Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
- TSBU
- Posts: 151
- Joined: August 17th, 2016, 5:32 pm
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
If you feel good having a small and stupid dog living in a flat, wich is bad for fog legs, cuting its balls because you don't want hm to get horny, a small dog like a bulldog, with many genetic problems, made by reproducing dogs with deformitys till you have that small dog.
If you want to have a bird in a birdcage because you like to hear how that bird sing for something that will never come.
If you want to have a snake, because you want to show it to your friends and say "Look, have a snake" (I can't imagine other reason...)
It's ok for me.
If you want to eat them, is the same. If you want to cure cancer using experiments with them, I will fight against those who want to stop that experiments.
If you want to hunt them, or you have sadist habits with them, I probably won't like you, because that's a sign of a kind of mind I don't like. But that won't make you very different from the rest of the world for me, at least you are not a lawyer, a soldier, a publicist, etc.
- 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
Interesting statement. BUT, are you sure you are "OK" with it?TSBU wrote:I'm a meat eater and I promote animal cruelty.
If you feel good having a small and stupid dog living in a flat, wich is bad for fog legs, cuting its balls because you don't want hm to get horny, a small dog like a bulldog, with many genetic problems, made by reproducing dogs with deformitys till you have that small dog.
If you want to have a bird in a birdcage because you like to hear how that bird sing for something that will never come.
If you want to have a snake, because you want to show it to your friends and say "Look, have a snake" (I can't imagine other reason...)
It's ok for me.
If you want to eat them, is the same. If you want to cure cancer using experiments with them, I will fight against those who want to stop that experiments.
If you want to hunt them, or you have sadist habits with them, I probably won't like you, because that's a sign of a kind of mind I don't like. But that won't make you very different from the rest of the world for me, at least you are not a lawyer, a soldier, a publicist, etc.
Because, although you can say this in a faceless internet forum, where you cannot be identified, there will be real life situations where you will be tested. You will most probably not be able to say this, like for instance, in increase order of importance.
(4.) If you were a politician will you be able to say that you are OK with animal cruelty?? You will loose all the votes of vegans.
(3.) If your new neighbors are vegetarians, will you will be say this at a BBQ get-together?
(2.) If your boss is an ethical vegan. You think you can say this at a company dinner??
(1.) If you fall in love with a girl and you find out she is a activist ethical vegan. Then you have a problem.
Also, if you admit that you promote "animal cruelty", then surely you are not a "moral person". You are an immoral person, right? Because you knowingly (not accidentally) admit to promoting "cruelty" or "animal cruelty".
You say that you will "probably won't like a person who hunts or practice sadism on animals". Hunting is also cruelty according to you that is. Also, sadism is also a form of cruelty, right?
(Source: sadism = the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others)
You are clearly contradicting yourself. You say that you promote cruelty to animals and OK with it, at the same time saying that you will "probably not like a person who hunts (i.e. cruelty) & practice sadism (i.e. also cruelty) on animals".
You also say that you support medical testing on animals, which is "cruelty", but that the same time saying only when hunting and sadism, you don't like "cruelty".
I think you are confused.
I think the problem here is the lack of knowledge of different ethical systems.
Most people, even so-called activist ethical vegans, and meat-eaters alike, think that consequentialism is the ONLY ethical system out there. Even meat-eaters think like this. That is why in any debate between meat-eaters and vegans, like this one, Debate Should Everyone Go Vegan (search this in Google), the meat-eaters will ALWAYS loose.
Because, when the vegans, who think that everybody should be consequentialists, bring out the ethical argument against eating meat, that is the consumers promoting of cruelty to animals, when buying meat aspect, the meat eaters, who also think that there is no other ethical system to consequentialism cannot counteract that. They loose the debate then and there.
So, members like TSBU who say that they have no issues with promoting animal cruelty when they buy meat, has no reason to get into an debate or even discussion with vegans since they don't give a damn about cruelty to animals. There is no debate here right. Because vegans say you are promoting animal cruelty. You say I don't give a damn. I am OK with it. So, there is nothing to debate or discuss, right?
So, everybody thinks that there are 2 bipolar, diametrically opposed, sort of extreme views when it comes to this sensitive topic:
(1.) Vegetarians and vegans: Meat consumers (BTW not producers. It's always the consumers) promote animal cruelty. Animal cruelty includes not only brutal factory farming conditions, but the actual KILLING of the animal itself. Because KILLING an animal is also a very cruel painful process (to the animal that is).
(2.) Meat-eaters: Yes, we promote animal cruelty when we buy meat. We don't mind that. Animals are meant to be eaten. It's nature. Some meat-eaters say that they promote cruelty, but they feel sorry for the animals, but cannot give a valid reason why they still buy meat, or just don't care to give one. That is again, the "I feel sorry, but I don't much care for animal suffering" type of reply. So, meat eaters, admit to promoting animals cruelty. One group don't feel sorry for the animals, while the other feels sorry. But both don't care about the cruelty they admit they are promoting.
So, to summarize, everybody, especially in the West, think that this vegetarian vs meat-eating debate has only 2 extreme camps.
(1.) Vegetarians/vegans who accuse the meat consumers (not producers BTW) of promoting animal cruelty.
(2.) Meat-eaters: Who admit they promote animal cruelty. But,
(2.1) Who don't care about animal-cruelty.
(2.2) Who care about animal cruelty, but don't know how to understand the situation. Don't know how to answer I.e. they feel guilty about the animal cruelty they admit to perpetrating, and also feel sorry for the animals. But at the same time don't have any problem buying more meat. This is the confusion. This is where they don't know how to answer.
I, on the other hand, created this topic, in order to show that there is a 3rd-position, when it comes to this vegan vs meat-eating debate. There is a sort of middle-ground.
I.e. I am against animal cruelty. But it's NOT the consumers who are promoting it when they buy meat. It's the producers who are promoting it by creating a market for meat.
I know most will think this is an crazy argument. Even meat-eaters will think like this. BUT, this is the 3rd or middle position according to my opinion.
Why you will find this argument sort of nuts, is because you are consequentialists. I am not a consequentialists. I am deontologist, that is, I don't use consequences to judge the morality of an action. I use only one thing: INTENTION. I will not take ethical responsibility for any action to which I had no INTENTION of doing myself.
Why should we take ethical blame for things which we had no INTENTION of doing. What we don't do INTENTIONALLY are called MISTAKES or errors.
Consequentialists will need deontology to figure out whether some of their actions are ethical or not. But, deontologists will not need the help of consequentialism to solve any ethical issues.
For example, if you drive a car and knock and kill someone because you were drunk and lost control, if you are consequentialists, then you should accept getting the death penalty. Because, the consequences of you breaking the law, that is drinking while driving and causing an accident which killed a person, that is the consequences of your mistakes will make you face the death penalty.
BUT, in court will you just accept it? No, right?? You will say to the judge, yes, I killed a person due to the consequences of my actions, BUT, I had no specic INTENTION of killing that person. So, the judge will accept it and, instead of the death sentence, send you to 5 to 10 years in jail..
So, it was deontolpgy that helped you escape the death penalty.
I think you get the idea.
So, as you can see, different ethical systems can give different results altogether, when applied to a particular situation. One will tell to kill you, while the other will spare you and give you a lesser sentence.
It is true for everyday scenarios as well. What if you forgot to take the dog out of the cage and rush to work because you boss called suddenly and asked you to come immediately. The dog starts barking and disturb the neighborhood for the whole day. The neighbors call the cops and and things get complicated.
What will you do?? If you use consequentialism, then the consequence of you not letting the dog out have caused great pain to your neighbors.
But what will you do?? Won't you apologize and say it was a mistake and you forgot, meaning that you did not do this INTENTIONALLY.
So, you get the idea, right?
So, coming to TSBU. He is clearly confused. He seems to be a meat-eater of category 2.2 above. That is, TSBU seems to not like animal cruelty (hunting, sadism meme), but at the same time have no problem with the cruelty which happens when you buy meat or when testing animals in medical labs.
The solution is this: TSBU is not a consequentialist. He is in fact a deontologist. But he does not KNOW it. If you are a deontologist, the confusion vanishes. Why??? Because only then can TSBU not like hunting, sadism with animals AND ALSO can say does not like any time of cruelty to animals like, killing of animals for meat, and also not like doing medical experiments on animals, but at the same time buy meat from the supermarket and also take medicine which was tested on animals.
Why?? You should not be ethically blamed for anything that you had no intention of doing. When you are buying meat from the market, you have no intention of killing animals. The animals are already dead. You cannot do ethical judgement on dead animals. Since TSBU is now not a consequentialist, he does not have to worry about the promoting of future killing of animals. That is consequentialism, which is a different ethical system. You just buy the meat and enjoy. As you long as you don't kill animals yourself, you have no ethical blame. All ethical blame is borne by the producer.
When you buy medicine, you don't have to think about promoting more medical testing on animals to make better medicine. YOU did not test on any animals. You have no intention of doing it, or to be more correct, intention is not even applicable, because there is no situation where you can test your intention. So, buying medicine from the pharmacy is an ethical neutral act, and so is buying meat from the market. Because, when I go to the market to buy meat, unless there are live animals which are killed on the sport, to my command, there is no way for to test your intentions. Hence the situation is ethically neutral.
This is a different ethical system. Of course consequentialists can dismiss it. They can do it. But, then we deontologists can also dismiss consequentialism as well. Both ethical systems, at the end of the day, are just opinions, and not scientific truths.
-- Updated September 30th, 2016, 9:44 am to add the following --
PS: To put it more clearly, even deontologists will look at the consequences of an action they are going to perform, before they perform the action. BUT deontologists will only look at at consequences for which THEY have INTENTION of doing.
When I buying medicine for example, the consequences are that the company which produce that medicine will be given and indication (i.e. promoting aspect) to produce better medicine (i.e. demand creates supply), for which 1000s of more animals will have to be killed in order to test it. BUT, I have no INTENTION of causing that CONSEQUENCE of testing on animals. The only way I can do that is if I was employee of the company who made the drug. So, the only thing that I can say is that, I cannot do medical experiments on animals. I will not do it. But at the same time, I cannot be responsible for some pharmaceutical company doing it. I can only be responsible if I do it personally on animals.
That is how you can buy a gas guzzling SUV without feeling any guilty: You have no specific intentions of polluting the environment. On the other hand if you dump waste from your factory to the nearby river, then you are knowingly doing it. You know the consequences of dumping factory waste in the river is pollution. Since you KNOW this, now you do it INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY, hence guilty, ethically and legally both.
Same for buying leather shoes, silk clothes, and yes, MEAT.
- TSBU
- Posts: 151
- Joined: August 17th, 2016, 5:32 pm
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
Yes.RohanKanhai wrote: Interesting statement. BUT, are you sure you are "OK" with it?
I won't be a politician.RohanKanhai wrote: Because, although you can say this in a faceless internet forum, where you cannot be identified, there will be real life situations where you will be tested. You will most probably not be able to say this, like for instance, in increase order of importance
(4.) If you were a politician will you be able to say that you are OK with animal cruelty?? You will loose all the votes of vegans.
Being my neightbor is not enough to be my friend.RohanKanhai wrote:(3.) If your new neighbors are vegetarians, will you will be say this at a BBQ get-together?
I can barely imagine me in that kind of dinner.RohanKanhai wrote:(2.) If your boss is an ethical vegan. You think you can say this at a company dinner??
You know? there isn't anything symilar to the sentence "fall in love" in Spanish. I don't "fall in love", I "rise in love". If I love a girl I'm honest with her.RohanKanhai wrote:(1.) If you fall in love with a girl and you find out she is a activist ethical vegan. Then you have a problem.
I am a "moral" person, I prefer to say that I'm an ethic person. I think that being cruel with animals isn't wrong.RohanKanhai wrote:Also, if you admit that you promote "animal cruelty", then surely you are not a "moral person". You are an immoral person, right? Because you knowingly (not accidentally) admit to promoting "cruelty" or "animal cruelty".
Sadism is not realted with sex necesarily. The word "cruelty" is vague. I can be friend with a farmer, who use their cows as "slaves", with a scientist who is killing mouses in his experiments to cure a dissease, with a person who has a pet. I have a cat. But, when I'm knowing a person, if he is a hunter, or he is sadist with animals, I will be carefull and I will lose interest in knowing that person, because of what I've found till now in other people.RohanKanhai wrote:You say that you will "probably won't like a person who hunts or practice sadism on animals". Hunting is also cruelty according to you that is. Also, sadism is also a form of cruelty, right?
(Source: sadism = the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others)
You are clearly having high prejudices.RohanKanhai wrote:You are clearly contradicting yourself.
It's a pragmatic decission, being cruel with animals doesn't show anything bad in you (in my perspective), being sadist with them, kill something when you gain nothing, enjoying the suffering of other because you can control it, is different. I think there is an evident difference, but it can be evident only for me.RohanKanhai wrote: You say that you promote cruelty to animals and OK with it, at the same time saying that you will "probably not like a person who hunts (i.e. cruelty) & practice sadism (i.e. also cruelty) on animals".
No, I accept cruelty, I don't like sadism or hunting.RohanKanhai wrote:You also say that you support medical testing on animals, which is "cruelty", but that the same time saying only when hunting and sadism, you don't like "cruelty".
I don't feel confused.RohanKanhai wrote:I think you are confused.
Yes it is XD.RohanKanhai wrote: I think the problem here is the lack of knowledge of different ethical systems.
You don't need to talk with capital letters. In your perspective, they will lose. I don't see this as a debate or a fight, I see it like many people saying what they think and no arguments. It's ok for me if you don't want to eat animals. I don't have problems with that. If they don't have problems with me eating them, or people experimenting with them, it's ok for me. (If they have problems but that problems are their problems and don't become my problems, it's ok for me too).RohanKanhai wrote: Most people, even so-called activist ethical vegans, and meat-eaters alike, think that consequentialism is the ONLY ethical system out there. Even meat-eaters think like this. That is why in any debate between meat-eaters and vegans, like this one, Debate Should Everyone Go Vegan (search this in Google), the meat-eaters will ALWAYS loose.
Well, it's your point of view XD.RohanKanhai wrote:Because, when the vegans, who think that everybody should be consequentialists, bring out the ethical argument against eating meat, that is the consumers promoting of cruelty to animals, when buying meat aspect, the meat eaters, who also think that there is no other ethical system to consequentialism cannot counteract that. They loose the debate then and there.
You got it that's right. I can listen if somoene whats to talk though.RohanKanhai wrote:So, members like TSBU who say that they have no issues with promoting animal cruelty when they buy meat, has no reason to get into an debate or even discussion with vegans since they don't give a damn about cruelty to animals. There is no debate here right. Because vegans say you are promoting animal cruelty. You say I don't give a damn. I am OK with it. So, there is nothing to debate or discuss, right?.
I think killing is cruel enough... puting a limit to pain when you are killing somoeone is... strange to me. And to many vegans, they won't eat an animal even if it is killed "quickly".RohanKanhai wrote: So, everybody thinks that there are 2 bipolar, diametrically opposed, sort of extreme views when it comes to this sensitive topic:
(1.) Vegetarians and vegans: Meat consumers (BTW not producers. It's always the consumers) promote animal cruelty. Animal cruelty includes not only brutal factory farming conditions, but the actual KILLING of the animal itself. Because KILLING an animal is also a very cruel painful process (to the animal that is).
I talk for myself. There are lots of vegans and lots of common people and they don't think the same about this matters. I don't think animals are meant to be eaten. Everything is nature. I don't feel sorry for the animals. And there are no-vegans who don't promote what you call animal cruelty.RohanKanhai wrote: (2.) Meat-eaters: Yes, we promote animal cruelty when we buy meat. We don't mind that. Animals are meant to be eaten. It's nature. Some meat-eaters say that they promote cruelty, but they feel sorry for the animals, but cannot give a valid reason why they still buy meat, or just don't care to give one. That is again, the "I feel sorry, but I don't much care for animal suffering" type of reply. So, meat eaters, admit to promoting animals cruelty. One group don't feel sorry for the animals, while the other feels sorry. But both don't care about the cruelty they admit they are promoting.
That sounds like"I don't promote slave prostitutes, I just go with them, it's the pimp the one who is promoting them".RohanKanhai wrote:I.e. I am against animal cruelty. But it's NOT the consumers who are promoting it when they buy meat. It's the producers who are promoting it by creating a market for meat.
I don't judge the morality of an action, I just judge if it's wrong. Now you are saying "It's ok to sell drugs, because my only intention is to get money, I don't want kids to get an addiction, they just come and buy it, but my intention is to make money, I don't think in the consequences of selling drugs... I can kill for money too, I can lie for love, I can... everything, because my goal is not the suffering wich is a consequence of my actions, my goal is what I gain". You can buy meat, because you didn't kill the animal, you just make them gain money when they kill. Yeah, most of people have that philosophy too. I don't.RohanKanhai wrote:Why you will find this argument sort of nuts, is because you are consequentialists. I am not a consequentialists. I am deontologist, that is, I don't use consequences to judge the morality of an action. I use only one thing: INTENTION. I will not take ethical responsibility for any action to which I had no INTENTION of doing myself.
Why should we take ethical blame for things which we had no INTENTION of doing. What we don't do INTENTIONALLY are called MISTAKES or errors.
What kind of issues can a deontologist have? It's an ethic with no problems. You can do whatever you want, you can hurt other people, as long as you don't want to hurt them, it's only a consequence of what you really want.RohanKanhai wrote:Consequentialists will need deontology to figure out whether some of their actions are ethical or not. But, deontologists will not need the help of consequentialism to solve any ethical issues.
Law is made with that arguments too: if you kill a person without thinking, any person, for example, a beloved mother, you just go to jail a couple of years, then you can go out and kill other peson being drunk again, or being incompetent in your job, this time a young good boy. if you think that you have to kill someone, for example, a sadist pederastian, and you think a lot in the ethical implications, and you make a plan and you are carefull to hurt him and just him, then you can go to prison for life.RohanKanhai wrote:For example, if you drive a car and knock and kill someone because you were drunk and lost control, if you are consequentialists, then you should accept getting the death penalty. Because, the consequences of you breaking the law, that is drinking while driving and causing an accident which killed a person, that is the consequences of your mistakes will make you face the death penalty.
BUT, in court will you just accept it? No, right?? You will say to the judge, yes, I killed a person due to the consequences of my actions, BUT, I had no specic INTENTION of killing that person. So, the judge will accept it and, instead of the death sentence, send you to 5 to 10 years in jail..
What you are not considering is the evident fact that have the intention of killing someone is related with the danger you represent, if you want to kill people, as a consequence, you will kill people. That's why I don't like sadists, even though I'm not a deontoligist (it sounds a lot like dentist XD). If someone want to use mouses for experimentation is ok, if he want to use humans, is bad. If he enjoy inflicting pain to a mouse, that show me a psichology that say "this person will probably be a sadist with humans too". If you want to see it like that, I see animals as tools, less complex than humans. If you want to use them, it's ok, if you want to destroy them just because you feel happy when you destroy something, it's wrong.
Deontology is just that: escape consequences.RohanKanhai wrote:So, it was deontolpgy that helped you escape the death penalty.
I think you get the idea.
-- Updated September 30th, 2016, 1:10 pm to add the following --
PS: You were not talking with capital letters, I don't know why, my computer put them that way.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
Hey TSBU, don't get thrown off by the bluster. Rohan is a lot closer to you than he lets on. Sounds like you consume meat or at minimum don't have a problem with the concept. Guess what, he's exactly the same. Same as you, same as me and the same as the majority of the West. Ho hum, move along, nothing interesting here...TSBU wrote:I'm a meat eater and I promote animal cruelty.
If you feel good having a small and stupid dog living in a flat, wich is bad for fog legs, cuting its balls because you don't want hm to get horny, a small dog like a bulldog, with many genetic problems, made by reproducing dogs with deformitys till you have that small dog.
If you want to have a bird in a birdcage because you like to hear how that bird sing for something that will never come.
If you want to have a snake, because you want to show it to your friends and say "Look, have a snake" (I can't imagine other reason...)
It's ok for me.
If you want to eat them, is the same. If you want to cure cancer using experiments with them, I will fight against those who want to stop that experiments.
If you want to hunt them, or you have sadist habits with them, I probably won't like you, because that's a sign of a kind of mind I don't like. But that won't make you very different from the rest of the world for me, at least you are not a lawyer, a soldier, a publicist, etc.
- TSBU
- Posts: 151
- Joined: August 17th, 2016, 5:32 pm
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
Interesting things are very very strange for me. I saw this thread, there wasn't anything new and I thought, well, why not? I'm being honest, not bluster. I don't want to be abusive, but it's true that I see some things as very stupid. I asume that it's the same in the other way, I'm just being honest, and I try to respect and say all I think.LuckyR wrote: Hey TSBU, don't get thrown off by the bluster. Rohan is a lot closer to you than he lets on. Sounds like you consume meat or at minimum don't have a problem with the concept. Guess what, he's exactly the same. Same as you, same as me and the same as the majority of the West. Ho hum, move along, nothing interesting here...
I don't mind about the West or... the more West (this is a sphere XD). In China they eat lot of meat, including meet that is not eaten in EEUU or UE. In Japan they eat some octopuses while they are alive, etc.
- 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
You don't get what I am trying to say here. It's not about what YOU think. You can love somebody, but still that other person has to love you back. It's what SHE thinks about YOU. She will reject you for sure, when you say that "you are OK with animal cruelty". You have no control over this situation I am talking about, right?TSBU wrote:You know? there isn't anything symilar to the sentence "fall in love" in Spanish. I don't "fall in love", I "rise in love". If I love a girl I'm honest with her.RohanKanhai wrote:(1.) If you fall in love with a girl and you find out she is a activist ethical vegan. Then you have a problem.
-- Updated October 1st, 2016, 7:32 am to add the following --
You are completely nuts. How can you say that being cruel with animals is NOT wrong?? Even a mad person will not agree with this.TSBU wrote:I am a "moral" person, I prefer to say that I'm an ethic person. I think that being cruel with animals isn't wrong.RohanKanhai wrote:Also, if you admit that you promote "animal cruelty", then surely you are not a "moral person". You are an immoral person, right? Because you knowingly (not accidentally) admit to promoting "cruelty" or "animal cruelty".
Animals feel pain. Don't you know that??
Since you seem to be from Spain, is there some translation issue here? Do you really know what cruel means?
Here is the official English definition of cruel: "Willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it."
synonyms: brutal, savage, inhuman, barbaric, barbarous, brutish, bloodthirsty, murderous, homicidal, cut-throat, vicious, ferocious, fierce; wicked, evil, fiendish, devilish........
The operative (i.e. most significant or essential) word in the definition is willfully.
Do you know what "willfully" means???
Willful means deliberate, voluntary, or intentional. See how INTENTION (as opposed to consequences) figure prominently here.
So, do you consider yourself to be a brutal savage????
- TSBU
- Posts: 151
- Joined: August 17th, 2016, 5:32 pm
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
If you want to talk about love start a thread about that. But I won't talk a lot there, if I do it I'll just say what I see as contradictions in other people thoughts, and nearly monosilabic answers. For example like this: If she can reject people because of his thoughts, you can do the same. If you can love a woman no matter her thoughts, she can do the same. As I said, I never lie in love(or friendship... and it's strange to lie wit common people too XD).RohanKanhai wrote:You don't get what I am trying to say here. It's not about what YOU think. You can love somebody, but still that other person has to love you back. It's what SHE thinks about YOU. She will reject you for sure, when you say that "you are OK with animal cruelty". You have no control over this situation I am talking about, right?TSBU wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
You know? there isn't anything symilar to the sentence "fall in love" in Spanish. I don't "fall in love", I "rise in love". If I love a girl I'm honest with her.
-- Updated October 1st, 2016, 7:52 am to add the following --
And Cruelty is a vague word in Spanish too, with the same meaning. I don't care about pain itself, that's right. Im not a sadist though, sometimes pain is needed. It's ok if you inflict pain to a mouse and you can save a lot of people lifes with that. What I don't like, is people who like pain. It's the same with death, it's needed, sometimes, but I don't like people who kill for pleasure.
-- Updated October 1st, 2016, 7:53 am to add the following --
Who kill anyone or anything because of the pleasure of killing anything or anyone.
- 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
No, what consist "cruelty" is quite clear. A scientist who is killing a mouse in his experiments to cure even cancer is still cruel. But he is not a sadist. A hunter on the other hand is a kind of sadist. That is the difference. That is why animal rights campaigners oppose animal testing. Again you are confused about the different ethical systems. You don't even know about these things.TSBU wrote:Sadism is not realted with sex necesarily. The word "cruelty" is vague. I can be friend with a farmer, who use their cows as "slaves", with a scientist who is killing mouses in his experiments to cure a dissease, with a person who has a pet. I have a cat. But, when I'm knowing a person, if he is a hunter, or he is sadist with animals, I will be carefull and I will lose interest in knowing that person, because of what I've found till now in other people.RohanKanhai wrote:You say that you will "probably won't like a person who hunts or practice sadism on animals". Hunting is also cruelty according to you that is. Also, sadism is also a form of cruelty, right?
(Source: sadism = the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others)
A consequentialist might say that animal experiments to cure diseases are Ok because the end result can benefit millions of humans and animals. Consequentialists look at only the outcomes (i.e. consequences). They don't look at the means. For them the ends (i.e. consequences) justify the means (cruelty). They don't say cruelty is OK, like what YOU say. What they say is that some cruelty will be necessary or cannot be avoided for the benefit of the common good. They will never say that "being cruel with animals is OK", like YOU say.
The reason why scientists who do painful experiments on animals to find cures for humans, are not considered evil, bad or unethical people is that their INTENTION on doing cruel experiments with animals is to save humanity and other animals. While a hunter is considered unethical, bad or evil because his INTENTION is to just kill an animal for his own pleasure (i.e. sadism). The outcome of a medical experiment on animals maybe a cure for cancer. That is a huge benefit or good deed. While the outcome of hunting is just a dead animal.
Can you see the difference here?? LOL.
Since you have no idea about different ethical systems, I will not waste my time giving the deontological take on the above situation.
-- Updated October 1st, 2016, 8:06 am to add the following --
But then, even killing animals for food gains nothing, right? The only thing it gains is the pleasure we get when we eat it, right?TSBU wrote:It's a pragmatic decission, being cruel with animals doesn't show anything bad in you (in my perspective), being sadist with them, kill something when you gain nothing, enjoying the suffering of other because you can control it, is different. I think there is an evident difference, but it can be evident only for me.RohanKanhai wrote: You say that you promote cruelty to animals and OK with it, at the same time saying that you will "probably not like a person who hunts (i.e. cruelty) & practice sadism (i.e. also cruelty) on animals".
Since you eat-meat you are clearly OK with it.
So, according to YOU, killing animals for food gains nothing, but is OK.
But hunting animals which also gain nothing is NOT OK.
So, if it's OK to kill animals just for the pleasure of the taste of the meat, then what is wrong with a hunter killing for the pleasure of the hunt???
So, as you can see you are contridicting youeself all over the place. You are clearly confused.
-- Updated October 1st, 2016, 8:24 am to add the following --
You really don't have a clue to what constitute ethics, do you???TSBU wrote:That sounds like"I don't promote slave prostitutes, I just go with them, it's the pimp the one who is promoting them".RohanKanhai wrote:I.e. I am against animal cruelty. But it's NOT the consumers who are promoting it when they buy meat. It's the producers who are promoting it by creating a market for meat.
Here is one of the best and easiest to understand definitions by 2 experts in the field: "Richard William Paul and Linda Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures"."
There is nothing called slave prostitutes. If somebody is holding others against their will, then they are breaking the law. That does not come under ethics. That is illegal. We can discuss the ethical side of things which are legal only. Can an Arab Christian discuss the ethics of drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia. There is no point, because it is against the law.
People becomes prostitutes according their own will. They choose to be one. If you become a prostitute and work under a pimp, that is a personal decision. There is no harm to done anybody by becoming one or becoming a pimp. So, that does not fall under the purview of ethics.
Of course if prostitution is illegal in your country, then again talking about the ethical angle about who is wrong is meaningless because both the pimp and the prostitute are doing an illegal activity.
I don't know why I am replying to you. You are completely clueless about everything.
-- Updated October 1st, 2016, 8:48 am to add the following --
Again you show that you don't know what even ethics mean by giving examples of ILLEGAL activities to prove ethical arguments. ILLEGAL activities are ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL activities are useless in discussions on ETHICAL matters. We can only work with things which are legal. There are exceptions like abortion, but those are EXCEPTIONS.TSBU wrote:I don't judge the morality of an action, I just judge if it's wrong. Now you are saying "It's ok to sell drugs, because my only intention is to get money, I don't want kids to get an addiction, they just come and buy it, but my intention is to make money, I don't think in the consequences of selling drugs... I can kill for money too, I can lie for love, I can... everything, because my goal is not the suffering wich is a consequence of my actions, my goal is what I gain". You can buy meat, because you didn't kill the animal, you just make them gain money when they kill. Yeah, most of people have that philosophy too. I don't.RohanKanhai wrote:Why you will find this argument sort of nuts, is because you are consequentialists. I am not a consequentialists. I am deontologist, that is, I don't use consequences to judge the morality of an action. I use only one thing: INTENTION. I will not take ethical responsibility for any action to which I had no INTENTION of doing myself.
Why should we take ethical blame for things which we had no INTENTION of doing. What we don't do INTENTIONALLY are called MISTAKES or errors.
Well genius, according to YOUR argument, if people have to look at the consequences of their actions, then all the whiskey companies will have to close down. Why??? Because then Johnny Walker have to think, what if people, kids get addicted to my whiskey?? What if they sell my whiskey to kids??? They can get addicted and ruin their lives. So, I cannot make whiskey no more, because the consequences of me selling whiskey can make people addicted to it and ruin their live and even hurt other people.
Same for people who make wine.
Same for people who make chocolates, ice-cream, fast food chains etc. Obesity and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are an epidemic now. Me making a MARS bar, or Big Mac can make people get addicted to it. They can get diabetes, obesity and heart disease and die. I will be responsible. So, I should shut down my chocolate business. I should shut down, McDonald's and Pizza Hut.
According to your logic, if you can call it logic, gun manufactures cannot make guns?? What if the consequences of me making guns will let a kid get hold of it and do a school massacre. What if terrorists get hold of my guns. They can kill innocents. So Smith & Wesson has to close down if they do their ethical thinking according to your logic.
Even a knife manufacturer will have to close down or stop manufacturing, because the consequences of me making knifes can make people use those knives to kill other people.
As you can see you cannot look at consequences when doing something. You CAN look at consequences, BUT only those consequences for which you are DIRECTLY responsible. Only for consequences for which you have INTENTION of doing.
A gun manufacture does not make guns with the INTENTION of killing innocents. He does it as a business to make money. If somebody uses his gun and does a massacre and kill 50 people like the nut job who killed 50 gay people in that Florida nightclub, how on earth can the gun manufacturer be responsible for that. Although as a consequence of the gun manufacturer making a gun made some lunatic buy it and massacre 50 people, the gun manufacture has no ethical blame for that, simply because his INTENTION of making guns was not to kill innocents. He is not responsible for the consequences of making a gun because he is not directly involved in any of the events.
Your ignorance is astounding.
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 582
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
By creating a gun, isn't an aim created, as the gun is always aiming in some direction? Isn't the intention to propel a bullet loadable in the gun in the form of bullet powder? There is no volition or capability in the gun to make use of its intention. Still, the maker of the gun does create the intention in the product. Or does he not? I am concerned that you too appear to confuse something: your intention and that of a gun. You cannot intend to propel a bullet at 800 km per hour or can you? Are you a gun? Aren't you just a cricket player that can only intend speeds of up to 105 km/h? And by the way, how is your veganism attempt going? My neighbor decided to go vegetarian recently for financial and ethical reason and he is very happy about his decision.
- 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
But Bruno, how can a gun have intention. Intention is a concept only a sentient creature with the ability to do rational thinking can understand.Empiricist-Bruno wrote:I am concerned that you too appear to confuse something: your intention and that of a gun.
Even animals, although sentient do not understand the concept of intention, since animals, although sentient, have no rational thinking ability like humans.
That is why, if your neighbor's dog bites you, the police will charge your neighbor, and NOT the dog. Because the dog bit you through sheer instinct (an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli), while your neighbor intentionally, that is knowingly, let his dog out, knowing very well that that the dog can bite somebody (i.e. irresponsibility).
So, if you believe your neighbors INTENTION (i.e. ethical reason) for going vegan, how can you question the intention of the meat consumer who buys meat from the supermarket, when you know that he has no way of putting his intention into action, even he has one that is?Empiricist-Bruno wrote:And by the way, how is your veganism attempt going? My neighbor decided to go vegetarian recently for financial and ethical reason and he is very happy about his decision.
That is, there is no animal to kill. You just buy meat from a long dead animal. That is, if you are OK with your neighbor when he says that his intention to vegan is ethical, how can you question the meat consumer when he says that he has no intention of killing animals and did not ask anybody to kill for him?
He just buys a product from the supermarket, no different to buying vegetables.
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 582
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
Rohan,But Bruno, how can a gun have intention. Intention is a concept only a sentient creature with the ability to do rational thinking can understand.
1) I have not mentioned anything about a gun understanding its own intention.
2) Are you suggesting that to have an intention, one must understanding what an intention is?
3) Isn't it possible to have something without without understanding what this thing is? Other living beings have sexual organs without necessarily knowing what these are, right? So you can have something without understanding what that thing is, right? So why would that be impossible for guns to have intentions if understanding what you have is not required to have something.
Your suggestion is such an interesting idea! It opens the door to a bunch of interesting related questions:
1) If you do not know that you are thinking, can you be having thoughts? For instance, when you sleep, you are unconscious and so you cannot know what you are doing and so whatever you think during your dreams isn't thought. You agree with this? Dreaming never involves thinking, right?
(But when you do dream, it does feel like you are thinking right? It's just the case of the person that you are isn't real at the moment, it is a dreaming person and therefore the dreaming person is both unaware that it is dreaming and unaware that his/her thoughts aren't thoughts. Is that correct? But if this is correct, how can we tell whether we are really thinking? How can we tell whether real life isn't a dream? And if it is a dream, as some people would suggest, then we aren't thinking or at least, those people who believe that life is a dream aren't thinking. Is that correct? )
There is another angle of approach as well to what you are saying: take a robot for instance, it may have an arm right? Or take a bank machine, it may give you money, can't it? It's not because it doesn't understand that it gives you money that it isn't doing just that. So, can you please explain me why an intention needs to be understood by it's possessor in order for it to be count as an intention?
As far as your use of the irresponsible dog owner is concerned, I could ask whether you think the dog intended to bite a person. Your answer is the that the dog's biting is a reflex free of intention on the part of the dog. So the bite appeared unintentionally, though the carelessness of the dog owner. This seems to be your point, but it begs some new questions: What else is the dog doing unintentionally? The dog can't walk intentionally because it doesn't know what an intention is? Obviously, you deny the personality and character of an animal as his own. To me, this represent an act of demonizing the living beings from other species. I don't get it why you do this, if it is not just to accommodate your apparently harmful and offensive belief system (to other living beings.) Is there anything that any animal can do intentionally? And when did humankind began to distance themselves from this demonized state? Given that no sensible answer can be given to this question, you decide to adopt creationist beliefs for the human species despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting evolution of species? If your belief system doesn't appear to fit the facts, you simply ignore the facts or adopt beliefs that stand against those facts (creationism), right?
Also, if the dog bites, it may be the result of the dog being angry and believing that his angry behavior is the right way to go for him. It is much less likely that he bites people because the devil made him do it. But I have learned not to try to make this point on this forum as I have noted that some people do like to blame the devil for what they do.
I cannot question the intention of the meat consumer if he does not have one. Agreed. This is a good point?So, if you believe your neighbors INTENTION (i.e. ethical reason) for going vegan, how can you question the intention of the meat consumer who buys meat from the supermarket, when you know that he has no way of putting his intention into action, even he has one that is?
If the meat consumer does have an intention that I may question, what would that intention be?
What is the relation between my neighbors' unquestioned intention for going vegetarian and the intention of the meat consumer, whatever it is?
...how can you question the meat consumer when he says that he has no intention of killing animals and did not ask anybody to kill for him?
I can do this because I believe it is possible to go around intentions to produce unintended effects. Every day, we produce effects that we do not intend to do. The building of nuclear reactors will have unintended consequences. You cannot build a nuclear reactor without the unintended consequences coming along. When you learn what these are, and you keep forging ahead, you become irresponsible, such as the dog owner who lets his angry dog out. We have a duty to take into account all the possible consequences for our actions, whether or not they were intended.
For instance, people build glass building and then they find that large numbers of birds fly into the building as they do not see the building and just the reflection. When the building builders see this, they have a responsibility to mitigate the issue, even if they never intended to kill the birds.
I hope this helps.
- 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
Well Bruno, there are 2 modes of dreaming. Normal and lucid . In normal dreaming everything is involuntary. We can remember the dream only when we wake up. So it is not thinking. But in lucid dreaming it is different. A lucid dream is any dream during which the dreamer is aware that they are dreaming. During lucid dreaming, the dreamer may be able to exert some degree of control over the dream characters, narrative, and environment. So, it is thinking. But of course anybody will know the difference between a lucid dream and normal consciousness. It's human nature. The only other phenomenon is sleepwalking. Sleepwalking, also known as somnambulism or noctambulism, is a phenomenon of combined sleep and wakefulness. It is classified as a sleep disorder belonging to the parasomnia family. But these are disorders , or illnesses and can be identified easily (by others).Empiricist-Bruno wrote:1) If you do not know that you are thinking, can you be having thoughts? For instance, when you sleep, you are unconscious and so you cannot know what you are doing and so whatever you think during your dreams isn't thought. You agree with this? Dreaming never involves thinking, right?
(But when you do dream, it does feel like you are thinking right? It's just the case of the person that you are isn't real at the moment, it is a dreaming person and therefore the dreaming person is both unaware that it is dreaming and unaware that his/her thoughts aren't thoughts. Is that correct? But if this is correct, how can we tell whether we are really thinking? How can we tell whether real life isn't a dream? And if it is a dream, as some people would suggest, then we aren't thinking or at least, those people who believe that life is a dream aren't thinking. Is that correct? )
Exactly. Circular reasoning is only a human ability. That is why if a person with Down syndrome kills somebody, he is not charged for murder. Because he has no idea what intention is. We treat it as a mistake and will blame his guardians for letting him out without supervision.Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Are you suggesting that to have an intention, one must understanding what an intention is?
I will give you a good example to show why animals cannot reason and do not have intention. Suppose there is a human and an animal standing in front of a vineyard. Both are very hungry. The human will somehow resist the urge and try to find some food elsewhere. He will not go to the vineyard, steal the grapes and eat it. On the other hand, the animal will just go the vineyard and eat the grapes. That is the difference between animals and humans. Animals act on pure instinct. That is why a lion will kill you and eat you if it is hungry. While a human will not kill an animal and eat it, just because he is hungry. He will go to the nearest boutique or restaurant and buy his food.
While an animal will defecate anywhere when they feels like it, no human will do that. A human will find a toilet or go to a secluded spot. Like that...
So, as you can see, animals act on instinct, while humans behave using rational thinking.
That is the difference.
-- Updated October 25th, 2016, 6:57 am to add the following --
Actually the problem is not that if he does not have one. The problem is that you just do not know or cannot find out this information.Empiricist-Bruno wrote:I cannot question the intention of the meat consumer if he does not have one. Agreed. This is a good point?So, if you believe your neighbors INTENTION (i.e. ethical reason) for going vegan, how can you question the intention of the meat consumer who buys meat from the supermarket, when you know that he has no way of putting his intention into action, even he has one that is?
If the meat consumer does have an intention that I may question, what would that intention be?
What is the relation between my neighbors' unquestioned intention for going vegetarian and the intention of the meat consumer, whatever it is
Your neighbor said that he decided to go vegetarian recently for financial and ethical reason.
How do you know whether he has really an ethical reason. What if he is lying to you because he knows that YOU are an ethical vegan, so he decides to add the ethical reason as well, to please you, while in reality he became a vegetarian for financial reasons alone.
This is the problem. You just cannot test his real intention. You cannot know for sure because there is no way to find out. The opportunity is not there.
In the supermarket case, something extra happens. When you buy meat from the supermarket, you just cannot say that the meat consumer has intention to kill animals because there is no way to test the hypothesis. You can test it if the market was selling live chickens for example. So, in this case when the consumer picks the chicken to be killed, you know for sure he has intention to kill an animal. But in the supermarket case it is not there. Hence it is an ethically neutral action or event from the point of deontological ethics.
When somebody buys medicine for example, can we say that they bought the medicine to cure themselves, and also with the intention that more animals will be tested in labs to make better medicine?? We just cannot. Because there is no way to test the hypothesis.
So, for example:
(a.) If a consumer goes to a meat market which sells live chicken, pick an animal to be killed, then buy the meat, then we know for sure that the consumer had intention of killing animals.
(b.) If a consumer goes to a market and find live chickens and decides not buy chicken from there and instead goes to a supermarket, then we know for sure that the consumer had no intention of killing animals.
(c.) And if the consumer goes straight to a supermarket and buys meat from the freezer, then, since there are no live animals in front of him to test his intentions, this becomes an ethically neutral occasion. That is, intention is not even applicable, since there are no live animals to apply or not-apply the intention to. You are buying a dead-animal, dead long-time ago.
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 582
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
You seem to mix motivation and intention. I would agree to say that there is no motivation in a firearm but I can still see the intention in it. I also agree that you have to understand what a motivation is in order to have one but I still don't see how this is necessary in regards to intentions. So, would you be kind of enough to expand on your notion of an intention as opposed to a motivation?
For instance, I don't see how you can put a motivation in a machine but I can see the intention it has. The motivation is always hidden. You seem to claim that the motivation can come to light under some control experiment but I sort of disagree because the moment you know someone is experimenting on you, you can behave in a such a way as to screw the results for whatever purpose you have in mind.
I'm very critical of your species-ism talk. What do you make of the wild child abandoned in the wild at an early age and who learns to live on his own like an animal, with no language and who defecates anywhere. After years in the wild and then being found and brought back in society, he... becomes human again though contact with other humans? Being human is a cultural thing or concept (arbitrary and not scientific)?
How do you know that everything in dreaming is involuntary, if I may ask? And is being a volunteer for a thought a requisite for thinking? Involuntary thoughts do not constitute thought?
- Voidance
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: October 25th, 2016, 7:04 pm
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Why meat-eaters are NOT promoting animal cruelty
But does eating meat (perhaps a subset of which is NOT a product of Factory Farming) agreeing with Factory Farming? How about eating at a bottom feeder like McDonald's (instead of a restaurant who sources locally)? I would say the latter is worse than the former, because it has a higher chance of supporting Factory Farming.Voidance wrote:I think that ultimately we are judged not by what we say or believe but what we do in reality. We can say we care about animals or people and there well being however if our choices do not reflect what we say then we are simply lying to ourselves and others. Which highlights the need for higher forms of thought such as critical thinking so we may be more aware of when our supposed beliefs contradict our actions. As such one cannot say I truly care about animals well being then agree with the brutal practice of factory farming because they are in direct contradiction to one another.
Many would say that since dairy cows have a significantly more tortured time on the planet than cattle specifically raised for the meat industry do, that vegetarians are as bad or worse than meat eaters and to be guilt free you have to be a vegan. Or to put it differently, if a vegan was going to go off of their diet for a single meal, having a steak would be better than an ice cream sundae.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023