Simple question to all carnivores: what makes exploiting animals (eating, animal testing, whatever) ok ethically or morally? Is it that they are:
a) less intelligent although presumably just as capable of feeling pain
b) just generally species loyalty -- no precise logic to it, just, "if it's not human I'll eat it."
c) some vague notion of the natural order, perhaps inspired by some vague notion of christian, "dominion over the animals" stuff.
d) Sheer might-makes-right -- we're bigger animals, they're smaller animals -- we win.
Or is there something else that I'm missing? I'm just curious. Many of these are perfectly internally consistent, although pretty awful when looked as in context with mainstream human-rights-based ethics. At least three work exactly as well as justifications for nazism, slavery or rape. Option C is pretty weak from any viewpoint, I think, except a religious or spiritual one which I consider, basically, dumb.
I really think a) is probably the most common, but least thought-thru since there's clearly a sliding scale of morality here. I mean, even most vegans don't worry too much about killing bugs. And many meat eaters don't like the idea of killing dogs or dolphins or whatever.
But that's kind of a creepy argument too, since there's no end to how fine-grained that scale can be. It means that it's more ok to kill stupid humans than smart ones. In a crisis we should start by killing those with mental retardation, then move on to those who score poorly on IQ tests, etc. Which is basically just eugenics again. And if someone is as stupid as an animal presumably we should feel no compunction about killing them.
Due respect, you mostly highlight your own ignorance with this shallow post. I am not certain by what mechanism easting large quantities of meat would allow "rapid evolution." But industrial-scale meat production is a huge factor for global warming and other environmental destruction, not to mention large-scale systemically-enforced economic inequality. There are health problems too, (hormones and antibiotics and other icky stuff) although they aren't as big as some people like to think.
But seriously -- read something: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?scp=1&sq=meat-guzzler&st=nyt
And this ignores the apparently irrelevant notion of animal suffering, which if mentioned gets you immediately written of as a hopeless crank. The funny thing is that slashdotters are such a smart group, and yet people immediately swim to the shallow end of the intellectual pool when this issue comes up. 98 percent of the time I am content to make the "mmm... meat is tasty" jokes right along with everyone else, despite being vegan. Mostly so I don't get stuck with that "humorless vegan weirdo" label. Such is the power of social pressure. But it is an intellectually bankrupt position. I figured with all of the philosophy-major/hobbyist types lurking around here someone would have figured that out by now. Being concerned with animal welfare is just like being an atheist (I am) surrounded by christians (I have been). You get all of these stupid, stupid, scripted responses and you just smile blankly and nod in response at how obviously you hadn't realized Stalinism was attributable to atheism, and of course! where did the universe come from -- you know -- before the big bang? Because the alternative is to slowly and painfully start from first principles and explain physics and evolution and of course when you're done you won't have changed anyone's mind anyway, except to convince them that you're hopelessly alien and misguided... Well, animal rights is the same thing. You immediately get the: you people care more about animals than people; we're supposed to eat meat -- it's like, natural, man; blah blah blah.
God, just looking at all of the stupid, stupid posts here is exhausting -- it is like reading a right-wing politics board -- you don't even know where to begin.
This ridiculous (on it's face, after, like.5 seconds of thinking about it you supposed mensa geeks, you) notion that vegetarian and vegan identity begins and ends with being into animal welfare. Usually expressed as: "we care more about animals than we do about people." Like we wake up in the morning and just sit around being vegan. Maybe stroking a cat and cutting up pictures of our families to use as kitty litter.
Most vegan and vegetarians I know are intensely ethical people, whose avoidance of meat-products stems from a deep concern with issues of justice, sustainability and empathy. Most vegans and vegetarians I know are vastly more committed to working for positive (left-leaning obviously) social change than most of the meat-eaters I know. Not everyone, of course -- being an activist isn't a requirement for being a vegan. But what I find ironic are all of the people running around, wringing their hands because of global warming and dutifully re-using their shopping bags. Like many if not most slashdotters, I imagine. Because I am doing more to fight global warming by just sitting on my ass being vegan (and riding a lot of public transportation) than you are going to do in a year with all of your angry tirades about the Bush Administration and "buying local" and deciding to spend a little more for the "Rainforest Crunch" Ben & Jerry's.
Half the people in bus with me on the way to the anti-torture protest where we so outnumbered the police they couldn't even arrest us were vegetarians. Most of you meat eaters weren't even there, even though you care soooo much more about human than animal rights.
Really,
But right now 99 percent of the meat you eat is produced in a manner akin to torture. So just having a purpose is not sufficient to justify this consumption unless you believe that wanting a burger instead of pasta primavera for dinner is grounds for torture.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. Well then global-warming inducing, rainforest-destroying, economically-predatory mass torture and slaughter will have to be reason enough.
Simple question to all carnivores: what makes exploiting animals (eating, animal testing, whatever) ok ethically or morally? Is it that they are:
a) less intelligent although presumably just as capable of feeling pain
b) just generally species loyalty -- no precise logic to it, just, "if it's not human I'll eat it."
c) some vague notion of the natural order, perhaps inspired by some vague notion of christian, "dominion over the animals" stuff. d) Sheer might-makes-right -- we're bigger animals, they're smaller animals -- we win. Or is there something else that I'm missing? I'm just curious. Many of these are perfectly internally consistent, although pretty awful when looked as in context with mainstream human-rights-based ethics. At least three work exactly as well as justifications for nazism, slavery or rape. Option C is pretty weak from any viewpoint, I think, except a religious or spiritual one which I consider, basically, dumb.
I really think a) is probably the most common, but least thought-thru since there's clearly a sliding scale of morality here. I mean, even most vegans don't worry too much about killing bugs. And many meat eaters don't like the idea of killing dogs or dolphins or whatever.
But that's kind of a creepy argument too, since there's no end to how fine-grained that scale can be. It means that it's more ok to kill stupid humans than smart ones. In a crisis we should start by killing those with mental retardation, then move on to those who score poorly on IQ tests, etc. Which is basically just eugenics again. And if someone is as stupid as an animal presumably we should feel no compunction about killing them.
What am I missing here?
Due respect, you mostly highlight your own ignorance with this shallow post. I am not certain by what mechanism easting large quantities of meat would allow "rapid evolution." But industrial-scale meat production is a huge factor for global warming and other environmental destruction, not to mention large-scale systemically-enforced economic inequality. There are health problems too, (hormones and antibiotics and other icky stuff) although they aren't as big as some people like to think. But seriously -- read something: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?scp=1&sq=meat-guzzler&st=nyt And this ignores the apparently irrelevant notion of animal suffering, which if mentioned gets you immediately written of as a hopeless crank. The funny thing is that slashdotters are such a smart group, and yet people immediately swim to the shallow end of the intellectual pool when this issue comes up. 98 percent of the time I am content to make the "mmm... meat is tasty" jokes right along with everyone else, despite being vegan. Mostly so I don't get stuck with that "humorless vegan weirdo" label. Such is the power of social pressure. But it is an intellectually bankrupt position. I figured with all of the philosophy-major/hobbyist types lurking around here someone would have figured that out by now. Being concerned with animal welfare is just like being an atheist (I am) surrounded by christians (I have been). You get all of these stupid, stupid, scripted responses and you just smile blankly and nod in response at how obviously you hadn't realized Stalinism was attributable to atheism, and of course! where did the universe come from -- you know -- before the big bang? Because the alternative is to slowly and painfully start from first principles and explain physics and evolution and of course when you're done you won't have changed anyone's mind anyway, except to convince them that you're hopelessly alien and misguided... Well, animal rights is the same thing. You immediately get the: you people care more about animals than people; we're supposed to eat meat -- it's like, natural, man; blah blah blah. God, just looking at all of the stupid, stupid posts here is exhausting -- it is like reading a right-wing politics board -- you don't even know where to begin. This ridiculous (on it's face, after, like .5 seconds of thinking about it you supposed mensa geeks, you) notion that vegetarian and vegan identity begins and ends with being into animal welfare. Usually expressed as: "we care more about animals than we do about people." Like we wake up in the morning and just sit around being vegan. Maybe stroking a cat and cutting up pictures of our families to use as kitty litter.
Most vegan and vegetarians I know are intensely ethical people, whose avoidance of meat-products stems from a deep concern with issues of justice, sustainability and empathy. Most vegans and vegetarians I know are vastly more committed to working for positive (left-leaning obviously) social change than most of the meat-eaters I know. Not everyone, of course -- being an activist isn't a requirement for being a vegan. But what I find ironic are all of the people running around, wringing their hands because of global warming and dutifully re-using their shopping bags. Like many if not most slashdotters, I imagine. Because I am doing more to fight global warming by just sitting on my ass being vegan (and riding a lot of public transportation) than you are going to do in a year with all of your angry tirades about the Bush Administration and "buying local" and deciding to spend a little more for the "Rainforest Crunch" Ben & Jerry's.
Half the people in bus with me on the way to the anti-torture protest where we so outnumbered the police they couldn't even arrest us were vegetarians. Most of you meat eaters weren't even there, even though you care soooo much more about human than animal rights.
Really,
But right now 99 percent of the meat you eat is produced in a manner akin to torture. So just having a purpose is not sufficient to justify this consumption unless you believe that wanting a burger instead of pasta primavera for dinner is grounds for torture.
cows haven't eaten grass for a long time. try soy, cheap, government-subsidized corn, sawdust and lots of antibiotics and hormones.