Do you see the tenuousness of the argument from morality when it comes to vegan/vegetarianism? If you make the choice, make it for personal reasons, or dietary reasons, but don't pretend that it's the 'moral' choice, because that is utterly subjective.
Simply put, if I look at the environmental degradation coupled with the suffering that growth-hormone riddled cows go through or worse, veal calves, I think it most certainly is a moral issue.
And of course we have removed ourselves from natural law. The ability to reason has done that. If we were to follow natural law, we would still enslave people, we'd eat our young, we'd commit all sorts of unspeakable crimes... but we've used our ability to reason, our ability to measure good vs evil, compassion vs suffering... to move beyond doing whatever is natural.
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.
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'.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
Personally in 50 years (too short?) when we can grow steaks and chicken wings genetically in vats without having to grow the whole animal I'll be happier for it. This debate can go away then too.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
For those saying that they value a seals life over a human.... I really don't know what to say to you. Thats PETA level of crazy.
For those saying this development is a bad thing.... that is a stupid (albeit much less so than the above statement) and uninformed opinion.
1) Taking 200 - 300 000 seals per year is not a sustainable practice. Their populations are already falling. Seals give birth to one pup at a time (twins very rare), have birth intervals >1 year, take at least 5 years to sexually mature, and a lot pups die in their first year naturally. That is not the type of species you can heavily exploit.
2) Polar bears and Artic foxes are already species in trouble... do you think taking 200 000 possible prey items out of the picture helps that situation? Who knows what other ecological consequences this hunt has. Orca whales prey on seals, but I'm not sure if any Artic groups do (some orca groups target fish, others whales, and others hunt seals).
3) A few thousand jobs (probably less) to me isn't as valuable as an entire species of seal (harp and hooded seals are targeted) and whatever associated animals depending on them.
Other than economic reasons, I don't see any reason to hunt these seals. The goods produced from seals all have cheaper, more accessable alternatives. The negative outcomes of the hunt far out-weigh the positives.
Humans have already negatively influenced almost every ecosystem on earth. Why can't we leave one of the few only mildly impacted environments alone?
The Following User Says Thank You to Jake For This Useful Post:
Some people can be so ignorant, Its like animal conservation is a big joke to them. Its almost a right wing agenda, "well If I can get richer at the expense of the environment its worth it"
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.
Well, first I think your first problem is that you've limited the debate to three flawed arguments that I most certainly have not put forth.
Let's start with:
"1) Animals are better off or happier in the wild than domesticated. "
I never suggested any such thing and wouldn't. I would argue that with the growth hormones, the cramped hen crates and conditions some animals such as veal calfs are raised in, it would be much much closer than you might think, but I think it all beside the point. The suffering in the wild is not my fault. The suffering caused by me eating veal is my fault. By choosing not to eat veal, decreases demand for veal, means less veal calves, means less animals suffering in the world. Who is responsible for the suffering is primary in the my argument and lost in yours.
"2) Domesticated food animals suffer from the conditions they live in."
There is still white veal available. But, uh oh, you just claimed that it is possible for the animals to be treated unethically. So you do agree that there is a line to be crossed of what we think is ethical vs unethical. So it is a moral issue. Thank you.
"3) Killing animals, for any reason, is morally wrong"
"would inevitably result in mass death from a host of vastly more excruciating causes"
That makes no sense whatsoever. None. If we stopped raising a billion head of cattle doesn't mean that we are going to release a billion head of cattle into the wild. We just stop breeding them.
"And you misused the word 'hubris'."
Not at all. I believe it is quite arrogant to stand up and say that someone elses beliefs are morality are fundamentally flawed. I personally believe that vegetarianism reduces suffering, but I don't push it on anyone and don't like to discuss it unless it is brought up (like in this case). I think it is a personal belief and I don't have any right to say that anyone elses belief system is wrong. I have said throughout this thread that this is my opinion and people are free to disagree with me. Your statement is that I am completely wrong, it is not a matter of opinion, because my opinion is crap. By stating that this is *NOT* a moral issue and that those that believe it is a moral issue are mislead fools is quite arrogant, no?
[/QUOTE]
The Following User Says Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
So do you visit factory farms often or small independently run cattle operations? Because the majority of meat is produced at factory farms where the livestock is generally mistreated. I would say that the majority of smaller independent cattle farms do treat their cattle well except for the whole murder part.
Yes I have been to large feedlots as well, and the same as the smaller operators applies.
Where are you getting your information from? I doubt you've actually visited any large cattle, hog or poultry operation.
And the definition of murder as a crime is killing another human being. Cows are not murdered, because killing a cow is not homicide. You can come up with any ridiculous word you want i.e. bovinicide, however slaughtering a cow is not murder.
Great idea. I would enjoy probably at least half of our athletes refusing to wear those uniforms and possibly even dropping out altogether. Leave politics out of the games.
ALL HUNTING should be banned period in any manner. Your bloodlust sickens me. I only laugh hearing about hunters killing each other or animals killing hunters. You are not humans, you are worse than Hitler/polpot/Stalin. At least they fought fairly, they are men, you are little girls. BTW ... the olympics sucks too so use this and maybe we will end this B.S. show for good. And if you want to know what's good in this world, just ask.
I am disturbed by the lack of clarity in the thread title:
"Europe bans Canadian seal products".
Are they banning products made for seals and, if so, where will discriminating European seals get their products from in the future? or
Are they banning products made by Canadian seals and, if so, how will our poor Canadian seals continue to make ends meet? The economy is tough enough already without unfairly cutting out the lovely crafts and simple household goods made by hardworking Canadian seals from the lucrative European market for seal-manufactured objects. or
Are they banning products made FROM Canadian seals? If so, I guess that makes more sense.
