|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Once it’s a moral absolute you’ve got problems unless it’s a moral absolute shared by most of society. Yeah that's the problem with the "no touch tuesdays" comparison. Everyone already believes that human child abuse is bad, but not everyone really believes that killing animals for meat is bad. The child welfare worker isn't trying to shift social mores the way the vegan advocate is. It's two different beasts.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Yeah you’re not going to be particularly effective like that outside of the already vegan. Yes. Just like other moral issues we have made progress on over time. I'm not going to list any because you would get hung up on any comparison I make, but there are tons of examples in history where things were common practice and accepted as normal or even right by the populace but moral progress was made and society got better. I'm not sure why you think being consistent on a moral issue would be less effective. I have 4 reasons but even if the latter 3 did not exist the moral argument is enough. Moral argument: Animals are sentient beings who can experience suffering and we should avoid exploiting them where possible and practicable. This is a moral emergency. Environmental argument: Animal exploitation is a leading cause of climate change, deforestation, habitat loss, biodiversity loss, ocean deadzones, many other examples of environmental degredation. This is an existential threat to humanity. Anti-biotic resistance: Animal exploitation is the leading cause of anti-biotic resistance. This is an existential threat to humanity. Zoonotic disease risk: Animal exploitation is the leading cause of zoonotic diseases. SARS, MERS, H1N1, COVID. None of these arguments would be strengthened by me saying "While I'm against exploiting and harming animals for burgers and cheese, I think Meatless Mondays is good enough". I can acknowledge that Meatless Mondays is better than literally nothing but also not a morally consistent choice or the end goal. If you feel that it's a problem enough that you need to reduce I would ask why and go from there. XboxPants posted:Yeah that's the problem with the "no touch tuesdays" comparison. Everyone already believes that human child abuse is bad, but not everyone really believes that killing animals for meat is bad. The child welfare worker isn't trying to shift social mores the way the vegan advocate is. It's two different beasts. Ok, going forward I'll say it's like asking a dog welfare advocate to be satisfied with "no gently caress fridays". The key is the alliteration though so I need to find another family friendly one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
DrBox posted:not a morally consistent choice or the end goal. Are moral absolutes things that have reality independent of us or are they ideas we construct?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Are moral absolutes things that have reality independent of us or are they ideas we construct? I do not believe moral truth a fact of the universe that can be found by looking in a telescope. You have to choose what to value and build out a moral system from there, but an epistemical conversation is pointless when we can simply work within someone's existing moral framework. I have talked to people who argue animals are automations or ours to dominate as a good given right but for 99% of people they either are not ok with factory farming, or are not ok with that treatment for all animals, or ok with it for animals but not for humans. In every one of those there is an inconsistency or contradiction to point out and plant the idea that they can live more in line with the values they already hold by going vegan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I do not believe moral truth a fact of the universe that can be found by looking in a telescope. You have to choose what to value and build out a moral system from there, but an epistemical conversation is pointless when we can simply work within someone's existing moral framework. There’s yer contradiction. When you are an absolutist you are not doing this : “we can simply work within someone's existing moral framework.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:There’s yer contradiction. When you are an absolutist you are not doing this : “we can simply work within someone's existing moral framework.” No. When I say dog fighting is bad I am being an absolutist. When I'm trying to convince Micheal Vick why it's bad I'm going to work with the values he holds to convince him rather than have an epistemc argument about what truth means. DrBox fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
DrBox posted:In every one of those there is an inconsistency or contradiction to point out and plant the idea that they can live more in line with the values they already hold by going vegan. Yes, but: DrBox posted:The religious ones are the ones that cannot see past social conditioning and understand that the lines between "food animal" and "companion animal" are arbitrary and the morally consistent view should be to not exploit animals where possible regardless of species. There is dogma around not pushing any personal accountability at all. What if they don't want to be accountable for their choices? If your argument is that the worldwide slaughter of millions of animals is a moral emergency (which I think is fair btw) and that the other person is a part of this terrible thing, it makes it very difficult, psychologically speaking, to accept. People get defensive and totally shut down and won't consider your arguments any more. In other words, when you're talking to people who are currently full-time meat eaters, it is often almost impossible for your ideas to be heard at all. Once someone starts trying veganism, even part time, an occasional meal, they're suddenly much more open to the idea because they don't feel like the very concept is a direct attack on them, personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:What if they don't want to be accountable for their choices? If your argument is that the worldwide slaughter of millions of animals is a moral emergency (which I think is fair btw) and that the other person is a part of this terrible thing, it makes it very difficult, psychologically speaking, to accept. People get defensive and totally shut down and won't consider your arguments any more. No one WANTs to consider themselves guilty of bad things, I agree, but none of this is a reason for me to lie to someone and tell them that reducing the harm they do is good enough of they themselves are acknowledging that it is harm. I will call it a good start and will link veganuary or challenge22.com and suggest that try cutting out all animal products today and see how it goes. I am not advocating people run down the street pouring red paint on people and screaming at them, I was pointing out why an ethical vegan could not advocate for merely reduction. Pointing out harmful choices is not an attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
DrBox posted:, I was pointing out why an ethical vegan could not advocate for merely reduction. Pointing out harmful choices is not an attack. Nah they don’t have to build the same beliefs you did. Nor arrive at them for the same reasons. They very much could advocate for those things consistently. The internal consistency of their beliefs doesn’t have to be judged by an external consistency with yours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Nah they don’t have to build the same beliefs you did. Nor arrive at them for the same reasons. I'm judging the consistency based on their own stated beliefs. If you talk to someone and they say "Yes I think cutting a cow's throat for a sandwich I do not need is wrong and therefore I'm going to try meatless mondays" they are being inconsistent because doing a bad thing 6 out of 7 days does not suddenly make it good. It only means you're doing the bad thing less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I'm judging the consistency based on their own stated beliefs. If you talk to someone and they say "Yes I think cutting a cow's throat for a sandwich I do not need is wrong and therefore I'm going to try meatless mondays" they are being inconsistent because doing a bad thing 6 out of 7 days does not suddenly make it good. It only means you're doing the bad thing less. Is that better or worse for the ongoing moral emergency?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Ok, now say you convince them this is morally inconsistent, and they say "well I really don't think I can handle going fully vegan right now, poo poo" and scrap meatless Monday. I don't understand why me convincing them of the moral inconsistency would suddenly make them abandon any attempt at reduction. The options are: 1. Advocate for elimination of all animal products. Give resources to help with this. If they tell me they are going to try to reduce I say that's a good start but reducing harm is still harm so take it one meal at a time, be forgiving of mistakes and good luck on the journey. They either try all elimination or reduce. 2. Advocate for reduction. Give resources to help with this. They reduce and consider that good enough. Why would option 1 be worse? Why are we so ready to infantilize people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I'm judging the consistency based on their own stated beliefs. If you talk to someone and they say "Yes I think cutting a cow's throat for a sandwich I do not need is wrong and therefore I'm going to try meatless mondays" they are being inconsistent because doing a bad thing 6 out of 7 days does not suddenly make it good. It only means you're doing the bad thing less. That's assuming it's possible for the other person to make the move to doing the bad thing 0/7 days. Maybe it's not. It's "as far as is possible and practicable", right? You don't know what their needs are. This comes across to me as a very bootstrappy, "just try harder" mentality to me. Sometimes, even when people are aware that what they are doing is harmful, they find themselves unable to change at the pace they want. Doing the best they can to move along that road isn't inconsistent. Recovery is a long road; think of it like an addiction. There's evidence that cheese, for instance, has components (casomorphins) that literally affect us like opiates. When a smoker decides "smoking is harmful so I'm going to start only smoking half a pack a day, that's the best I can handle atm" that seems perfectly consistent to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
DrBox posted:No one WANTs to consider themselves guilty of bad things, I agree, but none of this is a reason for me to lie to someone and tell them that reducing the harm they do is good enough of they themselves are acknowledging that it is harm. I will call it a good start and will link veganuary or challenge22.com and suggest that try cutting out all animal products today and see how it goes. I consider myself an ethical vegan and 1000% advocate for “mere” reduction. I absolutely love meatless Mondays and think it’s done so much to help fight the livestock industry. I don’t know if you’re American, but it’s so, so much easier to have people here reduce their consumption than to eliminate it. I’d rather have the total amount of meat consumed reduced than to possibly have a few more people who are vegan
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:That's assuming it's possible for the other person to make the move to doing the bad thing 0/7 days. Maybe it's not. It's "as far as is possible and practicable", right? You don't know what their needs are. This comes across to me as a very bootstrappy, "just try harder" mentality to me. I agree there are challenges to stopping but again, that has nothing to do with the moral argument. Complaints about "boostrappy" arguments are just treating people like children. For most people eating fully plant based in a achievable goal that can result in a healthier diet and lower grocery bills. If someone literally cannot do it for whatever reason, well I am not talking to them just like I'm not talking to the poor subsistence farmer in whatever tiny country people trot out as a reason why they cannot make different choices at the grocery store. I think people are misunderstanding me or we're talking past each other so I'll try to clarify one last time: I think reduction is a good thing but that is separate from the moral argument. I was just yesterday suggesting some easy swaps a friend can do in the kitchen to reduce animal product use. Vegan mayo and vegan margarine are indistinguishable from the egg and milk powder laden versions. That does not mean that if we are having the moral discussion that I advocate for only swapping out margarine and mayo. If someone says "I don't know how to you do it, I could never stop eating cheese" I do not simply hug them in silence with the understanding that casomorphins are a hell of a drug. I agree with them that it's hard, give them some recipes and product ideas and suggest they try them. Edit: I'll make a smoking analogy. My mom has been a smoker all her life until recently. She's 60 now and she has been smoking since she was 12. The conversation was never "You need to smoke half a pack less a day". It was always "You need to stop smoking and here are some coping mechanisms". Luckily a vape pen and slowly reducing the nicotine concentration has done it. She has not had a cigarette for two years now. I'd liken the vape pen to a beyond burger. Satisfies the urge without being merely a reduction in cigarettes per day. Kalit posted:I consider myself an ethical vegan and 1000% advocate for “mere” reduction. I absolutely love meatless Mondays and think it’s done so much to help fight the livestock industry. I hope the above clarifies things. As an ethical vegan you do not advocate 1000% for "mere" reduction as the end goal right? I would 1000% push for my work cafeteria to do meatless mondays but that is different than talking about whether it's good or bad to exploit cows with individuals in conversation. There are the systemic changes and the individual changes. DrBox fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 01:16
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I don't understand why me convincing them of the moral inconsistency would suddenly make them abandon any attempt at reduction. Because you're basically putting up the abstinence-only model vs the harm reduction model. Whether it's moral or not, more and more evidence has been piling up over the last few decades that harm reduction model is much more successful in effecting change on both a personal and societal scale, on a range of issues from drugs to safer sex. I see no reason this wouldn't also apply to other habits, like food choice. DrBox posted:I think people are misunderstanding me or we're talking past each other so I'll try to clarify one last time: I think reduction is a good thing but that is separate from the moral argument. ok yeah i think i'm with you, i wasn't sure if you were on that page or not. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Because you're basically putting up the abstinence-only model vs the harm reduction model. Whether it's moral or not, more and more evidence has been piling up over the last few decades that harm reduction model is much more successful in effecting change on both a personal and societal scale, on a range of issues from drugs to safer sex. I see no reason this wouldn't also apply to other habits, like food choice. XboxPants posted:ok yeah i think i'm with you, i wasn't sure if you were on that page or not. Sweet. On that note, I'll stop arguing my case. Everyone reading this is in a position where they CAN go vegan. Check out challenge22.com or veganuary.com and try it for a month. As others have pointed out once you're not currently doing the bad thing you are more open to the arguments so challenge yourself for a week or a month and see how it goes. Remember you are not signing a life-long contract. Take it one meal at a time doing some simple swaps. It's easier than you think and it feels good to take some control over what can feel like an overwhelming societal issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Ok, going forward I'll say it's like asking a dog welfare advocate to be satisfied with "no gently caress fridays". The key is the alliteration though so I need to find another family friendly one. In this situation it is more effective to agree with their idea than it is to maintain your own moral purity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
Is there a way to kill an animal ethically? Like drug it first so it falls asleep? I grew up with my parents raising chickens for eggs, and occasionally meat, in their 0.5 acre backyard. You often hear the phrase "they lived a great life, with one bad day at the end", among people who raise animals in their backyard to eat. Whereas if you were to let those animals go free, they would be much skinnier, and most likely have many bad days, and their ending would be being viciously eaten alive. Fozzy The Bear fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 02:18
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:In this situation it is more effective to agree with their idea than it is to maintain your own moral purity. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is me drawing a hard red line at no-dog-loving maintaining moral purity and the cost of effectiveness advocating for people not to gently caress dogs? For the record regardless of the outcome I will die on the hill of loving dogs is bad. Fozzy The Bear posted:Is there a way to kill an animal ethically? Like drug it first so it falls asleep? Not in my opinion. There are better and worse ways to do it as far as suffering goes, but there is not really an ethical way to kill a being that does not wish to die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is me drawing a hard red line at no-dog-loving maintaining moral purity and the cost of effectiveness advocating for people not to gently caress dogs? For the record regardless of the outcome I will die on the hill of loving dogs is bad. Let's agree that loving dogs is bad and in an ideal world there would be none. The current level is 100. If we promote abstinence-only we can get that down to 85 over the next year. If we promote harm reduction we can get it down to 75 in the same time frame. Which policy should we choose? edit: obviously this is making a lot of assumptions, I hope you understand the point of the hypothetical. It might be that abstinence is actually most effective, I'm just asking you to consider this option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Animals are going to die and get eaten in the wild if we let them go free. I would like to be one of the predators who gets to eat those animals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:Is there a way to kill an animal ethically? Like drug it first so it falls asleep? Consider two different goals: animal welfare, and animal rights. Animal welfare would be about trying to make an animal happy, and animal rights is about allowing an animal to choose its own happiness. Veganism is animal rights. This is why animal welfare groups and veganism groups often find themselves in opposition to each other, even though you might think they're basically the same at first glance. If that doesn't make sense, swap out "animal" for "human". Is there a way to kill a human ethically? Like drug him first so he falls asleep? I hope you don't think that's ethical. For the other argument you mention, you could make the same argument for the treatment of people with severe cognitive disabilities. In the past, humane treatment was focused on "welfare" for them in the same way we'd talk about a chicken. Put them all in a nice environment together, give them food and shelter and a happy life. But now a lot of disability rights groups reject that notion, and say that people with down's syndrome, etc, should have the right to pursue a life of freedom. Even if they may face struggles and difficulty. Even if their life outside a group home is objectively worse quality of life, it's still worth it to them because anything else is imprisonment. And imprisonment is inherently harmful. Does the chicken care that she's imprisoned? Well... did you need a fence? (genuine question, I don't know much about chicken farming so for all I know it's possible to raise chickens and they "come back to roost" at the end of the day without any prodding) XboxPants fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
Trapick posted:If you advocate for abstinence over harm reduction, it *may* be the case that more of the activity you're against will occur. I would have to see some actual data to back this up and it would have to be a dramatic difference in the outcome. If you said we gently caress this one dog and all future dog loving would stop and going forward we live in a dog utopia I would have to agree that's probably the better outcome. I do not think we should generally condone a harmful behavior that victimizes someone based on a utilitarian calculus. Fozzy The Bear posted:Animals are going to die and get eaten in the wild if we let them go free. I would like to be one of the predators who gets to eat those animals. The choice is not between killing a chicken myself or letting it die in the wild. The choice is between eating plants or breeding chickens in order to kill them. The backyard chickens came from somewhere and you're setting up the conditions to now justify taking their life. I can give dogs a better life if I raise them in my home then kill them for meat rather than abandoning them in the woods, but that does not justify me breeding dogs in order to kill them for meat. DrBox fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
DrBox posted:The choice is not between killing a chicken myself or letting it die in the wild. The choice is between eating plants or breeding chickens in order to kill them. The backyard chickens came from somewhere and you're setting up the conditions to now justify taking their life. I can give dogs a better life if I raise them in my home then kill them for meat rather than abandoning them in the woods, but that does not justify me breeding dogs in order to kill them for meat. Also, there is a "letting it die in the wild" offshoot of veganism called "freeganism". In this ideology you're allowed to eat things like roadkill or a dead deer you find in the woods, so long as you didn't kill it. So, Fozzy, feel free to go looking in the woods for as many rotting or half-eaten corpses to eat as you want. I won't judge you for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
DrBox posted:A vegan promoting reduction through things like "Meatless Mondays" is like a child welfare advocate promoting abuse reduction with "No Touch Tuesdays". Serious question: do you think talking like an absolute caricature of an obnoxious vegan, like something from a fever dream of PETA, helps or hurts the cause. Please respond seriously and don't say something asinine like "animals are being massacred but oh no can't be rude!". Thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Serious question: do you think talking like an absolute caricature of an obnoxious vegan, like something from a fever dream of PETA, helps or hurts the cause. Please respond seriously and don't say something asinine like "animals are being massacred but oh no can't be rude!". Thanks I will not respond seriously to your loaded question that ignores all context and discussion over the past two pages, and I disagree with your characterization of how I talk. I appreciate your ending your post with a thanks though, so thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I will not respond seriously to your loaded question that ignores all context and discussion over the past two pages, and I disagree with your characterization of how I talk. I appreciate your ending your post with a thanks though, so thanks for that. My loaded question? I feel like I was extremely direct about how you come across, I didn't make any implications or gotchas. I stated directly how you sound to me, a casual observer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 04:51
|
|
|
personally i think child molestation is worse than eating animals
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 05:16
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Does the chicken care that she's imprisoned? Well... did you need a fence? (genuine question, I don't know much about chicken farming so for all I know it's possible to raise chickens and they "come back to roost" at the end of the day without any prodding) The trade-off between more and less confinement, at hobby farm scale, is the safety of the animal itself. Losses to predation are common. Again at hobby farm scale, it is often practical to go without a fence, while you are supervising the chickens and re-confining them (again, as shelter from predators) when you leave or at night. Many animals are thrilled to hang out around a reliable source of food. Separately from that, I have a question for the thread. Do you consider it ethical to hunt and eat venison, making optimistic assumptions about the hunt? Some optimistic assumptions to keep in mind: - the natural apex predators of that habitat were long ago removed, and reintroduction has not yet succeeded - the relevant wildlife management authority agrees a hunt is necessary for population management purposes (let's talk about why this happens!) - the hunter fully complied with the law (only hunted authorized deer, stuck to their quota, reported kills, etc) - the kill was humane, in the sense of causing almost immediate unconsciousness. the hunter abstained from unreliable shots. - the body of the deer was used without undue waste I abstain from meat, but I do not lead a vegan lifestyle. I think that I would be willing to eat venison hunted by someone I know and trust to hunt as I have described. Hunting like this does not exploit animals in the way that mass animal husbandry does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 09:40
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:personally i think child molestation is worse than eating animals Me too! Making a comparison between two things is not the same as saying the two things are equal in every way. I also think killing a cow is probably worse than molestation of a cow but when it comes to cows, certain forms of molestation is illegal while cutting their throat is not. Seems strange. Ohtori Akio posted:Separately from that, I have a question for the thread. Do you consider it ethical to hunt and eat venison, making optimistic assumptions about the hunt? As for your assumptions: -Using hunting as a replacement for apex predators should mean hunters are going in and picking off the sickly and weak animals. This does not generally happen. -The law does not dictate the morality of the action. -Humane means benevolent or compassionate. This animal was likely healthy and had an interest in living. Also a bullet often means a long painful death running away and bleeding out, but even an instant death does not make it good, only less bad. -The deer's body being fully utilized does not matter to the deer. If you killed me but said afterwards that you respect my sacrifice and did not let my body "go to waste" that should not be a good justification in my eyes. Ohtori Akio posted:I abstain from meat, but I do not lead a vegan lifestyle. I think that I would be willing to eat venison hunted by someone I know and trust to hunt as I have described. Hunting like this does not exploit animals in the way that mass animal husbandry does. Can I ask why you abstain from meat, but do not lead a vegan lifestyle? Is it the label you disagree with, or do you buy and use other animal products? If you draw the line at only meat but still use other products do you see a inconsistency there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
Howdy everyone. Just stumbled across this thread. I haven't read all 14 pages (in fact I've only read about 3) so apologies if this has come up before, but we have a vegan thread over in Goons With Spoons. Properly speaking I don't think the ethics of veganism has much at all to do with the food - the issue is how we're treating the animals before we eat them, not what goes in anyone's mouth - but since lots of people have trouble thinking about veganism outside the context of a diet, you might find the thread helpful. The OP has lots of links and if you filter the thread just by my posts you can find a ton more recipes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Howdy everyone. Just stumbled across this thread. I haven't read all 14 pages (in fact I've only read about 3) so apologies if this has come up before, but we have a vegan thread over in Goons With Spoons. Properly speaking I don't think the ethics of veganism has much at all to do with the food - the issue is how we're treating the animals before we eat them, not what goes in anyone's mouth - but since lots of people have trouble thinking about veganism outside the context of a diet, you might find the thread helpful. The OP has lots of links and if you filter the thread just by my posts you can find a ton more recipes. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:Separately from that, I have a question for the thread. Do you consider it ethical to hunt and eat venison, making optimistic assumptions about the hunt? I have in-laws in WI that hunt. For some of them this is a primary protein source for the year. There are programs that let poor folks have more tags too. In some cases venison is a 1:1 substitution for meat that would have to be purchased or that can instead be sold from animals raised or just outright the only source of that protein. What I’ve seen actually fits your assumptions pretty closely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Can I ask why you abstain from meat, but do not lead a vegan lifestyle? Is it the label you disagree with, or do you buy and use other animal products? If you draw the line at only meat but still use other products do you see a inconsistency there? I do buy and use animal products, though I make some case by case abstentions: I've gone on and off of abstention from eggs, for instance. My objection is not to the categorical act of animal exploitation as defined by the vegan movement, but to the ethical and environmental catastrophe of concentrated animal feeding operations. Due to my parents' careers, I was made aware of this impact pretty early, and also saw the contrast between low-density and high-density animal operations. I was simply unable to eat meat any longer, and have kept the abstention into adulthood. There is inconsistency. Using leather economically supports the (bad and abusive) meat industry. However, it is not meat that is unethical, but the current meat industry. Maybe more keenly felt, using animal byproducts related to their reproductive cycle ensures a stream of excess males who, at best, will be castrated and raised for meat: the alternatives include immediately killing and disposing of the newborn animal (famously what happens to male chicks, because caponization is so impractical, and dairy bull calves when neither raising as steer or veal is economically indicated) and raising for veal (famously not a good experience for the bull calf).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:I do buy and use animal products, though I make some case by case abstentions: I've gone on and off of abstention from eggs, for instance. What changed my thinking was realizing the double standard I held for dogs, cats, and horses vs cows, pigs, and chickens. I could not find a morally relevant difference and it does not seem fair that whether or not animal gets a knife in the throat is dependent on how I personally feel about that animal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I appreciate the candid reply. With the ethical problem in your view being the treatment and not the exploitation itself, do you hold this view for all animals? Are there any animals you would not be ok with raising and killing for meat and leather even if done in a small scale gentler way? Please excuse my reply being framed a bit differently than how you asked. I am a mammal chauvinist, and a chauvinist for smart mammals in particular. It matters that pigs are much brighter than cows, and that's why it tears me up (for instance) that we the human race have a moral obligation to genocide the invasive feral hogs of middle america. So, yeah I am not ok with eating cats and dogs, notoriously bright and social animals. I could see myself catching and cooking fish no problem. I could see myself raising a small group of dairy cows and eating or selling the resulting meat. I would probably not raise chickens, mostly because I'd feel like I should caponize male chicks and that is notoriously difficult with a high death rate. I would only eat pork if I or someone I trusted had hunted it as feral pork in a manner conducive to extermination (trapping a whole sounder and taking them to be processed).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:Please excuse my reply being framed a bit differently than how you asked. I am a mammal chauvinist, and a chauvinist for smart mammals in particular. It matters that pigs are much brighter than cows, and that's why it tears me up (for instance) that we the human race have a moral obligation to genocide the invasive feral hogs of middle america. There is interesting literature on the intelligence and social order among cow herds. Regardless of where these animals fall on the intelligence spectrum, however you choose to define that, we know that they are capable of complex thoughts and emotions such as happiness, jealousy etc and they all have the capacity to suffer or experience well-being. It seems to me that the mammal bias many people have is understandable, but also simply a bias. Fish seem to be misunderstood and classified as stupid or less complex because of our own inability to empathize with a less expressive animal. Do you see any issues with intelligence being tied to moral worth? It seems like a hard thing to quantify or measure and yet their lives and well-being depend on our arbitrary assessment of those traits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
DrBox posted:There is interesting literature on the intelligence and social order among cow herds. Regardless of where these animals fall on the intelligence spectrum, however you choose to define that, we know that they are capable of complex thoughts and emotions such as happiness, jealousy etc and they all have the capacity to suffer or experience well-being. It's a very useful proxy for ability to comprehend what's going on before they are slaughtered, or to perceive that they are restrained.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:It's a very useful proxy for ability to comprehend what's going on before they are slaughtered, or to perceive that they are restrained. That's a good clarification. Do I have it right that intelligence only matters as far as the animal's ability to recognize and take issue with the conditions they are in? In this case could we build a farm that is comfortable and engaging enough where you would be ok with farming dogs and cats then? After 1 year we kill them in their sleep so they are unaware of the harm?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:51
|
|