Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by Gertie »

Rohan
Gertie wrote:
I suspect most thoughtful ethical systems boil down to notions of well-being and harm, well-being being Good and Harm being Bad, tho there are different approaches to how this can be achieved, often framed in terms of Moral Agents and Oughts as ways to achieve Goods.

In this situation we can look at the Well-being and Harm issue, and if we believe (as scientific evidence suggests) that farm animals are capable of experiencing a quality of life, including something worth calling well-being and harm, we can identify a moral problem with unnecessarily slaughtering them for food and keeping them in conditions with cause suffering.

The moral remedy would require change, Oughts, for actors involved in the causal chain leading to the Moral Bad. This causal chain includes consumers, farmers, slaughter-house workers, supermarkets, etc. An easy way to effect the desired moral change is for consumers to stop eating meat. A lot of other changes would result which need planning for with such a major shift, but in principle it's a simple moral solution to a moral problem.
Just curious. But if that is the case, would you not buy a car and use public transport instead??

There are little over a billion vehicles in the planet now.

So, if all 3.5 billion adult humans owns a vehicle (say about 3.5 billion vehicles) it would sound the death knell to this planet (i.e. your well being and harm motif), right?
As it happens I live somewhere with very good public transport and don't own a car.

The fact that you responded with 'What about... this other thing over here, I bet I can catch you out on that' only suggests to me to me that you disagree with me but don't have an argument.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by LuckyR »

RohanKanhai wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Little words make big differences. I didn't say you presented your (outlier) position as THE Standard. I said you presented an outlier position as standard (or commonplace, if you prefer). If I had, i, too would be critical.
You know, come to think about it now, I don't think my position is the outlier position.

Because, just think about it.

Do you think that the overwhelming majority of meat-eaters do not know that killing of animals entails great pain??? Do you think they don't know that they suffer other types of abuse in the slaughterhouses and farms??

I don't think so. I think most people know. But eat mean in-spite of knowing this.

If you ask them, the meat-eaters, like in some YouTube videos I have seen, that is, when vegan activists confronts meat-eaters in public, ask them questions etc, most meat-eaters don't know how to answer. They cannot say why they eat meat despite of the cruelty of the process of obtaining the meat. I have see quite a number of videos like this in YouTube. Search for something like "vegans confront meat eaters".

Why is this?? I think the reason is very simple.

The meat-eaters are not consequentialists, nor do they know anything about ethics or ethical systems either.

They however don't feel guilty when buying and eating the meat. Because they are in-fact deontologists who use intention to judge the morality of action.
It is human-nature to use intention, since humans are not animals and the only creature that can think, intention goes hand-in-hand with any action we do. It is kind of human-nature. It is inborn like fear or happiness we feel.

For example, when parents teach little children about good or bad, do they teach consequentialim?? NO, they give or teach them rules, like do not lie, do not steal, do no hurt etc. This is not consequentialsim. This is classic deontology. That is, the use of rules.

So, humans are by nature, deontologists who use intention to judge the morality of an action. We just don't know it or aware of it. I don't think we need to be aware of it either.

Since we don't know know, when the vegans confront the meat eaters, the meat eaters fumble and don't know how to answer.

I think this is what happens.

That is, why people eat meat in-spite of knowing it's a cruel process.
Your observations are, of course correct. However I would propose a simpler (and better) explanation for them.

Let me review: you observe that the vast majority eat meat. You note that the generalities of the production of meat are well known (intellectually). You see that many, if not most when confronted by vegans stammer and struggle to justify their meat eating. At first glance this situation appears to be a paradox: folks disagree with meat harvesting/production yet eat it anyway, ie they are violating their "ethical rules".

If this is true, then you are correct this would be a standard position.

I propose a different way to make the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Namely, that the reason for the stammering and struggling of meat eaters when confronted by vegans is NOT because they agree with the vegans and are confronting the error of their ways, rather that they are in fact totally OK with the production/harvesting of meat, they don't think it is "cruel" since they don't personally find it cruel for many potential reasons, and probably "cuz they're animals" is the most common one. In this paradigm there is no paradox: folks are ok with eating meat... so they eat meat. The odd thing isn't eating meat despite being secretly "against" it, it is the emotional gymnastics that take place on the street corner when folks are confronted by vegans.

That is, folks have an expectation that "society" feels that slaughterhouse activities are "cruel", so they should act accordingly. The trouble is, they don't actually feel that it is cruel. So the conundrum in their minds is NOT "why am I partaking in this cruel activity?". It is "shouldn't I pretend to be horrified, when in fact I am pretty much OK with animal harvesting?"

In my experience, people vote with their feet, not their rhetoric. And the masses are beating down the doors of the hamburger joint despite their street corner verbal discomfort with vegans.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RohanKanhai
Posts: 176
Joined: October 21st, 2015, 8:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Location: SL

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by RohanKanhai »

Gertie wrote:Rohan
(Nested quote removed.)


Just curious. But if that is the case, would you not buy a car and use public transport instead??

There are little over a billion vehicles in the planet now.

So, if all 3.5 billion adult humans owns a vehicle (say about 3.5 billion vehicles) it would sound the death knell to this planet (i.e. your well being and harm motif), right?
As it happens I live somewhere with very good public transport and don't own a car.

The fact that you responded with 'What about... this other thing over here, I bet I can catch you out on that' only suggests to me to me that you disagree with me but don't have an argument.
In order to answer, I need to know whether you are a vegan. Because, there are lot of meat eaters who eat meat in-spite of saying that it is bad, which is weird, but then again, the reality.
"The mind sins, not the body; if there is no intention, there is no blame." - Titus Livy, Roman historian & philosopher (59 BC - c. 17 AD)
Image
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by Gertie »

RohanKanhai wrote:
Gertie wrote:Rohan


(Nested quote removed.)


As it happens I live somewhere with very good public transport and don't own a car.

The fact that you responded with 'What about... this other thing over here, I bet I can catch you out on that' only suggests to me to me that you disagree with me but don't have an argument.
In order to answer, I need to know whether you are a vegan. Because, there are lot of meat eaters who eat meat in-spite of saying that it is bad, which is weird, but then again, the reality.
No you don't. This is a philosophy board, I made an argument in response to your argument, if you can't answer it, that's fine.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by Judaka »

Your observations are, of course correct. However I would propose a simpler (and better) explanation for them.

Let me review: you observe that the vast majority eat meat. You note that the generalities of the production of meat are well known (intellectually). You see that many, if not most when confronted by vegans stammer and struggle to justify their meat eating. At first glance this situation appears to be a paradox: folks disagree with meat harvesting/production yet eat it anyway, ie they are violating their "ethical rules".

If this is true, then you are correct this would be a standard position.

I propose a different way to make the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Namely, that the reason for the stammering and struggling of meat eaters when confronted by vegans is NOT because they agree with the vegans and are confronting the error of their ways, rather that they are in fact totally OK with the production/harvesting of meat, they don't think it is "cruel" since they don't personally find it cruel for many potential reasons, and probably "cuz they're animals" is the most common one. In this paradigm there is no paradox: folks are ok with eating meat... so they eat meat. The odd thing isn't eating meat despite being secretly "against" it, it is the emotional gymnastics that take place on the street corner when folks are confronted by vegans.

That is, folks have an expectation that "society" feels that slaughterhouse activities are "cruel", so they should act accordingly. The trouble is, they don't actually feel that it is cruel. So the conundrum in their minds is NOT "why am I partaking in this cruel activity?". It is "shouldn't I pretend to be horrified, when in fact I am pretty much OK with animal harvesting?"

In my experience, people vote with their feet, not their rhetoric. And the masses are beating down the doors of the hamburger joint despite their street corner verbal discomfort with vegans.
That is a really interesting way of looking at it, I waver between this perspective and that people simply value convenience and pleasure over philosophical concerns as I think that when it comes to companies that exploit labourers in third world countries, the consequences seem equally insignificant despite few vocally supporting this process.

I myself feel like veganism is a response to visual content and not really an intellectual ideology, if you think about veganism as "stopping the needless killing of animals" then when it comes to farm animals, who's very existence depends upon their deaths it feels like veganism is advocating not that animals should be spared from death but rather that they should be spared from life. From this perspective it feels like a meat eater who supports better meat industry practices is a more ethical stance and this stance would be the stance applied to how we deal with humans, I mean we have fought to emancipate the slaves not murder them because we felt their existence was too pitiful to bear and etc. It is not possible for farm animals to live free without a near genocide of the current populations and so better conditions seems to be the best approach after all these animals individually show a desire to preserve their lives right? I think promoting less meat consumption and perhaps less of certain animal products might be healthier and promote ethical practices and perhaps that alone is enough for me to think veganism is good if there aren't too many people doing it.

On the other hand though, it does feel like vegans are reacting to how the meat industry makes them feel and reacting to the images or clips that they have seen. Another interesting question to me is if we could reduce half the worlds population and half of the livestock killed for consumption as a result but under the same conditions; would that make a difference?
User avatar
RohanKanhai
Posts: 176
Joined: October 21st, 2015, 8:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Location: SL

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by RohanKanhai »

Gertie wrote:
RohanKanhai wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

In order to answer, I need to know whether you are a vegan. Because, there are lot of meat eaters who eat meat in-spite of saying that it is bad, which is weird, but then again, the reality.
No you don't. This is a philosophy board, I made an argument in response to your argument, if you can't answer it, that's fine.
I don't think you have any idea what philosophy is. Philosophy is a not a science. It is a set of, yes, beliefs or opinions.

Your argument can be dismissed using one simple example.

Western medicine is tested on animals. Millions of animals die to test the medicine you and I take. So, by taking Western medicine you are promoting cruelty to animals. This is no different to the meat-eating scenario.

As you can see, you may not eat meat, but will have no issue in taking drugs you know are tested on animals.

So, there goes your argument about "most thoughtful ethical systems boil down to notions of well-being and harm".

-- Updated June 3rd, 2017, 4:43 am to add the following --

and also about "animals are capable of experiencing a quality of life, including something worth calling well-being and harm", and all that jazz.... :D
"The mind sins, not the body; if there is no intention, there is no blame." - Titus Livy, Roman historian & philosopher (59 BC - c. 17 AD)
Image
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by LuckyR »

Judaka wrote:
Your observations are, of course correct. However I would propose a simpler (and better) explanation for them.

Let me review: you observe that the vast majority eat meat. You note that the generalities of the production of meat are well known (intellectually). You see that many, if not most when confronted by vegans stammer and struggle to justify their meat eating. At first glance this situation appears to be a paradox: folks disagree with meat harvesting/production yet eat it anyway, ie they are violating their "ethical rules".

If this is true, then you are correct this would be a standard position.

I propose a different way to make the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Namely, that the reason for the stammering and struggling of meat eaters when confronted by vegans is NOT because they agree with the vegans and are confronting the error of their ways, rather that they are in fact totally OK with the production/harvesting of meat, they don't think it is "cruel" since they don't personally find it cruel for many potential reasons, and probably "cuz they're animals" is the most common one. In this paradigm there is no paradox: folks are ok with eating meat... so they eat meat. The odd thing isn't eating meat despite being secretly "against" it, it is the emotional gymnastics that take place on the street corner when folks are confronted by vegans.

That is, folks have an expectation that "society" feels that slaughterhouse activities are "cruel", so they should act accordingly. The trouble is, they don't actually feel that it is cruel. So the conundrum in their minds is NOT "why am I partaking in this cruel activity?". It is "shouldn't I pretend to be horrified, when in fact I am pretty much OK with animal harvesting?"

In my experience, people vote with their feet, not their rhetoric. And the masses are beating down the doors of the hamburger joint despite their street corner verbal discomfort with vegans.
That is a really interesting way of looking at it, I waver between this perspective and that people simply value convenience and pleasure over philosophical concerns as I think that when it comes to companies that exploit labourers in third world countries, the consequences seem equally insignificant despite few vocally supporting this process.

I myself feel like veganism is a response to visual content and not really an intellectual ideology, if you think about veganism as "stopping the needless killing of animals" then when it comes to farm animals, who's very existence depends upon their deaths it feels like veganism is advocating not that animals should be spared from death but rather that they should be spared from life. From this perspective it feels like a meat eater who supports better meat industry practices is a more ethical stance and this stance would be the stance applied to how we deal with humans, I mean we have fought to emancipate the slaves not murder them because we felt their existence was too pitiful to bear and etc. It is not possible for farm animals to live free without a near genocide of the current populations and so better conditions seems to be the best approach after all these animals individually show a desire to preserve their lives right? I think promoting less meat consumption and perhaps less of certain animal products might be healthier and promote ethical practices and perhaps that alone is enough for me to think veganism is good if there aren't too many people doing it.

On the other hand though, it does feel like vegans are reacting to how the meat industry makes them feel and reacting to the images or clips that they have seen. Another interesting question to me is if we could reduce half the worlds population and half of the livestock killed for consumption as a result but under the same conditions; would that make a difference?
Glad to see you get my point. Veganism is a legit attitude that is commendable. There is zero risk that changes in demand for meat products will happen in any significant numerical amount in less than a generation of livestock. Therefore the only livestock that farmers will have to put down because of low demand (loss of being alive) wold be for the farmer who ignores trends and over-breeds. I have no philosophical problem with the demand for livestock going to zero. There is not an inherent necessity for domesticated animals to exist if there is no call for them.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RohanKanhai
Posts: 176
Joined: October 21st, 2015, 8:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Location: SL

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by RohanKanhai »

LuckyR wrote:
RohanKanhai wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

You know, come to think about it now, I don't think my position is the outlier position.

Because, just think about it.

Do you think that the overwhelming majority of meat-eaters do not know that killing of animals entails great pain??? Do you think they don't know that they suffer other types of abuse in the slaughterhouses and farms??

I don't think so. I think most people know. But eat mean in-spite of knowing this.

If you ask them, the meat-eaters, like in some YouTube videos I have seen, that is, when vegan activists confronts meat-eaters in public, ask them questions etc, most meat-eaters don't know how to answer. They cannot say why they eat meat despite of the cruelty of the process of obtaining the meat. I have see quite a number of videos like this in YouTube. Search for something like "vegans confront meat eaters".

Why is this?? I think the reason is very simple.

The meat-eaters are not consequentialists, nor do they know anything about ethics or ethical systems either.

They however don't feel guilty when buying and eating the meat. Because they are in-fact deontologists who use intention to judge the morality of action.
It is human-nature to use intention, since humans are not animals and the only creature that can think, intention goes hand-in-hand with any action we do. It is kind of human-nature. It is inborn like fear or happiness we feel.

For example, when parents teach little children about good or bad, do they teach consequentialim?? NO, they give or teach them rules, like do not lie, do not steal, do no hurt etc. This is not consequentialsim. This is classic deontology. That is, the use of rules.

So, humans are by nature, deontologists who use intention to judge the morality of an action. We just don't know it or aware of it. I don't think we need to be aware of it either.

Since we don't know know, when the vegans confront the meat eaters, the meat eaters fumble and don't know how to answer.

I think this is what happens.

That is, why people eat meat in-spite of knowing it's a cruel process.
Your observations are, of course correct. However I would propose a simpler (and better) explanation for them.

Let me review: you observe that the vast majority eat meat. You note that the generalities of the production of meat are well known (intellectually). You see that many, if not most when confronted by vegans stammer and struggle to justify their meat eating. At first glance this situation appears to be a paradox: folks disagree with meat harvesting/production yet eat it anyway, ie they are violating their "ethical rules".

If this is true, then you are correct this would be a standard position.

I propose a different way to make the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Namely, that the reason for the stammering and struggling of meat eaters when confronted by vegans is NOT because they agree with the vegans and are confronting the error of their ways, rather that they are in fact totally OK with the production/harvesting of meat, they don't think it is "cruel" since they don't personally find it cruel for many potential reasons, and probably "cuz they're animals" is the most common one. In this paradigm there is no paradox: folks are ok with eating meat... so they eat meat. The odd thing isn't eating meat despite being secretly "against" it, it is the emotional gymnastics that take place on the street corner when folks are confronted by vegans.

That is, folks have an expectation that "society" feels that slaughterhouse activities are "cruel", so they should act accordingly. The trouble is, they don't actually feel that it is cruel. So the conundrum in their minds is NOT "why am I partaking in this cruel activity?". It is "shouldn't I pretend to be horrified, when in fact I am pretty much OK with animal harvesting?"

In my experience, people vote with their feet, not their rhetoric. And the masses are beating down the doors of the hamburger joint despite their street corner verbal discomfort with vegans.
Oh there IS a paradox. There is definitely a paradox.

This is the famous question posed by famous animal rights philosopher Tom Regan: "Why eat cows but not dogs"?

See, those same meat eaters who you say have no issue against cruelty to cows, and harvesting them for human consumption, will be aghast at the idea of killing dogs for food. They will come to the streets and protest. They will try to block any legislation to do this.

Won't you guys do it also Lucky?? :D

So, unfortunately ALL of your claims that I have highlighted are , FALSE. :D

Sorry to disappoint you like this!!! Nothing personal.. :D :D

-- Updated June 3rd, 2017, 11:30 pm to add the following --
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Rohan,
What do you make of a scientifique Study like this that shows crows can do a 5 year old's task? Before a child is that age, the child hasn't learn yet what a motivation is? How can genetics program a bird to do this sort of thing, or conceptual thinking. Is this another exception?


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0092895
The problem is this: A human 5 year old can do lots of things other than "understating the casual displacement of water". He can talk, do simple math, sing, dance, communicate, learn, open doors and lots of other things.

Crows can do only one thing that shows "intelligence". And this also after teaching them. The study clearly says that, "Before they took part in the water-based experiments, all birds were trained to drop stones into a Perspex apparatus with a collapsible platform.". So, they were trained by humans, not other crows. Humans teach other humans. See the big difference??

You say humans are animals just because a crow can do some seemingly intelligence task. The problem is, what if a human 5 year old can only understand water displacement, but cannot talk, sing, dance, or do anything else done by other 5 - year old children? Then, we will say that there is something wrong with the kid. He is abnormal, not intelligent. But, when a crow only shows water displacement ability but cannot talk, sing, dance, and do anything else a normal 5 year can do, you call the crow more intelligent than the 5 year old. See, the disconnect or discrepancy in your thinking here??

That is, you are using an exception to prove a general rule.

That is the mistake you make. :D

Also regarding genetic programming, how do you think termites build mounds, bees build hives, beavers build dams??? Can YOU build a termite mound or bee hive, let alone a 5 year old human?? You cannot. Both are very complex structures. So, using this analogy are you suggesting that termites for example are more intelligent that humans??? You know you cannot do that, right? :D

So, how do these animals build these complex structures: Evolutionary/genetic programming. :D
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: -- Updated May 28th, 2017, 7:16 am to add the following --

Rohan, and what about the feral child? Is it a human or an animal? Please make up your mind.

Rohan, is it a fact that I have an opinion or is it only your opinion? I may be simply dishing out fake news about Trump, not an opinion, right?
A feral child is still human.

Anencephaly is the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp that occurs during embryonic development.
In almost all cases, anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated because there is no chance of the infant's ever achieving a conscious existence.
So, these types of babies are not even conscious as a dog or cat. It is much worse, much much worse than the case of a feral child.

So, now, is this baby born without a brain human?? If it is not human, then according to you Bruno, what is it?? Is it an animal?
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/03/reme ... d-so-many/

What about this baby? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -life.html
This kid lived for 3 years, like a vegetable, brain dead, not understanding or feeling anything.

What about this kid who lived without a brain for 12 years? http://q13fox.com/2014/08/31/boy-born-w ... eacefully/

So, are these babies human, animal or something else?? I say all these babies were human. :D

-- Updated June 3rd, 2017, 11:37 pm to add the following --
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Rohan, is it a fact that I have an opinion or is it only your opinion? I may be simply dishing out fake news about Trump, not an opinion, right?
You have an opinion because you did not give credible evidence to support your claims about The Donald?

Where is the proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation or corroboration??? You have NONE.

It's as simple as that. :D
"The mind sins, not the body; if there is no intention, there is no blame." - Titus Livy, Roman historian & philosopher (59 BC - c. 17 AD)
Image
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by Gertie »

RohanKanhai wrote:
Gertie wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


No you don't. This is a philosophy board, I made an argument in response to your argument, if you can't answer it, that's fine.
I don't think you have any idea what philosophy is. Philosophy is a not a science. It is a set of, yes, beliefs or opinions.

Your argument can be dismissed using one simple example.

Western medicine is tested on animals. Millions of animals die to test the medicine you and I take. So, by taking Western medicine you are promoting cruelty to animals. This is no different to the meat-eating scenario.

As you can see, you may not eat meat, but will have no issue in taking drugs you know are tested on animals.



So, there goes your argument about "most thoughtful ethical systems boil down to notions of well-being and harm".

-- Updated June 3rd, 2017, 4:43 am to add the following --

and also about "animals are capable of experiencing a quality of life, including something worth calling well-being and harm", and all that jazz.... :D
Yet another shot at 'Whataboutery', not an argument...
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by LuckyR »

RohanKanhai wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Your observations are, of course correct. However I would propose a simpler (and better) explanation for them.

Let me review: you observe that the vast majority eat meat. You note that the generalities of the production of meat are well known (intellectually). You see that many, if not most when confronted by vegans stammer and struggle to justify their meat eating. At first glance this situation appears to be a paradox: folks disagree with meat harvesting/production yet eat it anyway, ie they are violating their "ethical rules".

If this is true, then you are correct this would be a standard position.

I propose a different way to make the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Namely, that the reason for the stammering and struggling of meat eaters when confronted by vegans is NOT because they agree with the vegans and are confronting the error of their ways, rather that they are in fact totally OK with the production/harvesting of meat, they don't think it is "cruel" since they don't personally find it cruel for many potential reasons, and probably "cuz they're animals" is the most common one. In this paradigm there is no paradox: folks are ok with eating meat... so they eat meat. The odd thing isn't eating meat despite being secretly "against" it, it is the emotional gymnastics that take place on the street corner when folks are confronted by vegans.

That is, folks have an expectation that "society" feels that slaughterhouse activities are "cruel", so they should act accordingly. The trouble is, they don't actually feel that it is cruel. So the conundrum in their minds is NOT "why am I partaking in this cruel activity?". It is "shouldn't I pretend to be horrified, when in fact I am pretty much OK with animal harvesting?"

In my experience, people vote with their feet, not their rhetoric. And the masses are beating down the doors of the hamburger joint despite their street corner verbal discomfort with vegans.
Oh there IS a paradox. There is definitely a paradox.

This is the famous question posed by famous animal rights philosopher Tom Regan: "Why eat cows but not dogs"?

See, those same meat eaters who you say have no issue against cruelty to cows, and harvesting them for human consumption, will be aghast at the idea of killing dogs for food. They will come to the streets and protest. They will try to block any legislation to do this.

Won't you guys do it also Lucky?? :D

So, unfortunately ALL of your claims that I have highlighted are , FALSE. :D

Sorry to disappoint you like this!!! Nothing personal.. :D :D
Well, yes and no. Yes, you have pointed out a paradox. Just not one within the context of your issue of meat-eater bewilderment at the hands of vegans. Meat-eaters are very happy to side with the vegans and agree that dogs shouldn't be eaten. Nope, no paradox on that score. Sure you can make up a second or a third paradox, but probably in a yet again separate context.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RohanKanhai
Posts: 176
Joined: October 21st, 2015, 8:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Location: SL

Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty

Post by RohanKanhai »

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. :D

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. :D

-- 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.
:D
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. :D

-- 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....
"The mind sins, not the body; if there is no intention, there is no blame." - Titus Livy, Roman historian & philosopher (59 BC - c. 17 AD)
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021