Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[learningphysics]

Can you name an animal that does not act this way?


Um, ok, so your emotions won't allow you to be open-minded. It's understandable so I don't mind.

A boycott on meat would NEVER work in a million years. You couldn't get enough people to give up meat. It's a natural instinct for them to crave it. Besides, we don't want to do away with the meat industry. We'd just like to reform it to be less cruel.



Thank you for saying what I wanted you to say.
Dogs need meat if they need anything. Meat and bones.
My dog wouldn't dream of eating vegetables (unless it's got meat wrapped around it). And actually, he did develop an allergy.. to wheat and corn. I won't let him have any dog food that contains any of it. It has to be meat based, (and maybe a rice filler). It's the only thing that won't set his skin aflame and start him shedding all over the place.

Well, what I really wanted to ask, Is it being unethical toward the dog to force him to eat vegetables? What if the dog refuses (I know my dog would). What then? Am I to starve my dog because I refuse to feed him meat based food?


Cats don't have police.


I'm sorry , but this is just retarded.

lol! Don't come crying to me if a bear tries to eat you.

Simple question: Why is it acceptable to eat animals that are not humans, but it's unacceptable to eat humans? I challenge you to give a moral justification.

 

[OneEye]

Our morals are different this we are unique and different? Sounds like a pretty loose argument to me.

Please allow me to clarify my position:

Everyone here, including the animal-rights people (especially the animal-rights people), believes that a different moral code applies to humans than to animals - that humans are responsible to animals in ways that animals are not. This belief places mankind into a separate category from any other animal - the category of moral responsibility.

This is only an initial observation - the implications and development of that observation are broad and far-reaching. My only point in making the observation was to show the self-contradiction involved in animal-rights activists saying (essentially,) "We must not harm animals because animals are people, too."

I hope that this clears that up.

 

[OneEye]

Simple question: Why is it acceptable to eat animals that are not humans, but it's unacceptable to eat humans? I challenge you to give a moral justification.

(Although your question wasn't directed to me...)

Here are two:

1) You might believe that God has said so.
2) As I mentioned above, it is fundamental human dogma that humans and animals are essentially different kinds of creatures. One of the practical effects of this might be to categorize non-humans as "food" while categorizing humans as "non-food".

Hope this helps!

 

[splitendz]

Please sir, just one step further.

I believe that humans have the deepest understanding and practice of empathy for others. This is manifested in everyday life. Maybe if we were all as simple as chickens for example then we would not think so deep as to concern ourselves with the rights that other animals on Earth “should be” entitled to. Do chickens worry about our well being? Sometimes the human race takes the most general aspects of life and survival many steps too far.

 

[OneEye]

Do chickens worry about our well being?

I am currently developing a new evolutionary theory entitled "Tastes Like Chicken."

The basis of the theory is that the entire sweep of evolutionary development has all aimed toward the production of a creature which tastes like - well - the chicken!

We are fortunate to live in the age in which the aim and goal of evolution has reached its fruition. Thus, the chicken (not man,) is the pinnacle of evolution!

Where does this place man?

Well, it seems that, all along, we have merely been "Chicken Helper."

 

[learningphysics]

Nature has created an unfortunate situation where animals need to feed on other animals to survive. This is a great evil... and perhaps in the future humans or some other form of life can correct it. I don't know what form the solution would take. Till then isn't it only morally right that we do our best to minimize the suffering in the world?

 

[OneEye]

Nature has created an unfortunate situation where animals need to feed on other animals to survive. This is a great evil... and perhaps in the future humans or some other form of life can correct it. I don't know what form the solution would take. Till then isn't it only morally right that we do our best to minimize the suffering in the world?

Three things come to mind here:

1) There is clearly a tension between minimizing short-term and long-term suffering. I agree with minimizing suffering, but I tend to side with minimizing long-term suffering (vs. short-term). This only has a marginal impact on this discussion, but it is an important question when one takes on the question of defining "good" (a la, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people").

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

3) I found it highly provocative to see that you use "nature" and "moral" as sometime opposites. This means that you see morality as sometimes being the "unnatural" thing - and that what is "natural" is not necessarily moral. Hence, morality must be supernatural in the most limited sense: that morality is not defined by what is, but rather by what ought to be - and hence we judge nature by morality rather than judging morality by nature. This is a profound insight, and a powerful implication in discussing the nature of morality (pardon the pun).

 

[OneEye]

Paralegomenon

The enormous pumpkin was getting kind of mushy on the doorstep, so we threw it in the back of the car and drove it down the road to LW's ranch. He had about a score of pigs kept by for the sale barn, and they could always use some more food. We slewed through the mud outside the pen and backed up to the fence. The pigs, at first curious, scattered away as the car approached. I got out of the car, and the pigs, guessing my errand, scrambled back toward the fence. I opended the trunk and heaved the huge pumpkin over the fence panel, and the pigs immediately set to, gouging at the pumpkin's flesh with their lower teeth, trying to scrape or tear away bits of pumpkin, and smacking their jaws with that wet sound peculiar to pigs.

There wasn't room for all the pigs to get at the pumpkin, so there were quite a few fights for a place at the pumpkin. The pigs showed no concern for each other, jostling and stepping on one another, totally selfishly absorbed in serving only their own interests - at the expense of their neighbor's. Two of the pigs in the pen had nasty, wheezing coughs, but the other pigs ignored this fact. The little boars clearly had the advantage over the gilts, but size was a determining factor as well. "Them that had, got, and them that hadn't, got none." Such are porcine ethics.

Such selfish brutishness is totally unwelcome among humans, of course. But it is the order of the day for pigs. A pig will even eat ham or sausage if you feed it to him. So, the question is: Do we treat the pig according to human ethics, or according to piggy law? Is it more moral to treat a pig with the sort of respect which a human expects, or should we treat the pig by its own way? Does the pig have a preference? And anyway, which should we prefer?

 

[learningphysics]

Three things come to mind here:

1) There is clearly a tension between minimizing short-term and long-term suffering. I agree with minimizing suffering, but I tend to side with minimizing long-term suffering (vs. short-term). This only has a marginal impact on this discussion, but it is an important question when one takes on the question of defining "good" (a la, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people").

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

3) I found it highly provocative to see that you use "nature" and "moral" as sometime opposites. This means that you see morality as sometimes being the "unnatural" thing - and that what is "natural" is not necessarily moral. Hence, morality must be supernatural in the most limited sense: that morality is not defined by what is, but rather by what ought to be - and hence we judge nature by morality rather than judging morality by nature. This is a profound insight, and a powerful implication in discussing the nature of morality (pardon the pun).

Thanks. Yes, I did want to make the point that nature is not necessarily moral.

 

[jrs06]

so what do we have to eat then? (the plants? they are alive too)

 

[lilboy]

laughs~!

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

Unaware? At least I'm sure a dog[f] will bite you if you harm its pups.

The enormous pumpkin was getting kind of mushy on the doorstep, so we threw it in the back of the car and drove it down the road to LW's ranch. He had about a score of pigs kept by for the sale barn, and they could always use some more food. We slewed through the mud outside the pen and backed up to the fence. The pigs, at first curious, scattered away as the car approached. I got out of the car, and the pigs, guessing my errand, scrambled back toward the fence. I opended the trunk and heaved the huge pumpkin over the fence panel, and the pigs immediately set to, gouging at the pumpkin's flesh with their lower teeth, trying to scrape or tear away bits of pumpkin, and smacking their jaws with that wet sound peculiar to pigs.

There wasn't room for all the pigs to get at the pumpkin, so there were quite a few fights for a place at the pumpkin. The pigs showed no concern for each other, jostling and stepping on one another, totally selfishly absorbed in serving only their own interests - at the expense of their neighbor's. Two of the pigs in the pen had nasty, wheezing coughs, but the other pigs ignored this fact. The little boars clearly had the advantage over the gilts, but size was a determining factor as well. "Them that had, got, and them that hadn't, got none." Such are porcine ethics.

Such selfish brutishness is totally unwelcome among humans, of course. But it is the order of the day for pigs. A pig will even eat ham or sausage if you feed it to him. So, the question is: Do we treat the pig according to human ethics, or according to piggy law? Is it more moral to treat a pig with the sort of respect which a human expects, or should we treat the pig by its own way? Does the pig have a preference? And anyway, which should we prefer?

You wouldn't be so different from them, if you were raised like them. So in that case, should we treat you with respect?

so what do we have to eat then? (the plants? they are alive too)

Plants differ in the sense that they don't have nerve cells like animals.
However, eat whatever you like. There's no point forcing yourself to a diet just because it's the "right" diet. It's not worth it.


----------------------------------------------------------------

Nevertheless, animal youngs like kittens, calves, and chicks are dependent on their parents. When we slaughter a hen, we take away from the chicks their mother.

Is getting that extra satisfaction from meat really worth it?

Advice: Eat what you need.

Of course, not forgetting those who ARE dependent on meat: Unless you are a saint, eating meat is definitely a better option compared to getting sick yourselves.

Advice: Eat what you need.

 

[OneEye]

Unaware? At least I'm sure a dog[f] will bite you if you harm its pups.

Allow me to clarify what I am saying: We know that animals experience pain, and we know that they react to pain. What is not clear is that animals are aware of their pain. When you and I are hurt, we not only feel and react to the pain, we can also reflect on the pain: We know that we are feeling pain, and we can analyze and rationalize both the experience of pain and the knowledge of it. We do not know whether animals have that faculty or not. In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience. This, we cannot do.

You wouldn't be so different from them, if you were raised like them.

Interesting assertion. How do you back it up? This statement cannot be justified on any view of the nature of man: Even in an evolutionary context, which regards man as nothing more than an animal, one would have to conclude that human morality is "in the genes" in order to explain its existence at all, and especially in order to explain the universal phenomenon of morality among all human groups. You would have to invent a new religion in order to create a basis for your statement.

My contention - the idea that I have been developing in this thread - is that there is a fundamental, essential difference between humans and animals which ultimately does not seem to be either nature or nurture. I feel that this is the best conclusion from both the external evidence and from the internal experience of being human myself.

Please see this post for the beginning statement of my position.

 

[Kerrie]

The birds kept for eggs are among the most abused animals on the planet. They are kept in wire changes where they cannot walk or stretch their wings for the few years that they are kept alive. The cages are stacked one on top of the other for many layers, and the rows stretch as far as the eye can see. The birds on the layers above excrete on the birds below. The whole place smells of ammonia. The birds are kept in the dark and fed antiobiotics. When their egg production wanes, they are starved to force them into a process called molting.

For pictures, check this out:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/battery.html

very informativ Dan, but i believe the question was being asked in the context of are eggs okay to eat from the vegetarian standpoint...there are many organic farms that claim they treat their chickens well, thus a better option for those vegetarians who eat eggs but are concerned with animal treatment...

there seems to be a difference in reasons as to why people decide on vegetarianism...for example, my dad does not eat meat hardly ever for health reasons, others don't because of the animal treatment involved...both valid reasons. i think the best an advocate of animal rights can do is educate the public (such as dan does) in how they are treated so the mass consumer can eat.

those who choose to still eat meat but are concerned with animal treatment might choose their grocer based on how they obtain their products.

 

[physicsisphirst]

A boycott on meat would NEVER work in a million years. You couldn't get enough people to give up meat. It's a natural instinct for them to crave it. Besides, we don't want to do away with the meat industry. We'd just like to reform it to be less cruel.

doing away with cruelty is a good idea, but boycotts do work. however, you are confusing the purpose of the boycott on meat. it is not to eliminate meat eating which would be rather redundant. the boycott would be to do away with cruelty in the industry.

Thank you for saying what I wanted you to say. Dogs need meat if they need anything. Meat and bones.

i don't think either of us really know what you wanted me to say :D. if you look at the links you will see that dogs do very well on non-meat based diets. they don't need meat and they don't need bones (in fact, some vets warn against giving dogs bones because broken ones can get stuck in the throat). in the earlier post, i provided 'evidence' that they don't need meat through the links, through the fact that lots of dogs (like mine) are vegetarian, as well as through the reality that even large commercial petfood companies do provide a vegetarian alternative - not to appease human vegetarians, but because some dogs just don't handle the meat products in dogfood too well.

there is nothing 'natural' about dog food anyway. in fact, the vegetarian dogfoods are eagerly eaten by dogs simply because they really don't have any idea that there is no meat in it. it's not like they go around thinking i must have meat or i'll find myself depleted of dietary nutrients.

as for your question regarding is it cruel to force a veg dogfood on a dog who you don't seem to think would want it, you might ask the similar question is it cruel to force a different brand of dogfood on a dog who doesn't want it. the issue really has nothing to do with meat.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Such selfish brutishness is totally unwelcome among humans, of course. But it is the order of the day for pigs.

such selfish brutishness is unwelcome anywhere, but it is also the order of the day for many humans: take a look at people shopping at this time of year (there are far more gruesome examples such as refugee camps, but christmas shoppers should suffice to make the point).

Allow me to clarify what I am saying: We know that animals experience pain, and we know that they react to pain. What is not clear is that animals are aware of their pain.

this is really a typical specieist argument just one step removed from descartes' animals are mere automatons who can't even feel pain. it tries to by-pass the reality of pain with allusions of awareness (it used to 'justify' pain therapies to people in insane asylums as well, till more humane methods were enforced). unfortunately, the fear of anthropomorphism clouds much rational thinking.

We do not know whether animals have that faculty or not. In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience.

you could say the same about people then. you cannot enter into another's experience, therefore you cannot conclude definitively that another person is aware. however, since we give the other person the benefit of the doubt (sometimes anyway - slaves and jews, for instance, weren't always given the benefit of that doubt), it should not be so difficult to do the same for other beings who we know "experience pain, and ... react to pain" just like we do.

My contention - the idea that I have been developing in this thread - is that there is a fundamental, essential difference between humans and animals which ultimately does not seem to be either nature or nurture. I feel that this is the best conclusion from both the external evidence and from the internal experience of being human myself.

there have been more than 3 decades of research into animal sentience (eg see Masson's When Elephants Weep for one of several sources) that provide 'external evidence' along the lines that there are 'fundamental and essential' similarities between humans and animals. in any case, if we are to put humans on a pedestal, let us at least acknowledge that empathy and compassion are primary grounds for doing so (these traits apparently are demonstrated by animals as well), and hence, it can be concluded that since humans have the capacity for empathizing with the suffering of others, they should also be able to extend their compassion.

in friendship,
prad

 

[kirkmcloren]

Allow me to clarify what I am saying: We know that animals experience pain, and we know that they react to pain. What is not clear is that animals are aware of their pain. When you and I are hurt, we not only feel and react to the pain, we can also reflect on the pain: We know that we are feeling pain, and we can analyze and rationalize both the experience of pain and the knowledge of it. We do not know whether animals have that faculty or not. In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience. This, we cannot do.

We can observe them. Humans share speech and communicate an experience. Without language we have to observe. I offer the following story

Roy Chapman Andrews was the fellow who discovered the first dinosaur eggs. He was in the Gobi desert at the time. Roy and his dog, a Samoyed, were inseparable. The dog showed up at camp without Roy and seemed agitated, barking and tugging on peoples pant legs. He would run from the camp and then run back repeating this strange behavior. A couple of the men got into a truck and the dog ran before them and led them to where Roy, who had been scratching dirt away from the base of a rock, had gotten stuck when the same rock moved.

What is significant is that the dog led them there not by the shortest route but by the shortest route the truck could go. I think the human race by and large sees little and lives in its own world. Thus they practice insensitivity and cruelness because they lack awareness.

 

[learningphysics]

In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience. This, we cannot do.

I must repeat what physicsphirst said here... the same can be said for other humans. We cannot enter into another human's experience. We simply assume that he/she shares similar experiences to what we do. Why do we not make the same assumption about animals?

 

[physicsisphirst]

I think the human race by and large sees little and lives in its own world. Thus they practice insensitivity and cruelness because they lack awareness.

i think you have hit it right on. throughout history we have the predominance of the egocentricity - most dramatically manifested perhaps by the geocentric theory in which not only the Earth but man ends up at the center of the universe. as awareness increased, other realities become possible.

for instance, the idea of abusing your pets is 'illegal' in many parts of the world now - it was not so 100 years ago. people are working towards better conditions for farm animals presently, because the awareness has developed that these beings can and do suffer immensely.

there will be progress made in various areas - despite arguments to the contrary based on finance, vanity, anthropomorphism, absurdity etc - because people do become aware, they do empathize, and eventually they do act. it just seems to take a long, long time.

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

I must repeat what physicsphirst said here... the same can be said for other humans. We cannot enter into another human's experience. We simply assume that he/she shares similar experiences to what we do. Why do we not make the same assumption about animals?

Its probably too convenient for your liking but since humans can vocalize their experiences, they can be shared. That doesn't prove that other animals don't experience, but neither can it be proven that they do unless they can vocalize it for us.

 

[kirkmcloren]

see Masson's When Elephants Weep for one of several sources) that provide 'external evidence' along the lines that there are 'fundamental and essential' similarities between humans and animals.

in friendship,
prad

I found http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Oaks/3538/elephants.html
very touching

In Memory of Damini

 

[learningphysics]

Its probably too convenient for your liking but since humans can vocalize their experiences, they can be shared. That doesn't prove that other animals don't experience, but neither can it be proven that they do unless they can vocalize it for us.

If a human is incapable of speech, would we say he may or may not experience pain?

 

[physicsisphirst]

Its probably too convenient for your liking but since humans can vocalize their experiences, they can be shared. That doesn't prove that other animals don't experience, but neither can it be proven that they do unless they can vocalize it for us.

it would seem then that more than a couple of hundred years ago, a black man recently brought from africa to be forced to be a slave could not prove they were really suffering because they couldn't vocalize in english to the slave owner that they were indeed unhappy at being taken from their homeland, stowed away in unimaginably filthy conditions for weeks on a slave ship, sold in chains at an auction and whipped into obedience.

it is interesting that so sure was the slave owner that he wasn't being cruel and unkind to this subhuman devoid of feelings and sensitivities typical humans are thought possesses (presumably because they can vocalize), that even after his slave learned the english language, did vocalize his discontent, tried to escape, the slave owner still refused to acknowledge that it might be possible that his slave really would prefer a different lifestyle. possibly, some slave owners thought those who spoke out against such cruelty to black were being blatantly anthropomorphic?

perhaps the real problem is not that the oppressed can't vocalize, but that the oppressors don't want to listen.

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

If a human is incapable of speech, would we say he may or may not experience pain?

Helen Keller did quite well - and besides, we can conclude humans experience becaue they are humans an all other humans can. We do, of course, have different rules for people in terminal comas precisely for that reason: they do not experience.

it would seem then that more than a couple of hundred years ago, a black man recently brought from africa to be forced to be a slave could not prove they were really suffering because they couldn't vocalize in english to the slave owner that they were indeed unhappy at being taken from their homeland, stowed away in unimaginably filthy conditions for weeks on a slave ship, sold in chains at an auction and whipped into obedience.

That argument is flawed at its most basic level: Blacks are humans. Animals are not.

But then, that's not really the purpose of that argument, is it? Its an appeal to emotion at the expense of reason.

 

[shrumeo]

Nature has created an unfortunate situation where animals need to feed on other animals to survive. This is a great evil...

Why is unfortunate and why is it evil?
It's the way things are. You can't have uncontrolled population growth.
Some animals reproduce very rapidly. It's actually fortunate that these are the things that more often tend to be prey animals.

doing away with cruelty is a good idea, but boycotts do work. however, you are confusing the purpose of the boycott on meat. it is not to eliminate meat eating which would be rather redundant. the boycott would be to do away with cruelty in the industry.

So you are saying that you can round up enough people to boycott meat so that the meat industry will take notice and change their policies?

GOOD LUCK (it'll never happen)

Maybe, and it's a long shot, but it has to be done. Congress (or state govts) could be relentlessly lobbied (which they are now) to change the laws in these cases.

i don't think either of us really know what you wanted me to say :D.

No, I was hoping you'd say something inane like "turn dogs into vegetarians."
It even SOUNDS stupid.

if you look at the links you will see that dogs do very well on non-meat based diets.

Not my dog. Did you read what I wrote? he has allergies to these things. he must have a meat based diet.

they don't need meat and they don't need bones (in fact, some vets warn against giving dogs bones because broken ones can get stuck in the throat).

A wives tale that has crept into common vet 'knowledge.'
If a dog is too hasty in eating anything it'll get caught in the throat. But that doesn't mean that in the wild, bones would be a primary source of nutrition (and tooth maintenance).

through the fact that lots of dogs (like mine) are vegetarian,

i feel sorry for your dog. don't you feel like it's cruel to deny him what he wants? I'll bet if you put your veggy food next to some hamburger meat, he'd head straight for the meat. Who's being cruel to animals now?

there is nothing 'natural' about dog food anyway. in fact, the vegetarian dogfoods are eagerly eaten by dogs simply because they really don't have any idea that there is no meat in it. it's not like they go around thinking i must have meat or i'll find myself depleted of dietary nutrients.

Right MOST commercial dog food is crap. you have to buy the expensive MEAT based foods. the grain and veggie based ones are bad for the dog's skin coat and teeth. But, as i stated above, it doesn't matter what they think is nutritious. they'll eat just about anything if they are hungry enough, but put the veggie food next to some real meat and see which one the dog scarfs down first.

as for your question regarding is it cruel to force a veg dogfood on a dog who you don't seem to think would want it, you might ask the similar question is it cruel to force a different brand of dogfood on a dog who doesn't want it. the issue really has nothing to do with meat.

it does have to do with meat. i think it's "cruel" to feed a dog something that's not healthy for it to eat. Kibbles & Bits (and the like) is terrible

something higher quality is what they need.

but really, if we are going to kiss the dog's ass, we might as well feed them steaks and chickens all the time.

 

[shrumeo]

Its probably too convenient for your liking but since humans can vocalize their experiences, they can be shared. That doesn't prove that other animals don't experience, but neither can it be proven that they do unless they can vocalize it for us.

Are we talking about pain here?

Of course, animals vocalize their pain. Well, some don't or can't, but most mammals, reptiles, and birds that I can think of can vocalize their pain (just step on a cat's tail). I don't think a fish can vocalize anything, but I could be wrong.

 

[shrumeo]

Three things come to mind here:

1) There is clearly a tension between minimizing short-term and long-term suffering. I agree with minimizing suffering, but I tend to side with minimizing long-term suffering (vs. short-term). This only has a marginal impact on this discussion, but it is an important question when one takes on the question of defining "good" (a la, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people").

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

3) I found it highly provocative to see that you use "nature" and "moral" as sometime opposites. This means that you see morality as sometimes being the "unnatural" thing - and that what is "natural" is not necessarily moral. Hence, morality must be supernatural in the most limited sense: that morality is not defined by what is, but rather by what ought to be - and hence we judge nature by morality rather than judging morality by nature. This is a profound insight, and a powerful implication in discussing the nature of morality (pardon the pun).

Ok, the only reason that we think that the causation of pain and suffering are "immoral" is because we do not want to experience these things ourselves. The whole purpose of pain and suffering is to tell individual organisms that they are in trouble. The goal is survival and procreation. Pain and suffering are directing agents in this aim.

Without pain and suffering in the animal world, natural selection would have to find some other mechanism to make an individual organism know that it's survival has been compromised and to avoid it. Then we'd probably start wanting to end that.

The reason we have such a problem with seeing pain and suffering in other beings is because we (like some other animals) are social and we want to keep the society in tact. We respond to seeing others suffering negatively (most of the time). We transpose this onto just about everything (even dolls when we are kids) and call it "compassion" and "empathy."

Bottom line, pain and suffering are necessary tools for survival and natural selection.

 

[OneEye]

this is really a typical specieist argument just one step removed from descartes' animals are mere automatons who can't even feel pain. it tries to by-pass the reality of pain with allusions of awareness (it used to 'justify' pain therapies to people in insane asylums as well, till more humane methods were enforced). unfortunately, the fear of anthropomorphism clouds much rational thinking.

russ_watters has effectively answered this question in what I think to be the correct way: Because I am a human, and I know the nature of my experience, I most reasonably extrapolate that experience to others of my kind. But Occam's razor allows (requires?) us to doubt the existence of such experiences in non-humans - for precisely the same reason that we lay a moral burden on humans which we place on no other species.

Elephant tears aside, I do not think it advances the argument to commend Fido or Garfield as examples of animal empathy. Animals which are heavily human-imprinted (like dogs and cats) can be expected to mimic human behavior to the best of their ability. Examine the wild variety for a truer picture of their natural behavior.

In addition, have you ever been around a maimed dog? They yelp with pain for a very short time, but thereafter make no complaints about ongoing pain. They nurse and lick the wound, but otherwise make every effort to live normally. Quite unlike a human. Anyone who has ever seen a young bull made into a steer has been shocked at the fact that the steer jumps up and runs away immediately upon its release - and otherwise acts as though it were insensate. A human would remain on the ground, suffering and grieving, for hours - and would thereafter live for weeks or months with ongoing manifestations of pain and debilitation.

Collations of elephant tears usually overlook facts like this - are, in fact, writings which uniformly take one side of the question. They look more like propaganda than anything else. I don't mind injecting that evidence into the discussion. But I do mind tendentious reasoning which concludes all skeptics as brutal "speciesists." (For the record, I also feel that this sort of slur slinging is not helping the discussion, but seems to have the aim of preventing open discussion. I would appreciate it if, in the future, we could avoid labelling people and instead deal with the issues.)

 

[OneEye]

The moral theory of meat animals

The following is not the author's opinion. It is merely provided as an antithesis to help inform the discussion.

If our goal of animal husbanbdry is "the largest number of pleasant experiences for the largest number of creatures," ranching may be the best way to achieve this.

Consider: All of the animals on the ranch are going to die and be eaten, but so are all of the beasts of the field. And, while the life of the average meat animal is shorter than its field counterpart, consider these facts: (1) The meat animal is better fed, better cared for, better protected from predation and disease, and is not required to scratch or run for its survival. (2) The meat animal is killed more quickly than the wild animal. (3) The meat animal is far less likely to suffer from the effects of old age or decrepitude. (4) While ranch animals don't live as long, intensive ranching techniques allow many more ranch animals - so the total animal-years for ranch animals is probably greater than the animal-years for field animals.

Given these considerations, it seems reasonable to believe that the utilitarian equation may be better served for ranch animals than for beasts of the field. Could ranching actually be more moral than vegetarianism?

P.S. You may think this an extreme view. That is precisely what it is. The aim is not to make a conclusion, but to balance the debate.

 

[learningphysics]

Helen Keller did quite well - and besides, we can conclude humans experience becaue they are humans an all other humans can. We do, of course, have different rules for people in terminal comas precisely for that reason: they do not experience. That argument is flawed at its most basic level: Blacks are humans. Animals are not.

But then, that's not really the purpose of that argument, is it? Its an appeal to emotion at the expense of reason.

If some humans can experience pain, then all of them can? You are allowed to make this generalization, but I can't make the generalization... if some lifeforms experience pain then all of them can?

Why is your generalization justified, and mine is not?

Why is being part of a particular species where the line is drawn? Is this simply an arbitrary line?

 

[OneEye]

The whole purpose of pain and suffering is to tell individual organisms that they are in trouble. The goal is survival and procreation. Pain and suffering are directing agents in this aim.

No contention intended, but please be advised that not everyone accepts this Darwinistic analysis. (Actually, at the gut level, I don't think anyone does.) In fact, the case I am building concludes that we may not adopt the Darwinian view of ethics or compassion - on grounds that everyone here finds acceptable.

 

[OneEye]

Are we talking about pain here?

No, we're talking about awareness of pain. We know that animals experience pain, and react accordingly. The question is, do animals have conscious awareness of the experience? Do they have the self-awareness, the cognizance to know that they are experiencing pain?

This is the question - which we are unlikely to be able to answer.

 

[learningphysics]

russ_watters has effectively answered this question in what I think to be the correct way: Because I am a human, and I know the nature of my experience, I most reasonably extrapolate that experience to others of my kind. But Occam's razor allows (requires?) us to doubt the existence of such experiences in non-humans - for precisely the same reason that we lay a moral burden on humans which we place on no other species.

I don't see the justification for this type of reasoning... how do you extrapolate your experience to others... and what exactly is "your kind"... why is "your kind" only humans. Chimpanzees are remarkably similar to humans... would they also be your kind? Why is the line drawn to the level of "species"?

 

[OneEye]

I don't see the justification for this type of reasoning... how do you extrapolate your experience to others... and what exactly is "your kind"... why is "your kind" only humans. Chimpanzees are remarkably similar to humans... would they also be your kind? Why is the line drawn to the level of "species"?

I think that this line of thought has about reached its peak. When we start asking what constitutes humankind and whether humankind can be distinguished from other species (a distinction so simple that even our insensible genes can accomplish it), we have left the discussion of ethics and entered into epistemology.

Can we all agree, as a fundamental rule, that we know the difference between humankind and other kinds of animals?

(By the way, a thumbnail distinction of remarkable utility might be: A human can be arrested and tried for murder. A chimpanzee cannot. This may seem a silly distinction, but if we can progress in the discussion, it will turn out to be a vital datum.)

 

[kirkmcloren]

In addition, have you ever been around a maimed dog? They yelp with pain for a very short time, but thereafter make no complaints about ongoing pain. They nurse and lick the wound, but otherwise make every effort to live normally. Quite unlike a human. Anyone who has ever seen a young bull made into a steer has been shocked at the fact that the steer jumps up and runs away immediately upon its release - and otherwise acts as though it were insensate. A human would remain on the ground, suffering and grieving, for hours - and would thereafter live for weeks or months with ongoing manifestations of pain and debilitation.

When there is no benefit from malingering such behavior is not indulged in. 2 examples come immediately to mind.
1. Prisoner behavior in "Gulag Archipelago"
2. My own physical therapy. I remembered cows getting up in 24 hours or never getting up. So I applied myself to physical therapy. Other comments I heard in that room were "If I had known it would hurt so much I would have told them to cut it off"
As a result I was making good advances while their muscles atrophied.

Grieving from physical pain is a state of mind.

 

[learningphysics]

No, we're talking about awareness of pain. We know that animals experience pain, and react accordingly. The question is, do animals have conscious awareness of the experience? Do they have the self-awareness, the cognizance to know that they are experiencing pain?

This is the question - which we are unlikely to be able to answer.

Have you ever experienced pain without being consciously aware of it? I haven't. The experience of pain seems to me entails being aware of it. Is there such a thing as experiencing pain without being aware of it?