"If you can understand the anger and disgust some people feel towards those who harm dogs or cats, then why can you not understand why vegans get angry at you paying to have pigs, cows and chickens harmed? When you say “don’t tell me what to eat” you erase the victims in this situation, the ones who aren’t even considered, the animals who’s lives are stolen for unnecessary reasons.
Why is it fine to advocate against harming some animals but not all? How is one self righteousness and the other something to be praised? I understand that one you’ve been taught is wrong, and the other you’ve been taught is acceptable but as adults you need to step outside of what you have been taught and critically analyse the moral consistency of your beliefs.
An act does not become right just because the species/race/gender of the victim is different, that is injustice." ~ lemmongrabxvx
Hmm. One of those things is not like the others. Does anyone really believe that the life of a fly is worth the same as that of a dolphin, for example? I wholeheartedly agree with the premise, though. An act does not become right just because the species/race/gender of the victim is different, that is injustice."
as adults you need to step outside of what you have been taught and critically analyse the moral consistency of your beliefs
I feel it's more of a question of necessity than worth. Parting from the premise that every being wants to keep living for as long as it possibly can, the question we should ask is not "is this life worth more than that one". We should ask why am I taking this life, is it a matter of survival or indulgence? Be it a dolphin, a fly, a lamb or a chicken. Do I have to kill it? If the context isn't one of survival, I believe all animals should have a right to their life."Does anyone really believe that the life of a fly is worth the same as that of a dolphin, for example?"
Thank you, organicAnt, for continuing to explain your perspective. I am happy to see that the tone of dialog is more congenial than it was earlier. I suspect that many in your audience think you have sentimental reasons for believing what you do. I think your position can be grounded on something stronger than feelings, but I don't see it expressed clearly. The fly vs. dolphin question seems like a good one to clarify values. A dolphin is unquestionably more valuable to me than a fly. All of my experiences with dolphins have been positive. Dolphins are awesome. Flies are terrible. Every experience I have had with flies has been annoying. I can't name a single good thing that flies do, at least not anything that some other creature couldn't do as well. Flies spread disease:
I wish to see the amount of suffering in the world minimized, and these illnesses cause significant suffering. I would happily trade a billion flies for one dolphin. If I had the power to eradicate all flies, I would consider it. Now, to put my cards on the table, I will point out that I am a human, and more concerned with human welfare than the welfare of other creatures. This is partly an in-group bias, and partly a belief that humans are capable of suffering more acutely than many other living things. No doubt I would have a completely different opinion of flies if I were a bat. What values inform your position? You clearly have a great respect for life as an idea. But it seems a bit ... monochromatic. By the time you learned to read, you had certainly annihilated vast numbers of microorganisms. The plants and bugs in your organic garden are engaged in a vicious, thoughtless war for survival, with violence and chemical warfare regular features of their ordinary existence. You recognize that we humans are special, in that we are capable of making informed choices about how we interact with our environment and affect other forms of life. Yet the "web of life" diagram is a random jumble of living things, with no acknowledgement that single-celled organisms are incapable of suffering, or that humans have no natural predators. If "every living thing is valuable," how do you decide what to eat out of necessity? What is the value you wish to maximize?enteric infections (such as dysentery, diarrhoea, typhoid, cholera and certain helminth infections), eye infections (such as trachoma and epidemic conjunctivitis) (Fig. 6.6), poliomyelitis and certain skin infections (such as yaws, cutaneous diphtheria, some mycoses and leprosy).
Hi wasoxigen, thank you for jumping in with an open mind. Don't we all feel emotional about death, particularly of the death of those humans or pets we've become attached to? I've just expanded my circle of compassion to include those that I happened to not meet, like the original post tries to explain. I fail to understand what's the problem about being sentimental about unnecessary unjust cruelty. That's what we're discussing here. All the unnecessary suffering that we chose to contribute to because of our trained, selective discrimination against certain species. But if the emotional appeal doesn't work for you, there are plenty of scientific reasons to stop using animal products. The main ones being how much animal production contributes to depletion of resources, pollution and climate change. I won't even mention the health benefits. A simple exercise I suggest is to put yourself in the body of others and imagine how you'd feel to live the lives they endure. Then ask yourself, do I need this to sustain me or am I taking this life for personal indulgence? If you answer honestly, and take the victim's point of view into consideration (like the original post points out) you'll find your value. In essence, do to others like you'd like done to you, is not that new or radical idea.I suspect that many in your audience think you have sentimental reasons for believing what you do.
The fly vs. dolphin question seems like a good one to clarify values.
I disagree. This is an ultra hypothetical question that diverts from the elephant in the room. How much I value I put on the life or a fly means absolutely nothing while we have billions of animals being raped, kept in cages without ever seeing sunshine, living short and miserable lives to eventually being slaughtered for human pleasure. Why do we do this, is the real question we should be asking.If I had the power to eradicate all flies, I would consider it.
That could potentially have very negative effects on the birds, reptiles and other animals that eat flies for survival. I will point out that I am a human, and more concerned with human welfare than the welfare of other creatures.
Yes, this is the species bias we're taught growing up as the original post points out. ...and partly a belief that humans are capable of suffering more acutely than many other living things.
Where do you get this belief from? Have you tried pinching a cat or dog, do animals not react to pain the same way as humans do?What values inform your position? [...] By the time you learned to read, you had certainly annihilated vast numbers of microorganisms.
Again, we keep going back to the point of necessity and wilfulness. The question is whether we consciously chose to kill or not.The plants and bugs in your organic garden are engaged in a vicious, thoughtless war for survival, with violence and chemical warfare regular features of their ordinary existence.
Absolutely, and the keyword here is survival. Do we humans in wealthy developed countries do it for survival or pleasure?You recognize that we humans are special, in that we are capable of making informed choices about how we interact with our environment and affect other forms of life.
This in an incredibly biased anthropocentric view. We measure our own greatness by our own criteria. Who's to say that, for example, whales don't think the same of themselves and feel we're an abhorrent violent species with no respect for life and the planet?Yet the "web of life" diagram is a random jumble of living things, with no acknowledgement that single-celled organisms are incapable of suffering, or that humans have no natural predators.
That's true, the diagram is of course very simplified. It illustrates two distinct ways of thinking and not meant to be a scientific drawing.If "every living thing is valuable," how do you decide what to eat out of necessity? What is the value you wish to maximize?
That's a very good philosophical question but again distracting from the elephant in the room. Complexity, ability to suffer and social development are some of the things that come to mind on the spot. A plant can't be compared with a screaming pig for example. I don't need to explain to you the differences between them.
If I can't explain the difference between these obvious cases, it will be hard for me to decide what to do in tricky, in-between cases. Here's an example. After our last discussion, I reduced the amount of meat that I consume. But I still eat eggs. I don't worry about the eggs at all. (Do you?) I do think about the hens, and try to buy eggs that have encouraging labels on the package, though I have doubts about how much difference it makes. But even if the hens live in relative comfort and are not subject to such treatments as forced molting, the male chicks were probably killed shortly after birth. Is a male chick, with a brain the size of a peanut, more like a fly or a dolphin? Understanding why I would refuse to eat dolphin and don't worry about swatting a fly helps me make a decision about eating eggs. This is, to me, exactly what "Critically analysing the moral consistency of our beliefs" means. We cannot simply repeat slogans like "We must respect life!" We must ask difficult theoretical questions like "What is life?" and "Are some forms of life more deserving of respect than others?" We may soon have the option of eating chicken meat made from a chicken body that lived without a brain. Not very appetizing, perhaps, but is it ethically superior to what goes on now? Would 3D-printed fake meat be more like a fly or a dolphin? Your point of view is also human-centric. Plenty of animals are violently killed by other animals (even when not necessary for survival), but you recognize that only humans are capable of making thoughtful, ethical choices.Don't we all feel emotional about death...
Yes, our feelings are important and motivate the discussion. I should have said that some people reading your words might think your motivations are merely sentimental.[The fly vs. dolphin question] is an ultra hypothetical question that diverts from the elephant in the room. How much I value I put on the life or a fly means absolutely nothing while we have billions of animals being raped, kept in cages without ever seeing sunshine ... Why do we do this, is the real question we should be asking.
The hypothetical question helps me understand the principle behind your choices. It is obvious to me that the killing and cages are bad. But it also seems to me that eating mushrooms is fine, and destroying a fly that causes annoyance and disease is acceptable.Who's to say that, for example, whales don't think the same of themselves and feel we're an abhorrent violent species with no respect for life and the planet?
If whales think this, then whales also have the correct anthropocentric view that the human species is the most powerful and important species on the planet. Human behavior can determine if whales go extinct, the reverse is not true.
After our last discussion, I reduced the amount of meat that I consume.
I'm really really happy to hear that. Every meal counts so thank you on behalf of those that didn't have to die for you.We cannot simply repeat slogans like "We must respect life!" We must ask difficult theoretical questions like "What is life?"
We're going of track and it feels like we're forgetting the point of the original post. To re-iterate, this thread is about exploring selective discrimination. This means taking into consideration the point of view of the victims we kill. If you did that and if you put yourself in the hoofs of an animal who's in the slaughter line, "We must respect life!" would not be a slogan for you. It sounds like a slogan to you because you're distanced from the victims. Are some forms of life more deserving of respect than others?"
I already answered this thoroughly before but here's a second or third attempt. For as long as you see nature structured in a pyramid of value you'll always discriminate against those "below" you. And I'm not just referring to animal rights. Not that long ago, in that same human made pyramid of value you're insisting on referring to there were slave owners, racists, sexists, Nazis, and every other type of discrimination of Humanity. If whales think this, then whales also have the correct anthropocentric view that the human species is the most powerful and important species on the planet. Human behaviour can determine if whales go extinct, the reverse is not true.
The whale example was to illustrate how we can't trust our own evaluation of greatness because we're obviously biased. But for the sake of a mental exercise let's entertain for a minute, that Humans are in fact the greatest, most powerful species on top of the the Universal pyramid of everything. Does that give us the right of subjugating everything "under" us? Or should we use our power responsibly to look after everything and everyone "under" us? The first way of thinking is how humans have been behaving so far and look at the world we've created. Plenty of animals are violently killed by other animals (even when not necessary for survival),
Can you give me any examples? I'm particularly interested in examples of this happening in the billions of victims.
but you recognize that only humans are capable of making thoughtful, ethical choices.|
Weather we choose to respecting all life or subjugate and kill everything for personal pleasure, how we treat those weaker than us is the greatest measurement of our character.
Okay, let's start over. This is from the top of the post: If you advocate against harming all animals, I become confused. Many of the phyla in the animal kingdom contain animals that are microscopic. Many of them have primitive or no nervous systems. If I destroy a stapler, I am not hurting anything. I think it is okay to "selectively discriminate" against my own stapler. I think it is okay to destroy microbes; I don't believe I am doing harm. Life is special, and I don't support destroying any form of life for no reason, but I have no problem with destroying something that does not suffer when the species is not threatened. Your idea about imagining ourselves in the place of an animal is a good one. It takes some imagination, but it does help me recognize that a cat or dog or pig is capable of suffering. I don't want to be a part of that suffering, which is why I have reduced the amount of meat that I consume. I can't imagine what it is like to be a worm any more than I can imagine being a stapler. A worm wiggles around if you poke it, but I doubt that it experiences suffering. We could investigate based on our understanding of consciousness and pain and look for evidence like nerve endings and cortisol levels. We might be uncertain, and like most things in life we will have to make decisions despite our uncertainty. For my part, I am comfortable eating a scallop, knowing that it does not have a brain. I am not sure at what point an animal becomes complex enough that I should worry about harming it. In particular, I am concerned about male chicks that are destroyed so their sisters can become egg-laying hens. I would like to know if selectively discriminating against these chicks is more like destroying a microbe or like harming a cow. When I ask you your opinion, you refuse to speak of anything except elephants. British house cats kill 275 million animals a year. A typical house cat kills between 30 and 40 animals yearly. The ten countries with the most pet cats have over 200 million cats. In those countries cats kill over six billion animals each year. The researchers who performed the study counted only dead animals "brought home" by domestic cats. Wildlife advocates are considerably interested in this issue.it feels like we're forgetting the point of the original post. To re-iterate, this thread is about exploring selective discrimination.
Why is it fine to advocate against harming some animals but not all?
Plenty of animals are violently killed by other animals (even when not necessary for survival)
Can you give me any examples? I'm particularly interested in examples of this happening in the billions of victims.
I noticed that elsewhere you made it pretty clear how you feel about the chicks, thanks. I admit I was exaggerating when I first mentioned "plenty" of animals that are killed by other animals without needing to for survival. Then when I researched the house cats I was surprised at how destructive they are. I see your animal welfare campaign as an effort to get Hubski users to behave in a morally superior way to pet cats. I don't enjoy seeing the fighting, but it's an important subject and you're the only one I see bringing regular attention to it. Like most everyone else, I have been talking about you and your language and not responding to your main point. But in this case, I think we are in pretty close agreement, though I do not live as consistently with the ideal as you do.I would like to know if selectively discriminating against these chicks is more like destroying a microbe or like harming a cow. When I ask you your opinion, you refuse to speak of anything except elephants.
My 30 seconds of due diligence made me believe that carrion would manage without maggots. Medical Maggots™ had not occurred to me. That's a point in their favor, but on balance Musca has a lot to answer for healthwise.
Mosquitoes are the answer to most useless animal. Single worst disease vector for humans, absolutely no benefit to anyone. And the bites of course. Fuck them all the way to extinction. And I'm sure with mosquitoes gone, bats would find something else to eat.
Yikes. Those worms are awful creatures. It doesn't beat the Nematode, but check out the parasitic wasp: Dicks
I have to ask: why do you believe that? Do you think that taking a human life should have the same weight as killing a bacterium (which is considered a lifeform by scientists)? And if you decide to assign two different values to those lives, that is, if it's possible for a life to be worth more than another based on some parametres of your choosing, then isn't it also possible for a life to be worth zero? It seems to me that in order to believe all animals should have a right to their life, I would have to first accept the belief that there is something like a fixed value for all life, and I can't really believe that.I believe all animals should have a right to their life.
I think I explained why I believe that animals should have a right to their life in my previous reply when I said "parting from the premise that every being wants to keep living for as long as it possibly can". I've never seen any living thing that wants to die therefore it's safe to assume that it wants to keep its life and what right do I have to take their life if I can choose? We decide to put subjective human value on living organisms at own own peril. Just like most structures in human society, we've been trained to think about nature as a hierarchical food chain (with us on top, anthropocentric much?), when it is in fact a web of life. Every living thing is valuable in its own unique way. That does not mean that we should kill everyone with equal dismissal. Quite the opposite, it means that we should treat all life with equal respect. Yes, including bacteria if we can choose to. For example, I choose to garden organically because I want to promote insects and living organisms in the soil and not kill everything with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and chemical fertilizers. Of course we can't always prevent killing micro-organisms or even small insects but the question of morality does not arise in circumstances where you don't have the knowledge or choice. As a supposedly evolved human being, in a supposedly advanced and abundant society I no longer need to subvert, breed and take the life other beings for survival, therefore I choose not to. Veganism is about reducing the amount of cruelty and suffering even if it might not be possible to eliminate it completely....why do you believe that?
Do you think that taking a human life should have the same weight as killing a bacterium
This is an extreme comparison of course, bacteria are not complex organisms like the animals humans breed for our own pleasure. As I said, I don't see it as a question of value of a bacterium vs a human, but a question of necessity.
I wouldn't kill anyone unnecessarily. Would you kill, skin and disembowel a cow?
I did answer the question. I'm sorry if it's not the answer you wanted. I'm curious to know what difference will it make to you if I kill an annoying insect in an event that might happen once a year? Will that make it ok for you or anyone else to kill cows, pigs, chickens, lambs and fish everyday, who did nothing to you?
If the need arose I'd eat you. I don't even change my own oil though and there's plenty of people to kill my food for me. Your argument for the value of all life and its desire to live doesn't jive with killing a mosquito out of annoyance but it's not my job to teach vegans about the legitimate arguments against meat.
If the need arose I'd eat you.
If the need arose to that point everyone would be in survival mode. Your argument for the value of all life and its desire to live doesn't jive with killing a mosquito out of annoyance
So for you killing a mosquito and killing a complex organism capable of social bonds, such as a dog or a cow is the same thing? How about killing someone you love? Would that bother you?it's not my job to teach vegans about the legitimate arguments against meat.
Here's 65 reasons. How many legitimate arguments have you got for raping, torturing and killing innocent creatures?
I was also distressed by organicAnt's use of that term. I don't think it's appropriate. I did some research to find out more about what happens to dairy cows. Here is a description in the most objective language I can manage: My source is a family-friendly guide for dairy farmers with cartoon illustrations. This is standard practice to keep the dairy cows regularly pregnant, so they will lactate. There are other practices which make the cows produce more milk than normal, protect the milk from contamination, and dispose of the cow when milk production eventually declines. In my judgement these practices generally increase the suffering of the animal. I strongly suspect that if typical dairy cows somehow had the option of suicide, the rate would be near 100%. I would be very happy to hear evidence to the contrary, that things are not as bad as they appear. tacocat, what do you think? Is providing the cheapest possible liquid protein and calcium source in the grocery store adequate justification for these practices?A farmer tricks a bull into mounting an artificial vagina to collect semen. Later the farmer restrains the cow and inserts his arm deep into her rectum and removes any feces. The farmer inserts an 18-inch (45 cm) long artificial insemination gun into the cow's vagina and guides it through the cervix, using the other hand in her rectum to position the tip of the gun in the uterus. No pain management drugs are used. When a calf is born, it is separated from the cow within a few days to avoid additional stress caused by breaking the close bond that forms between cow and calf.
Okay, thanks for letting me know. How about you, Grendel, any opinion you would like to share? organicAnt told me privately that Hubski members use organicAnt’s inflammatory language as an excuse to avoid a subject they want to ignore. I disagreed, certain that if we speak respectfully, Hubski will come through with thoughtful contributions on a difficult topic.
I have years of experience on sites like 4chan and similar, where it's considered perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour for users to outright insult each other for little or no reason, so I have a relatively high tolerance to inflammatory language by now (though I hold hubski to a higher standard than 4chan, obviously). That said, I've never really researched veganism and I don't feel strongly pro- or against it. I only took part in the conversation in the first place because one of organicAnt's beliefs, that all life is equally worthy of respect, seems flawed to me, and since it's the basis for his argument, I felt it had to be criticised.
Cows used for dairy products are genetically manipulated, artificially inseminated, and often drugged to force them to produce about four and a half times as much milk as they naturally would to feed their calves. These animals are often dosed with bovine growth hormone, which contributes to an inflammation of the udder known as “mastitis”—an extremely painful condition that up to 50 percent of cows used for their milk suffer from. Cows on dairy farms are also routinely mutilated without painkillers by having their horn tissue burned or gouged out of their heads, holes punched in their ears, and part of their tails cut off. Once their milk production declines, cows are sent to a terrifying death in a slaughterhouse to be ground up into hamburger.Like humans, cows produce milk only when they’re pregnant or nursing. In order to keep the milk constantly flowing, farmers artificially inseminate cows over and over, often on devices called “rape racks.” After their calves are taken from them, mother cows are hooked up, several times a day, to milking machines so that the milk meant for their calves can be sold to humans.