Thread: Moral discussion: Why do you eat animals?

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, I wasn't actually. It doesn't matter how quick it happens. Even though I specified "over time".
The point is, most of the animals would not exist that the vegetarians are trying to protect.

Just to be clear, I already know this is faulty reasoning, but it follows from the standpoint most vegetarians have on the issue, and I
want to see if they can counteract the point.

One principle that affects me (I can only speak for myself) is avoidance of pain over promotion of pleasure. The other is disregard for that which is artificial.

Wow, you made me think of this in a whole new light. My perception has been that animals (excluding humans) are more capable of suffering than they are of pleasure. This may be a bad assumption. However, in light of this new idea, I can still doubt whether or not animals in captivity can experience the heights of emotional bliss that free creatures can feel. I do, however, think that animals are capable of feeling every inch of the depths of agony that humans can. I have seen animals put in the utmost positions by agony at human hands. So, what you have said about vegetarians wanting to "protect" these animals does not capture the entire scope of the situation.

My other point is about disregarding the artificial. I'll stick with cows for simplicity sake. There would be no such thing as a cow as we know it today if it were not for human intervention. I'm not sure the average person understands what a deliberate, intensive, invasive process "domestication" is. The species of "cow" is artificial, by any definition. They enjoy a strange distinction that few other species have, in that they have an intelligible purpose from their creator. That purpose is food.

Does this make any sense? I'm not really going the full distance with what I have written so far.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

You want to see if vegetarians can counteract the reasoning which you admitted to be faulty? What?

Because I was following on from their reasoning; I am explaining their reasoning to them, in a different way. So that they
understand what they're saying.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

One principle that affects me (I can only speak for myself) is avoidance of pain over promotion of pleasure. The other is disregard for that which is artificial.

Wow, you made me think of this in a whole new light. My perception has been that animals (excluding humans) are more capable of suffering than they are of pleasure. This may be a bad assumption. However, in light of this new idea, I can still doubt whether or not animals in captivity can experience the heights of emotional bliss that free creatures can feel. I do, however, think that animals are capable of feeling every inch of the depths of agony that humans can. I have seen animals put in the utmost positions by agony at human hands. So, what you have said about vegetarians wanting to "protect" these animals does not capture the entire scope of the situation.

My other point is about disregarding the artificial. I'll stick with cows for simplicity sake. There would be no such thing as a cow as we know it today if it were not for human intervention. I'm not sure the average person understands what a deliberate, intensive, invasive process "domestication" is. The species of "cow" is artificial, by any definition. They enjoy a strange distinction that few other species have, in that they have an intelligible purpose from their creator. That purpose is food.

Does this make any sense? I'm not really going the full distance with what I have written so far.

It makes sense. But it doesn't relate really to what I was saying.
"So, what you have said about vegetarians wanting to "protect" these animals does not capture the entire scope of the situation."
That ^ doesn't really follow from what you said before it.

Your argument may be that you want animals to be able to experience more pleasure, heightened pleasure.
But these animals would not exist without us having domesticated them, or if we stop eating them and they therefore cease to exist again.

Originally Posted by tommo

Because I was following on from their reasoning; I am explaining their reasoning to them, in a different way. So that they
understand what they're saying.


It makes sense. But it doesn't relate really to what I was saying.
"So, what you have said about vegetarians wanting to "protect" these animals does not capture the entire scope of the situation."
That ^ doesn't really follow from what you said before it.

Your argument may be that you want animals to be able to experience more pleasure, heightened pleasure.
But these animals would not exist without us having domesticated them, or if we stop eating them and they therefore cease to exist again.

Well what you're saying is not much different from those "potential life" arguments used against contraceptive methods and abortions. Not creating something is not the same as killing something. You're painting the picture as if global vegetarianism would cause some sort of mass genocide, when what would actually happen is that farm animals' births would decrease.

You also speak as if "humane" farming was the norm or sustainable for feeding the entire population, but I don't think that's the case.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Well what you're saying is not much different from those "potential life" arguments used against contraceptive methods and abortions. Not creating something is not the same as killing something. You're painting the picture as if global vegetarianism would cause some sort of mass genocide, when what would actually happen is that farm animals' births would decrease.

You also speak as if "humane" farming was the norm or sustainable for feeding the entire population, but I don't think that's the case.

To be fair, in a Capitalistic market, the farmers aren't going to wait for the cows to die of natural causes. That would cause immense profit loss. But this is assuming a massive unanimous shift to vegetarianism. If it were a gradual process spanning a couple generations, then farmers would have time to adjust the birth rate. There would still be animals killed to reduce supply, but not nearly as many.

Originally Posted by tommo

Because I was following on from their reasoning; I am explaining their reasoning to them, in a different way. So that they
understand what they're saying.


It makes sense. But it doesn't relate really to what I was saying.
"So, what you have said about vegetarians wanting to "protect" these animals does not capture the entire scope of the situation."
That ^ doesn't really follow from what you said before it.

Your argument may be that you want animals to be able to experience more pleasure, heightened pleasure.
But these animals would not exist without us having domesticated them, or if we stop eating them and they therefore cease to exist again.

I guess the point I've been beating around is that you are bringing up one of the few problematic, eccentric corners of utilitarianism. In my opinion, any moral system that thinks it can prescribe action for every possible situation will have flaws. Utilitarianism is a popular one and it is normally very stable but when you start talking like this, the flaws of taking it to the extreme start to show. I don't think that creating life for the pleasure it will experience during it's time is the right thing to do, because of logical conclusions such as overpopulation.

If I take the position that people should not harm animals, it does not follow from this that people should give animals pleasure.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I guess the point I've been beating around is that you are bringing up one of the few problematic, eccentric corners of utilitarianism. In my opinion, any moral system that thinks it can prescribe action for every possible situation will have flaws. Utilitarianism is a popular one and it is normally very stable but when you start talking like this, the flaws of taking it to the extreme start to show. I don't think that creating life for the pleasure it will experience during it's time is the right thing to do, because of logical conclusions such as overpopulation.

If I take the position that people should not harm animals, it does not follow from this that people should give animals pleasure.

Or create animals solely for them to experience pleasure. I agree.
But some people seem to be saying exactly that.

Maybe I haven't stated my argument clearly enough, or people like stonedape and scatterbrain haven't read my post properly, since they still think I believe what I'm saying. When I clearly stated multiple times that I'm simply explaining and expanding from others arguments. I don't think many people understand that one can explore something without agreeing with it.

Oh well.