Ormond wrote:RohanKanhai wrote:If you assume that killing of animals food is unethical, then all of the blame will have to go to the producer. If you assume that the consumer buys meat from the market (like a supermarket), then he is free of any guilt.
If the consumer stops buying the meat, the producer will stop killing the animal. Thus there is a direct connection between the consumer action and the killing.
I thought you did a good job in making your argument, and if you were an attorney for the beef industry you would have earned your salary. But I'd guess the jury would see your argument as an elaborate rationalization, and your client the meat industry would lose the hypothetical case.
A better argument might be something along the lines of "it's nature's way that some animals eat others". This is both true, and is an argument that's been field tested as an ethical position by Western religions for centuries. You know, that case has already been successfully sold to billions of people, so it's a safer bet.
Before I answer others I wish to highlight something which is ignored, not understood or not considered (i.e. deliberately) by almost all the forum members. I too am guilty of it.
That is the fact that any opinion you have on any subject (ethical) let alone the ethical aspect of eating meat is all made
relative to the ethical system you
believe in.
That as a
consequence of the consumer not buying meat, the producer will stop killing animals is an opinion only relative to
consequentialsim.
Because this happens only as an indirect (not direct because the consumer does to directly request the consumer to kill animals)
consequence of buying meat.
Everybody considers
direct consequences of their actions before doing something. For example, you will consider the consequences of throwing garbage on the streets. You are directly responsible for the consequences because
you are the one who is doing it. If you do it knowingly, they you also have intention of doing it.
So, when you consider
direct consequences of actions, since for direct consequences to occur you have to have intention of doing it, consequentialism, deontology or any other ethical system like virtue ethics (IMO) harmonize, because only humans have the concept and emotion of
intention (unlike animals) so
intention or according to Kant motivation can be thought of as part of human-nature.
However, consequentialism takes it one step further by considering also the
indirect consequences of your actions. The meat-eating scenario is a classic case. So is taking medicine tested on animals.
So, non-consequentialists have no obligation to accept this (highlighted) reasoning.
Painful, but the bitter truth unfortunately.
-- Updated June 7th, 2017, 9:44 am to add the following --
Correction: Because this
(killing animals) happens only as an indirect (not direct because the consumer does
NOT directly request the
producer to kill animals) consequence of buying meat.
-- Updated June 11th, 2017, 9:31 pm to add the following --
Jackdeber wrote:I'm not sure if this has been brought up on here, but is the non-culpability of the act you are referring to, a reference to Aquinas' double effect. Your saying that although the consumer is inescapably aware that a being has been sacrificed to feed him/herself, they aren't responsible for that act.
The double-effect uses
intention, but it is not
explicitly stated, hence
implied. So, there are similarities and differences with the system I am discussing.
For example, a doctor who considers abortion always wrong, can still abort a fetus using the double-effect, IF not doing it will endanger the mother.
It is much easier for the doctor do it with the INTENTION of saving the mother, and NOT with the INTENTION OF
specifically killing the fetus.
Jackdeber wrote:I think personally disagree with that idea as a basis for morality as knowledge of a dilemma automatically means that you have a duty to contemplate the morality. I don't believe that because you have become involved that you have to necessarily change your actions, but you are duty bound to consider the moralities involved.
Nothing wrong with personally disagreeing. After all ethics is about opinions and not scientific truths.
So, is a sick person duty bound to consider the moralities involved in making modern medicine, which we we all know involve torturing millions of animals in labs?
Does a person who works for a supermarket for example duty bound to consider the moralities involved in meat production, because he is part of the chain which sells the meat??
Does a worker working for meat packing plant duty bound to consider the moralities involved in meat production?? He might be just a janitor working there?
Are contractors, carpenters, electricians etc duty bound to consider the moralities involved in producing meat when undertaking work for companies who run meat processing businesses for example?
Does a person who works for milk producing company duty bound to consider the moralities involved of producing milk, because all the milk cows are finally sent to the slaughterhouse?
Does an account who works for Hormel Foods who make the famous pork ham SPAM duty bound to consider the moralities of making SPAM?? He is just doing the accounts.
Does a person who works for an on line company like eBay or Amazon duty bound to consider the moralities of working for a company which sells meat products?
The answer by any sane person to all the above questions will be an emphatic
NO. So, as you can see, CONSEQUENTIALISM which considers INDIRECT consequences (not direct ones, everybody considers direct consequences) is a meaningless ethical system. Consequences mean NOTHING without INTENTION.
Jackdeber wrote:When it comes to the example of a deer hunter offering you a tasty dish. I think that you could argue that you are responsible for that particular animals death,
I have debunked this in
this thread using one of my own thought experiments.
Just got to the supermarket meat counter and stand in front of the chicken aisle. There are dead chicken there. Nobody has purchased it still. The chicken has been dead for days or weeks. X number of people should be 100% responsible for it's death. You the "consumer" who is standing in front of the dead-chicken cannot be the one responsible, right, because since the chicken is already dead. Can the blame, even part of the blame magically transfer to you the consumer if you purchase it. NO. It cannot. So, you are no way responsible the death of the chicken you buy from the supermarket.
But according to consequentialim, which considers indirect consequences, when the receipts or knowledge for the purchase of the dead chicken goes to the producer, he will kill more since you the consumer has purchased one of his dead chicken and thus registering a demand. So, according to consequentialism you are never responsible for the dead chicken you buy, but is responsible for the future chicken killed as a result of the demand created by the consequence of your purchase.
That is how consequentialsm works. So, you are clueless about the different ethical systems and how they work. I suggest reading about these things first. Wikipedia has a good page on ethics.
Jackdeber wrote:By not purchasing or eating meat you are making a statement to world that you do not support the whole system of rearing a slaughtering life stock.
I have said this over and over again. The above statement is true only in consequential ethics. Non-consequentialists do not agree with this reasoning. This is in fact the
opinion of consequentialists. It is just an opinion of an ethical system which uses the ethical presupposition that what is ethical or not ethical is dictated by consequences alone.
Non-consequentialsts whose ethical systems are based on ethical presuppositions which are different to consequentialsm will obviously not agree with that
opinion.
But of course, both are
opinions at the end of the day. That we all (well most) can agree upon.
Jackdeber wrote:I am a meat eater myself. I do, however, support a moral decision to choose not to eat meat.
Again you show how confused and unaware you are about matters moral and ethical.
Moral means proper, right, blameless. So, you say that killing animals is not proper, not right, but eat meat anyway.
Completely nuts if you ask me.
-- Updated June 11th, 2017, 10:18 pm to add the following --
Correction: You say that by purchasing meat you are making a statement to the world that you DO support the whole system of rearing and slaughtering meat and also you say that you are duty bound to consider the moralities involved in all of this and also say that you are responsible the death of
that particular animal, BUT buy and eat meat anyway, which is completely nuts....