http://blog.soylent.me/ Link appears to be real.
Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Absolutely.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Meat is (or at least can be, providing certain humane conditions in rearing and slaughter are met) justifiable killing.
(I actually thought that's what The Smiths should have called their 2nd album, but that fucking Morrissey always thinks he knows best...)
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Why not?
TruXta
tired
Oh please "I can't tolerate" boo fucking hoo. What's the ethical difference then?
TruXta
tired
Why are we special? We think we are, that's no good reason in itself. Special in relation to what?
andysays
Love and solidarity
The ethical difference derives from the fact that only humans are capable of ethical decisions, and our dealing with non-ethical beings are of a different kind to our dealings with ethical ones.
Because some ponce in a wig has decided on a definition of murder, then everyone else should subcribe to that definition?
My definition of murder is killing any animal without justification. I don't believe "Because it tastes better than Quorn" is sufficient justification.
What you're attempting to do is place that emotional barrier between you and the meat you eat. You distance yourself from them in every way possible, so as not to feel guilty about killing/eating them.
I'm no expert in ethics but clearly there are some differences between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom which could lead one to think that humans are "special" whatever that means.
FWIW I'm a smoker and an omnivore. Maybe that makes me less "special" than some animals?
I recognise the reductionist ethical viewpoint that any life is a life and all lives are equal ... but then what about vegetable rights? I don't see groups of people protesting farmers harvesting their crops...
TruXta
tired
That's not an argument. That's just you saying it is so. Why does the capacity for making ethical decisions (granting such a thing actually exists) have an ethical import as to how we treat animals?
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
For a start, we don't prosecute tigers for animal cruelty.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You keep saying this, even to people who have told you that they have killed animals to eat and are fine with it.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Don't say that. Animals cannot be murdered. It's impossible, emotive, drivel.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I think you need to read that one at least as far as the fourth word.
andysays
Love and solidarity
I think you'll find it's not just
but pretty much every coherent human system of ethics and legality which uses that definition and makes that distinction, but you're welcome to play Humpty Dumpty if you like.
TruXta
tired
Killing then. The point remains the same.
andysays
Love and solidarity
I'm afraid it's not just me saying so.
As far as I'm aware, all systems of ethics which don't start from a religious justfication include the idea that our ethics as humans depend on our recognising that all other humans also have that capacity, and that our ethical system has to be based on that.
TruXta
tired
I think you need to read a bit further. Our current situation where animals are strictly separate from humans, legally speaking, is not the historical norm.
TruXta
tired
Nice moving of the goal-posts there. As well as another non-argument. Again, why does the supposition that some humans (because all don't it seems) have the capacity for ethical reasoning mean that we should treat humans differently than animals?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And they were wrong from our point of view. No possibility of mens rea. Perhaps another animal could be socialised by humans to the extent where it recognises some basic human concepts of right and wrong and then could be held accountable. I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but I know of no successful case where it's been done.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
That's putting it mildly.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Would it make you feel better if I didn't use the word 'murder'? If I call it something more palatable will it change the fact the animal is dead, and was killed simply because we believe we have the right to kill it?
Semantics have no bearing on the morality of the act, yet you seem to be using it to somehow strengthen your argument...
andysays
Love and solidarity
Can I suggest that if you really want an answer to that question you go and read a book about ethics. It's not one which I feel qualified (or inclined, TBH) to attempt to answer on this thread ATM.
Sorry if that appears to be a cop out - it's really not meant to be.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Also, they won't address the concept of killing what we consider to be 'pest' animals like rats.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
You mean semantics don't have a bearing on whether euthanasia is morally wrong?
And by 'euthanasia', I mean 'paedophilia'.
TruXta
tired
I've read plenty of ethics (altho it's a while ago now), also specifically on animal rights. What I'm trying to point out here is that you (and many others, I'm not trying to single you out) has a belief that there is something unique about all humans that means that by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals. The difficulty with that line of argument is that it runs into trouble when we come to marginal cases - i.e. humans that don't seem to possess this virtue (whether that be ethical reasoning, language, rationality, autonomy etc etc). What then?
TruXta
tired
Yeah. You're extrapolating from the current situation and trying to make that sound like the historical norm, when that is patently false. Historically animals have been treated in various ways, sometimes in ways that are more commensurate with how a society treats humans, sometimes not (as currently). In other words, you're going from is to ought. Never go from is to ought.Are you saying you were actually being serious with post #580?
andysays
Love and solidarity
it's not a question of semantics. there is, I believe, an important ethical and moral distinction here which you and others appear not to recognise.
i've attempted to indicate* (in an admittedly curtailed and therefore ultimately inadequete way) where my ethical position is based. What ethical system are you using which persuades you that killing animals should be regarded exactly the same as killing humans?
*post 587 and others
Similar threads
