wanting something that is not a necessity is immoral. However, causing unnecessary death is.

No, I'm saying that by merely existing every human on the planet necessarily kills, and the degree of killing is all we are arguing over.

Or the intent of killing is what we are arguing over. We harm people all the time as well.

No, under my definition a HUMAN throwing a cat in a microwave is immoral, but not because the cat has any intrinsic rights, but because the human knows that causing gratuitous suffering is wrong.

Even ceding your definition and application of rights is correct, I still hold that killing animals for food is unnecessary.

You are confusing having morals with not having them, and it's rather difficult to understand how that confusion can arise considering I specifically gave examples to the contrary, not to mention that conclusion not making any sense.

I misread the last sentence of your previous statement.

This is entirely and completely incorrect in all ways and fashions through the history of this and any other universe containing humans.

You live in a building that animals were killed to erect; you eat food that animals were killed in the making of; you drink water that is purged of organisms before you drink it, sent from a reservoir that killed animals in its creation. Every product you use has undoubtedly killed more animals somewhere along its production, from the beetles that die when trees are felled for paper to the rodents that died in the building of the factory that made the monitor you are reading this on.

So it depends on what view of animal rights you abide by. Which I know you abide that they have none. Some animal rights philosophers say that only animals with cognitive abilities are afforded rights. For instance all 1 yr old. mammals have rights.

Just a few paragraphs back you said the fox's right to live by killing superseded the rabbit's right to life, so which is it? Either the tiger has a right to kill and the human does not, or maybe... just maybe, the idea of the tiger having a "right" is what is the problem.

Your confused. The rabbit has every chance to defend itself and run. The fox has the right to consume the rabbit by eating it for survival and the rabbit has a right to life so it is allowed to defend itself or run. Same goes for the tiger and the human. The human has a right to defend itself, but I don't believe he has the right to kill the tiger unnecessarily. The two statements don't contradict each other.

Again, I'm not giving cows any kind of rights, I am stressing the role of human responsibilities. You think I am giving out "rights" because you are stuck on the concept that animals have them, but I assure you that I have no such opinion and the continual misunderstanding of the difference between animal rights and human responsibilities is exactly what I am arguing against.

I keep handing out rights to animals because I believe they have them.
Your problem with all of this is you state your philosophy as fact. I don't know if you have read Roger Scruton but you are using his exact arguments. There are reasons these people are called philosophers. Because they all have a different philosophy of life. I understand you believe in this "theory" however it isn't fact, others are allowed to disagree with you.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Sowa,
I'm intrigued by your assertation that people killing animals for food is causing undue suffering.

How about this example.

If I'm out hunting and I shoot a deer and eat it is that causing it undue suffering?
I contend that in some cases it actually REDUCES the suffering of that deer.

Take as an example a deer that I let go and has a run in with a bear the next day and is killed and eaten anyway. Instead of a nice quick bullet to the heart, it is mauled by a bear and killed in an admittedly more greusome manner.

How are I and the bear different?
I'm an omnivore and do not NEED meat to survive, as is/does the bear?
In either case the deer went to sustain another life (that you seem to belive are of equal importance) but if I had been the one to eat it, then it would have gone through much less suffering.

An odd example I know and totally full of holes, but your arguement that humans do not need meat to survive is irrelevant. We've evolved to be able to eat meat and thus I don't see anything morally wrong with it.

On another note, where do you draw the line on which animals have rights and which don't?
Do insects have rights, does plankton, why don't plants have rights, the are afterall alive are they not?

[MaxPower]

I don't eat fruits or vegetables because I don't get the same sense of pride as I get from eating something that "suffered unduly."

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

I don't eat fruits or vegetables because I don't get the same sense of pride as I get from eating something that "suffered unduly."

Are you in that Wendy's commercial?

Meatatarians don't really turn on chicks. hehe

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Sowa,
I'm intrigued by your assertation that people killing animals for food is causing undue suffering.

How about this example.

If I'm out hunting and I shoot a deer and eat it is that causing it undue suffering?
I contend that in some cases it actually REDUCES the suffering of that deer.

Take as an example a deer that I let go and has a run in with a bear the next day and is killed and eaten anyway. Instead of a nice quick bullet to the heart, it is mauled by a bear and killed in an admittedly more greusome manner.

How are I and the bear different?
I'm an omnivore and do not NEED meat to survive, as is/does the bear?
In either case the deer went to sustain another life (that you seem to belive are of equal importance) but if I had been the one to eat it, then it would have gone through much less suffering.

An odd example I know and totally full of holes, but your arguement that humans do not need meat to survive is irrelevant. We've evolved to be able to eat meat and thus I don't see anything morally wrong with it.

The bear vs. human example doesn't work because obviously it's firstly a huge if statement. You admit it's full of holes so that's good, but its akin to saying I shot my wife because tomorrow she might get eaten by a bear.

I don't think capability determines morality. For instance, the United States has evolved into the world's most powerful country. Should the US be able to do what it wishes for instance take over Canada? In fact if the majority of people made the decision to stop eating meat would we not eventual evolve into a species that is complete herbivorous?

On another note, where do you draw the line on which animals have rights and which don't?
Do insects have rights, does plankton, why don't plants have rights, the are afterall alive are they not?

That's a very good question. Some as I stated above grant it to those with cognitive abilities. Some apply it to those who feel pain (which in itself is a grey area). I guess you find a philosophy that fits you.

PS the difference between a bear being an omnivore and us is that they eat for survival and base their decisions on instinct. We can reason that if we don't meat we can still survive. Rarely do bears actually eat meat 90% of their diet is plant based.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah, I've yet to see proof of that.

We're a predatory species, designed to eat meat, kill and wage war, and perform the most evil acts possible without feeling any guilt about it.

Thats not ever going to change.

Ok well i guess you are not idealist. I believe we should strive for an ideal world no matter how impossible it seems. I do feel guilty when I do any of the above things stated.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Sowa

The bear vs. human example doesn't work because obviously it's firstly a huge if statement. You admit it's full of holes so that's good, but its akin to saying I shot my wife because tomorrow she might get eaten by a bear.

I don't think capability determines morality. For instance, the United States has evolved into the world's most powerful country. Should the US be able to do what it wishes for instance take over Canada? In fact if the majority of people made the decision to stop eating meat would we not eventual evolve into a species that is complete herbivorous?


That's a very good question. Some as I stated above grant it to those with cognitive abilities. Some apply it to those who feel pain (which in itself is a grey area). I guess you find a philosophy that fits you.

So what is your philosophy then? Where do you draw the line.

Are you a vegan?
Do you eat chicken of fish?
If you are only against the beef industry do you have a problem with me killing and eating a deer or moose?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So what is your philosophy then? Where do you draw the line.

Are you a vegan?
Do you eat chicken of fish?
If you are only against the beef industry do you have a problem with me killing and eating a deer or moose?

1.Yes 2. no 3. depends on your definition of "problem"

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Sowa

The bear vs. human example doesn't work because obviously it's firstly a huge if statement. You admit it's full of holes so that's good, but its akin to saying I shot my wife because tomorrow she might get eaten by a bear.

That is a ridiculous comparison. Deer do get eaten by bears, even if it is rare. It's a part of nature. People don't typically get eaten by bears. That's not part of nature. It's not at all saying the same thing as shooting your wife...because (a) you aren't going to eat her and (b) she doesnt have the real chance of getting eaten by a bear. Your analogy of his analogy is terrible.

Originally Posted by Sowa

I don't think capability determines morality. For instance, the United States has evolved into the world's most powerful country. Should the US be able to do what it wishes for instance take over Canada? In fact if the majority of people made the decision to stop eating meat would we not eventual evolve into a species that is complete herbivorous?

This is not how evolution works. While that may happen at some point, it wouldn't be because people stopped eating meat. Evolutionary changes ONLY occur through genetic mutation. People's altered behaviour does nothing to the gene pool. If every single person stopped eating meat, it would not alter our DNA to remove the aspect of carnivorism (is that a word?). It would simply be a behavioural trait that people learn. People would still be born with teeth and digestive systems that are able to digest meat. Stopping the consumption of meat would not alter the DNA in any way and therefore would not alter humans ability to consume meat. By simply choosing to not eat meat, we would not evolve into a herbivorous species.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Ok well i guess you are not idealist. I believe we should strive for an ideal world no matter how impossible it seems. I do feel guilty when I do any of the above things stated.

Nope, I believe that I'm a realist, people are people, and the only thing that you get throughout mankinds evolution is a better killer and destroyer. We're not heading towards some utopian society based on peace and vegetarian living, we're heading towards a all out planet busting war for dominance and buckets of KFC for all.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

I don't eat fruits or vegetables because I don't get the same sense of pride as I get from eating something that "suffered unduly."

hmmm... yes, a fair point MaxPower. lol


I accept animal right activists' opinions as unique and interesting, though I do not usually agree with them on some of their certain core beliefs.


I'd suggest that most people have some degree of empathy for animals. Different people will naturally tolerate different levels of animal suffering - depending on the circumstances - before becoming uncomfortable->disturbed->angered by it.

If these assumptions are true, then the question really boils down into two parts: "What qualifies as undue animal suffering to you?", and then, "What should qualify as undue animal suffering for all people?".


For me, undue animal suffering can be characterized as: "any intentional and preventable maltreatment of an animal falling outside the scope of standardized killings (ie. cow slaughtering for the purpose of human consumption)."

Since all living organisms - incuding cows - will one day die anyways, I do not believe that it is unethical to kill an animal below us on the food chain. Since VERY FEW people in the history of the world have believed like you do, Sowa, I wonder what your opinion of these people are. How about the enlightened, intelligent, compassionate crowd of the 1800-1950 ... I wonder why they weren't likely to worry about the feelings of animals? What about the first pilgrims to North America -- should they not have killed animals for their nutritious meat and warm pelts? Were these individuals unevolved? Were they ignorant? Were they plain mean? Some of the Native Americans of Southern Alberta are well-known to this day for their unscrupulous buffalo hunting tactics - I'd be interested in your opinion of the Blackfoot tribes responsible for "Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump" near Lethbridge.


With all that said, I do believe the "standardized killings", as I called them, should be highly regulated. There are unnecessary procedures that should not be allowed and animal treatment should meet reasonable levels at all times in North America. I do not like to see animals get hurt or die (this is one reason I find it difficult to watch the rodeo, and TV shows like "Animal Rescue" really get to me - it sometimes makes me physically sick to see the horrifying scenes of animal cruelty present all around us). I think we should be proactive as a society in preventing the maltreatment of animals on many levels, but I do not think that the "killing" of animals - in and of itself - is the place to start. I believe there are acceptable means by which to end an animal's life; if these are followed and it's death is for the purpose of human consumption, then that is good enough for me.

I couldn't imagine a world without pepperoni pizza and chicken fajitas!