Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

[bcuster]

You do seem somewhat confused. On the one hand you're admonishing those of us who eat meat, because of the cruelty involved, while on the other hand you espouse the cruelty involved in protecting your food from those pesky rabbits. Do you not see why someone might accuse you of hypocrisy?

No, I don't. I see no inconsistency whatsoever

 

[WouldBe]

No, I don't. I see no inconsistency whatsoever

What about shooting foxes to stop them getting at your chickens? That must be ok as your protecting your food supply.

 

[bcuster]

What about shooting foxes to stop them getting at your chickens? That must be ok as your protecting your food supply.

That’s illegal where I live

 

[Jeff Robinson]

So killing animals to grow veg is defensive killing?

Yes it is. In law and common morality, self-defence includes defence of property. It’s true that killing a human to defend property is rightly generally considered disproportionate (US South notwithstanding) and it will often neither be necessary nor proportionate (and hence not justified) to kill field animals to defend crops.

To reiterate, I’m not justifying present practices of killing field animals in crop agriculture, rather I’m suggesting that it is not in the same moral category as breeding animals to exploit and kill. The ‘defence’ argument was one of several different arguments I presented to suggest a distinction. Alone perhaps it may not be compelling to everyone, but it should be seen as part of a cluster of arguments suggesting a distinction.

Now to address some of the challenges to the defence argument presented here.

First, there’s the argument that the animal ‘ends up dead either way’ so what’s the difference between the meat and crop industry? That response would be decisive if we were to embrace a consequentialist ethic which says the only thing that matters morally are consequences. But such a view is controversial and runs counter to most people’s views of ethics that are sensitive not only to outcomes but also the means by which outcomes are brought about. Our moral and legal systems distinguish between killing by acts and omissions, deliberate vs accidental killings and killings that are opportunistic/exploitative vs killings that are defensive. As such I think we have reason to doubt that all killings carry the same moral weight.

Second there’s the argument that in the human context the intent of the attacker renders the self-defence paradigm inapplicable to field animals who are just innocently doing what they need to survive. However, it’s not clear that the intention of the attacker is necessary to engage the right of self defence. In the self-defence literature there’s much discussion of so-called “innocent threats” - individuals who pose a threat to you through no fault of their own (e.g a sleep walker, somebody who had been drugged/hypnotised against their will, a hiker who has fallen of a cliff whilst attached by a rope to another climber, a toddler playing with a loaded gun, a heavy person who’s been pushed from a height etc.) There was a famous case in the early 2000s where one of the judges on the court of appeal found that doctors who performed an operation separating conjoined twins - and thereby killing the weaker one - would not commit murder because the weaker twin was an “innocent threat” slowly killing the other twin. So it’s not clear that the right to self-defence requires intent or culpability on behalf of the attacker, but even supposing it does, there’s still surely a difference between defending yourself from an innocent threat and inflicting violence on an individual who poses no threat to you whatsoever. We wouldn’t judge a human as harshly for defending themselves from an innocent threat as we would a straight up murderer or assaulter killing someone for money.

Third, to my mind the most serious challenge, the one relating to proportionality. Yes shooting a rabbit to stop them nibbling on lettuce can’t be justified. Self defence needs to meet at least 3 conditions to justified: (1) just cause, (2) necessity: (3) proportionality. Many killings of field animals to protect crops undoubtedly don’t meet criteria (2) & (3). But would it be possible to build an agricultural system with no such measures to control so-called “pests”? If such measures are needed to prevent failure of crop yields or the spread of disease then killing would be a proportionate response (if all reasonable alternatives were exhausted). In fact, we’re not really talking about property rights at all, we’re talking about basic needs like sustenance and bodily integrity. In a country like Britain there are no similarly weighty interests justifying animal product consumption, which really boils down to tradition, palate preference and convenience.

Finally, isn’t it better to kill animals to eat them rather than to simply eliminate the threat they pose? My view is no, not necessarily. Would it be better to kill a human in self-defence or kill them to extract their organs? Most, I suspect would say the former. Why would we say that? One reason might be because we view humans as having a certain dignity meaning it’s wrong to instrumentalise them in such a way. Many people also feel the same way about some animals - it would be wrong for people to shoot their pet dogs or cats to turn them into meat products, it’s wrong when people kill lions and elephants to turn them into trophies. Vegans extend this to cows, pigs, sheep and chickens too, that it’s wrong to treat them as mere resources to use. The animal eater can counter by identifying a morally relevant difference that justifies treating farmed animals differently from humans, dogs and lions in this respect. They may, for example, be tempted to say that farmed animals were bred to be killed, but if one thinks about that purported justification for more than a second they’d realise how weak it is and how many unappealing counter-examples it throws up.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Monbiot on Animal Rising's investigation into systematic cruelty on RSPCA-assured farms:

If you mistreat your dog or cat or horse or rabbit, you can expect an investigation by the RSPCA. If the case is serious enough, it could lead to prosecution. If you abuse animals on an industrial scale, you might face not investigation and prosecution, but active support and a public relations campaign to help you sell your products...

I worked for a few months as a teenager on an intensive pig farm, and thought I had seen the worst. But I found the photo and video evidence the investigators compiled so distressing that they were almost unwatchable. They show pigs crammed together in filthy and squalid conditions, highly stressed, attacking each other, severe wounds and diseases untreated, some animals in extreme pain, others left to die slowly, in one case in a pool of excrement, tails cut off by farmhands, an absence of either bedding or “enrichment” materials to relieve boredom and distress.

They record chickens packed so tightly that they could scarcely move, pecking each other almost bald as a result of the stressful and crowded conditions, living birds left in a morass of faeces and decomposing bodies, chicks dying of dehydration and starvation, chickens picked up by their legs and hurled into crates when they are caught for slaughter. They record salmon missing their eyes and other body parts as they are rubbed raw in their cages by overcrowding or are eaten by sea lice. In some cases the fish appear to have been cooked alive by the drastic heat treatment used for louse removal.

How Britain’s oldest animal welfare charity became a byword for cruelty on an industrial scale | George Monbiot

As it celebrates 200 years, the RSPCA is helping endorse indefensible abuse in factory farms, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes it is. In law and common morality, self-defence includes defence of property. It’s true that killing a human to defend property is rightly generally considered disproportionate (US South notwithstanding) and it will often neither be necessary nor proportionate (and hence not justified) to kill field animals to defend crops.

To reiterate, I’m not justifying present practices of killing field animals in crop agriculture, rather I’m suggesting that it is not in the same moral category as breeding animals to exploit and kill. The ‘defence’ argument was one of several different arguments I presented to suggest a distinction. Alone perhaps it may not be compelling to everyone, but it should be seen as part of a cluster of arguments suggesting a distinction.

Now to address some of the challenges to the defence argument presented here.

First, there’s the argument that the animal ‘ends up dead either way’ so what’s the difference between the meat and crop industry? That response would be decisive if we were to embrace a consequentialist ethic which says the only thing that matters morally are consequences. But such a view is controversial and runs counter to most people’s views of ethics that are sensitive not only to outcomes but also the means by which outcomes are brought about. Our moral and legal systems distinguish between killing by acts and omissions, deliberate vs accidental killings and killings that are opportunistic/exploitative vs killings that are defensive. As such I think we have reason to doubt that all killings carry the same moral weight.

Second there’s the argument that in the human context the intent of the attacker renders the self-defence paradigm inapplicable to field animals who are just innocently doing what they need to survive. However, it’s not clear that the intention of the attacker is necessary to engage the right of self defence. In the self-defence literature there’s much discussion of so-called “innocent threats” - individuals who pose a threat to you through no fault of their own (e.g a sleep walker, somebody who had been drugged/hypnotised against their will, a hiker who has fallen of a cliff whilst attached by a rope to another climber, a toddler playing with a loaded gun, a heavy person who’s been pushed from a height etc.) There was a famous case in the early 2000s where one of the judges on the court of appeal found that doctors who performed an operation separating conjoined twins - and thereby killing the weaker one - would not commit murder because the weaker twin was an “innocent threat” slowly killing the other twin. So it’s not clear that the right to self-defence requires intent or culpability on behalf of the attacker, but even supposing it does, there’s still surely a difference between defending yourself from an innocent threat and inflicting violence on an individual who poses no threat to you whatsoever. We wouldn’t judge a human as harshly for defending themselves from an innocent threat as we would a straight up murderer or assaulter killing someone for money.

Third, to my mind the most serious challenge, the one relating to proportionality. Yes shooting a rabbit to stop them nibbling on lettuce can’t be justified. Self defence needs to meet at least 3 conditions to justified: (1) just cause, (2) necessity: (3) proportionality. Many killings of field animals to protect crops undoubtedly don’t meet criteria (2) & (3). But would it be possible to build an agricultural system with no such measures to control so-called “pests”? If such measures are needed to prevent failure of crop yields or the spread of disease then killing would be a proportionate response (if all reasonable alternatives were exhausted). In fact, we’re not really talking about property rights at all, we’re talking about basic needs like sustenance and bodily integrity. In a country like Britain there are no similarly weighty interests justifying animal product consumption, which really boils down to tradition, palate preference and convenience.

Finally, isn’t it better to kill animals to eat them rather than to simply eliminate the threat they pose? My view is no, not necessarily. Would it be better to kill a human in self-defence or kill them to extract their organs? Most, I suspect would say the former. Why would we say that? One reason might be because we view humans as having a certain dignity meaning it’s wrong to instrumentalise them in such a way. Many people also feel the same way about some animals - it would be wrong for people to shoot their pet dogs or cats to turn them into meat products, it’s wrong when people kill lions and elephants to turn them into trophies. Vegans extend this to cows, pigs, sheep and chickens too, that it’s wrong to treat them as mere resources to use. The animal eater can counter by identifying a morally relevant difference that justifies treating farmed animals differently from humans, dogs and lions in this respect. They may, for example, be tempted to say that farmed animals were bred to be killed, but if one thinks about that purported justification for more than a second they’d realise how weak it is and how many unappealing counter-examples it throws up.

You tie yourself up in tortuous logical knots. Flitting between the morality of human action on other humans and the morality of human action on other animals as if they were somehow equivalent. They're not. So what you say is mostly just a bunch of nothing.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You tie yourself up in tortuous logical knots. Flitting between the morality of human action on other humans and the morality of human action on other animals as if they were somehow equivalent. They're not. So what you say is mostly just a bunch of nothing.

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. I promise I'll try harder next time. However, whilst I appreciate your thought-provoking refutation of my views, you've only really told me where I'm going wrong. I'd also like to know how I could be right like you. Any tips?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think it's worth analysing. Soz.

 

[bcuster]

It's not a bunch of nothing. Self defense can take different forms and different proportions dependent on the nature and circumstances of the threat.
LBJ, you're the one looking for moral equivalence and justification for immoral behavior
.
The meat eaters have no comment on Jeff's initial post today regarding cruelty in the meat industry. Not surprising...

 

[editor]

If anything, animal welfare is getting worse, with farmers under increasing pressure from cost-cutting supermarkets, the huge expansion of factory farms, the Red Tractor scheme being totally incapable of guaranteeing of high standards and the majority of consumers - the ones who could really make a difference at the end of the day - only interested in gorging on endless cheap meat.

I get why people can become totally disconnected from the death of an animal to the delicious meal on their plate, but anyone who just shrugs their shoulders at the videos and photos of the outrageous cruelty inflicted on animals, or indulges in increasingly arcane whataboutery to justify their meat habit can go fuck themselves.

 

[Saul Goodman]

It's not a bunch of nothing. Self defense can take different forms and different proportions dependent on the nature and circumstances of the threat.
LBJ, you're the one looking for moral equivalence and justification for immoral behavior
.
The meat eaters have no comment on Jeff's initial post today regarding cruelty in the meat industry. Not surprising...

Is it as cruel as a rabbit being poisoned and dying an agonising death?
One of my cats was poisoned. It took him about 12 hours to die from the time I realised something was wrong. It was the worst death you could wish on anything. His organs shutting down, and all I could do was watch him die.
And you think that's less cruel than a bolt to the brain?

 

[bcuster]

Is it as cruel as a rabbit being poisoned and dying an agonising death?
One of my cats was poisoned. It took him about 12 hours to die from the time I realised something was wrong. It was the worst death you could wish on anything. His organs shutting down, and all I could do was watch him die.
And you think that's less cruel than a bolt to the brain?

It's equally cruel as the conditions described in Jeff's initial post today. Neither your cat, nor the farm animals described above, deserved what they got

If better and more humane ways to safeguard human food supplies are available, they should be utilized...

 

[editor]

Is it as cruel as a rabbit being poisoned and dying an agonising death?
One of my cats was poisoned. It took him about 12 hours to die from the time I realised something was wrong. It was the worst death you could wish on anything. His organs shutting down, and all I could do was watch him die.
And you think that's less cruel than a bolt to the brain?

Why didn't you take him to a vet immediately?

And it's ludicrous to compare the life of a domestic pet with that of a factory farmed animal.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Why didn't you take him to a vet immediately?

And it's ludicrous to compare the life of a domestic pet with that of a factory farmed animal.

I did take him to the vet, immediately. The vet gave him a shitload of injections and said take him home and hope for the best.
That was the result of somebody putting poison down to protect their precious crops.

 

[bcuster]

I did take him to the vet, immediately. The vet gave him a shitload of injections and said take him home and hope for the best.
That was the result of somebody putting poison down to protect their precious crops.

I'm truly sorry for your loss.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I'm truly sorry for your loss.

Thanks, it was horrible watching him die like that. There should be a ban on poisons. Indiscriminately killing any animal that's feeling a tad peckish, lest it might nibble on an ear of corn.

 

[bcuster]

Thanks, it was horrible watching him die like that. There should be a ban on poisons. Indiscriminately killing any animal that's feeling a tad peckish, lest it might nibble on an ear of corn.

I'd agree in principle. The problem comes when thousands of acres of corn are nibbled on.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Interesting development:

Denmark will tax livestock farmers for greenhouse gases emitted by their cows, sheep and pigs from 2030, according to a radical new proposal by the Danish government.

The deal was reached late on Monday between the centre-right government and representatives of farmers, the industry and unions.

Danish livestock farmers will be taxed 300 kroner (€40.2) per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030, and the tax will increase to 750 kroner (€100.5) by 2035...

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation, the largest nature conservation and environmental organisation in Denmark, described the tax agreement as “a historic compromise”.

"We have succeeded in landing a compromise on a CO2 tax, which lays the groundwork for a restructured food industry — also on the other side of 2030,” its head, Maria Reumert Gjerding, said.

Denmark cow and pig 'flatulence tax' to be rolled out in 2030

The Scandinavian country pitched a 'flatulence tax' scheme, which was met with industry-wide support and is expected to be carried by the national parliament. #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

I have somewhat mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm glad to see initiatives that increase the social stigma and economic cost of animal products.

On the other, it depends how (or if) it shifts consumer behaviour. For example, if the tax increases the price of ruminant flesh products and this in turn leads people to increasing their consumption of chicken or turkey flesh instead then that would be worse in terms of animal welfare. If consumers subbed the beef and lamb for lentils I’d be unreservedly down with this, but the fear that it may lead to an increase in more animal suffering makes me hesitant.

 

[WouldBe]

How would they tax the methane emissions? Strap gas meters to the cows bums?

 

[bcuster]

Chicken is still incredibly cheap here. Sometimes less than $2/lb even for breast white meat.
Beef is hard to find below $7/lb. Certain cuts double that.

There must be legislation imposed that increases chicken welfare and the meat industry should bear the costs

How could anyone have a problem with this?

 

[editor]

How would they tax the methane emissions? Strap gas meters to the cows bums?

I'm sure a grown up like you can work this one out.

 

[WouldBe]

I'm sure a grown up like you can work this one out.

When top scientists can't work it out and it depends what they are eating you're putting a lot a faith in me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

When top scientists can't work it out and it depends what they are eating you're putting a lot a faith in me.

What they're eating and where they are eating it.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Chicken is still incredibly cheap here. Sometimes less than $2/lb even for breast white meat.
Beef is hard to find below $7/lb. Certain cuts double that.

There must be legislation imposed that increases chicken welfare and the meat industry should bear the costs

How could anyone have a problem with this?

You'd think so, but when i suggested as much once, this is what Urban's very own font of wisdom and compassion littlebabyjesus had to say:

So basically bollocks to em. chicken for the rich. Maybe you'll get the bones to make a soup.

Fuck you. If you think fuck you to anyone who wants to eat meat, then I say fuck you.

I can disagree with you, but I don't also have to say 'fuck you' to you. You apparently do.

Reread your post. It was a convoluted 'fuck you'.

I can respect a position and also disagree fucking violently with it, btw, if someone starts to put it. (JR note - emphasis added)

LBJ is clearly a very stable genius, so I'm currently reconsidering my prior views on this topic, given he has so throughly debunked them.

 

[Funky_monks]

Ah, its so awesome to come back from Groundswell to this pile of bollocks.

Couple of days spent looking at people actually measuring how livestock increase carbon sequestration, can increase biodiversity etc etc (which is what the topic originally was), spoke to lots of academics who certainly don't believe that livestock are killing the planet too....

Oh well.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sure a grown up like you can work this one out.

So you say you're putting me on ignore then laugh along with some twat digging up old posts by me to slag me off?

You can be a fucking shithead sometimes, you know that? A hypocritical fucking shithead.

 

[Funky_monks]

So you say you're putting me on ignore then laugh along with some twat digging up old posts by me to slag me off?

You can be a fucking shithead sometimes, you know that? A hypocritical fucking shithead.

It's odd that it was Jeff of all people doing that, given his general propensity towards a throwing a fuckton of personal abuse at people.

 

[Funky_monks]

First, there’s the argument that the animal ‘ends up dead either way’ so what’s the difference between the meat and crop industry? That response would be decisive if we were to embrace a consequentialist ethic which says the only thing that matters morally are consequences. But such a view is controversial and runs counter to most people’s views of ethics that are sensitive not only to outcomes but also the means by which outcomes are brought about. Our moral and legal systems distinguish between killing by acts and omissions, deliberate vs accidental killings and killings that are opportunistic/exploitative vs killings that are defensive. As such I think we have reason to doubt that all killings carry the same moral weight.

Jesus wept.
they are the same fucking industry.

Even with petrochemical fert they are so reliant on each other.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

So you say you're putting me on ignore then laugh along with some twat digging up old posts by me to slag me off?

You can be a fucking shithead sometimes, you know that? A hypocritical fucking shithead.

Sincere apologies if that's how you interpreted my post. I dug up those gold nuggets because I think they're awesome and, like many of your other contributions to these threads, they've inspired me to have a long, hard think about some of the positions I've defended on here.

same fucking industry.

It's odd that it was Jeff of all people doing that, given his general propensity towards a throwing a fuckton of personal abuse at people.

Well, you know what they say about imitation and flattery right?

 

[Funky_monks]

Christ.
You consider my use of "fucking" in that context a personal insult?

Are you doing this because you know you've lost the argument and now just want to act in as petulant a manner as possible?

On this thread I've had so much personal abuse thrown at me, often by Jeff which goes beyond name calling to my career and even my existence. It's been made perfectly clear that Jeff thinks I'm subhuman.

And yet, he has the gall to go trawling back through threads for past insults?