eggs

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ--faib7to[/youtube]

I dare you to watch this video! And if you're having thoughts about human exceptionalism after seeing this, then you should remember that what really distinguishes us from other animals is our capacity for morality and compassion. Go vegan, it's better for your health, it's much better for the environment and it's the right thing to do.

I watched the video and what's portrayed truly is a disgrace. Seeing a living being treated as commerce is a terrible thing, but this is the American way. I'm not compelled to stop eating meat because of it (especially chicken), but I do think something should be done to reduce such disgusting treatment of life.
This is why society cannot be based solely on making money. If it is, this is the result of how human beings will act. I'm not sure what can be done about this other then becoming a vegan (more severe than a vegetarian because they refuse to eat anything, including eggs, that is from/produced by animals [not sure if this includes milk]) However, as I previously stated, I'm not willing to give up meat. Survival is survival and even the person who posted this doesn't know what extremes he/she is willing to go to in order to survive until they are placed in such a situation. Life is cruel and that may be the bottom line of existence. Not all are subject to the world's cruelty but for those of us who are, we can sympathize.
This video (in my opinion) begs a follow up question: Is it humanities role to reduce the harshness of life and the cruelty our world displays? Or are we here solely to survive for our own individual pleasure? (And this individual pleasure also incompasses more then just the single person in question. It would also involve those whom the individual finds pleasurable to be around i.e. friends; family)

I acknowledge that animals have feelings, desires and emotions, but I will always choose to fulfill my own before I fulfill or even consider theirs.

I have a priority chart to explain my feelings.

1.Self
2.Family
3.Others

That's the order of importance of needs in my world. Animals would be somewhere below others.

It would be counter to the desires of 1 and 2, and much of 3 if chickens ceased to be food. And I value all of those opinions and desires above those of the animals.

[Scott]

I acknowledge that animals have feelings, desires and emotions, but I will always choose to fulfill my own before I fulfill or even consider theirs.

I have a priority chart to explain my feelings.

1.Self
2.Family
3.Others

That's the order of importance of needs in my world. Animals would be somewhere below others.

It would be counter to the desires of 1 and 2, and much of 3 if chickens ceased to be food. And I value all of those opinions and desires above those of the animals.

Yes, this is similar to how I feel. My priority chart could be written as follows:

1. my son and his mother
2. the rest of my personal friends and family
3. the rest of human children
4. the rest of human adults
5. intelligent, human-like animals (particularly most mammals)
6. other animals (at least those that I believe are sentient)
7. other life

For example, I'm a vegetarian. But if I had to choose between letting my son starve to death or breaking the neck of a kitty cat with my bare hands to feed him, I would with sadness choose to break the neck of that cat and feed it to him. Luckily, I don't have to make such a choice and I can be a vegetarian.

I am not going to watch the video which I guess is about about caged hens. I don't know what is the law about compassionate treatment of food animals in places outside Europe, but I understand that Europe is phasing out battery hens by 2012.
Even now Marks and Spencer and Waitrose sell and bake with only with free range eggs.
Even the more down-market Asda, which is the British incarnation of Walmart, sells about as many free range as caged hens' eggs. The free range cost pennies more and some people are too poor or too mean, or too ignorant, to pay a few pennies more per egg.

The initiative has to come from raised public consciousness and thence from central government.
Thank you dear Bonobo for helping to do just this. I hope it gives you a little encouragement if I tell you that I direct debit £4 to Compassion in World Farming every month.It's not big, but it's a tiny bit more evidence that you are not alone.

I also call for reduced consumption of animal protein. Smaller helpings, and buy organic,locally killed, and free range whenever you can.It's better for your health too, and better for the environment to eat less meat, eggs, and dairy.

*************
Algol, I don't think the choice is so very stark.It's not hard to stop enjoying the taste of animal muscle tissue and the taste of their internal organs, and often as not replace these substances with more tasty vegetable foods.

Organic milk and organic milk products actually are better for your health than the intensively produced milk from cows with mastitis who I understand have pus in their milk from their unhealthy milk glands and udders.To say nothing of the breeding of milker cows for the utmost profit to supermarkets. The small farmer gets small reward.It's a scandal that the poor are slaves to what the supermarkets sell cheaply, which is not fair trade, not animal welfare and not healthy.

Belinda, this is in the wrong place to be stating but your comment about having the ability to quit eating meat and the thought of, "Organic milk and organic milk products actually are better for your health," is what makes the "socialist" label under each of your postings some what intimidating. Lets suppose socialism were the law of not only our nation, but the entire world (I'm talking about full blown, utopian aspect, world united socialism where universal law is supposedly made for humanity's overall betterment as a species). Because it is your belief, would you impose a law mandating that eating meat be prohibited?

"Humane slaughter" is a convenient myth. Demanding that we regulate (rather than abolish) animal exploitation is like demanding that murderers not rape their victims before killing them. Everyone still ends up dead.

Of course it is better to do less harm than more harm. If I decide not to beat my rape victim before raping her, my action is less morally objectionable (in the most trivial sense imaginable). But this line of reasoning begs the fundamental question as to whether we can justify exploiting animals in the first place. If rape is wrong, we don't have campaigns for more “humane rape," and we don't donate to the "compassionate rape foundation." We don't distinguish between "humane" and "inhumane" forms of rape. Rape is morally objectionable and should be condemned fully, not tolerated and regulated to comply with "industry standards." The same analysis applies to pedophilia, murder, etc. So why should it be any different for animal exploitation?

The "free-ist" of the "free-range" chickens and the "happiest" of the "happy-meat cows" are awarded with an untimely death just as soon as they've outlived their production value. Go vegan.

[Scott]

The same analysis applies to pedophilia, torture, murder, etc. So why should it be any different for animal exploitation?

It is because animal exploitation is currently socially acceptable while those other thing aren't. I don't agree with this, but it makes sense to treat something that is socially acceptable differently than something that isn't socially acceptable. If you took a time machine and went back a couple hundred years in the United States and encountered terrible racism and perhaps human slavery, it would make sense that you would respond differently than you would if you encountered it now in this time because of the difference in social acceptance.

As an activist, when coming up with a strategy to stop or reduce something from occurring, the social acceptance of the thing is a major factor.

Also, to criticize someone for engaging in an activity in a time and place where it is the social norm is very different than criticizing someone for engaging in that activity in a time and place where it is frowned upon or even illegal. It may be that it is worthy of criticism in any case. It may be that it is fairer for it to not be done or for it to be illegal. It may be that it is disgusting to us regardless of whether or not its done in a time and place where it is acceptable. But it's still generally worse when its done in a time and place when its not acceptable than when its done in a time and place when it is. For one thing, your asking more for a person to abstain from something when abstaining from it is not the norm. If 99% of food products at the grocery store contained human meat, and the vast majority of people ate human meat, you personally may abstain from cannibalism and explain what is gross, unhealthy or unfair about it. You may criticize people for engaging in cannibalism. But to be reasonable and sensible and effective you would have to treat it differently and treat people differently under those conditions. Asking a person to not be a cannibal in a time and place where cannibalism is the norm and 99% of food products at the grocery store contain human meat and are cheaper than the ones that don't would be asking something different than asking someone not to engaging in cannibalism as it is now.

So I should campaign for the regulation rather than the abolition of human slavery in a time or place where human slavery is socially acceptable, since, according to you, it would be more "reasonable and sensible and effective"? I should therefore recommend to slaveowners that they beat their slaves twice a week rather than five times a week? If you say so, but then you and I must live in two very different moral universes.

At any rate, let's put your carefully considered "strategy" into practice. Suppose I live in a time or place where it is acceptable for men to rape women. What "regulatory improvements" do you suggest I recommend to the rapists to alleviate the suffering of their victims? How might we "humanize" rape? What would "compassionate rape" look like? I eagerly anticipate your response here, since it seems painfully obvious to me that recommending anything besides an absolute prohibition against rape would be downright inhumane.

The fact that I'm asking more from a person when I suggest they go vegan in a speciesist society isn't in dispute here. That much is obvious. I understand that what I'm asking is "inconvenient" for that person because it might make him unpopular with his friends or force him to reconsider whether his gustatory cravings override justice. That said, whitewashing animal products with cutesy "humane-certified" labels will only (1) send the message that killing animals "humanely" is morally acceptable, (2) make consumers feel better about their purchase, and (3) facilitate animal exploitation by making it even more socially acceptable.

It might be "easier" to persuade people to adopt "meat-free Mondays" than to go vegan, but this "strategy" ignores the fundamental question as to whether we can justify exploiting animals at all.

To the extent that people actually engage in serious ethical reflection in this area, most of them find the basic problem with animal exploitation to be the horrid conditions in which animals are kept--rather than the callous waste of animal lives--so giving them more excuses to consume animal products with "peace of mind" will only perpetuate animal exploitation. Misleading people into thinking that it's acceptable to eat animals who were afforded more time outdoors isn't going to abolish animal exploitation, but encourage it, pure and simple. If we really took "humane treatment" seriously, we would conclude that none of the unnecessary suffering and death we impose on animals, whether on the factory farm or the family farm, is morally acceptable.

This video (in my opinion) begs a follow up question: Is it humanities role to reduce the harshness of life and the cruelty our world displays? Or are we here solely to survive for our own individual pleasure? (And this individual pleasure also incompasses more then just the single person in question. It would also involve those whom the individual finds pleasurable to be around i.e. friends; family)

My brand of Hedonism would require that we humans seek to increase pleasure and decrease suffering. So in answer to your question we should do both. In relation to the repugnant lack of quality presented in that video, it does well to remember that those who work at such places do not increase their pleasure for the doing of that work, nor do they decrease suffering. I would suggest that to question a worker in such a place on their quality of life, they would grade lower than that of a person engaged in work that is not cruel or denying quality living. So not only in the animals quality of life left wanting, so to in the worker's quality of life not all it could be.

Treating animals respectfully according to their kind actually increases our pleasure of life also. It's win-win all the way.

I see no problem in eating meat products and by-products. We all die and most of us before very old age: humans and other animals alike. But the treatment in life must be of a quality that is respectful of the species needs: humans and animals alike. For our living experiences to be anything less than respectful is amoral.

This all sounds perfectly sensible I'm sure, but how many people would dare deny the corporations their profitable due by boycotting their amoral meat and meat by product production to seek a more expensive yet moral option? Not many is the answer and that is why such torturous atrocities exist not only for chickens, but for other animals also.

So you post this video Bonobo and then say that "what really distinguishes us from other animals is our capacity for morality and compassion."
I'm afraid the evidence shows the exact opposite. It would appear you are using morality to instill guilt in others because the exploitation of animals bothers you.

It bothers many people, but I do not know why.
Is it only cute fuzzy animals that tug at our heart strings?
If it were rats succumbing to the grinder would we care as much?

I am not supportive of the exploitation of nature by man, but these chicks are hardly of nature, they are mass produced by people for the sole purpose of sustaining human demand.
Become vegan if it soothes your conscience, but the next uproar will be about the over-cultivating of kelp from our oceans.

This is what happens when creatures of varied tastes over-populate an environment, yeah, we are at fault...and being a vegan does not exempt you from your share of it.

I care about rats. I cared yesteday about a crane fly that was drowning on my wetroom floor. I carefully lifted it and
dropped it on a primrose leaf in the shade in the garden.Many others would do likewise.I have stickers on my windows to discourage pigeons from flying into them.I dont admire the stickers but the alternative is worse.

Alternatives, now. What would you rather, be brutalised, or remain ignorant, or do what little you can do to sort this cruel world?

I respect everyone's opinion on this subject and applaud anyone that lives the life they want to live, vegan, or otherwise. However, I do not understand the correlation of inhumane treatment of animals and the death of an animal for food and clothing. In other words, my family and I look for labels that point us twoards more humane treatment of the aniamal products we eat. When I hunt or fish for meat I kill the animal with the most precise method available and use all of the product. To ask all mankind to go vegan smacks in the face of the balance of nature. Where does the request stop? Sharks, lions, wolves, etc... all eat meat, beacause they are part of the process of life. To recap, am in favor of humane farming and hunting pratices, not in favor of turning the balance of nature on its head.

[Scott]

[quote=]So I should campaign for the regulation rather than the abolition of human slavery in a time or place where human slavery is socially acceptable, since, according to you, it would be more "reasonable and sensible and effective"? I should therefore recommend to slaveowners that they beat their slaves twice a week rather than five times a week? If you say so, but then you and I must live in two very different moral universes. [/quote]
No, I didn't say that. But to be effective and reasonable your campaign to reduce or stop human slavery would be different in that time and place. What anti-racists demand now would be overdemanding and perhaps foolish to publicly demand then. What is underdemanding now may have been overdemanding then. To be as stubbornly, uncompromisingly and violently anti-human-slavery as John Brown during that day was considered treason and to be like that now would be considered normal.

Consider this quote from Abraham Lincoln:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

I disagree with what Abraham Lincoln said there. But in the context of racial slavery being the socially acceptable norm and being pro raical quality would ruin his chances of getting elected because it was so socially unacceptable or "inconvenient," he said it to get elected so that he may help abolish racist slavery and make the races less unequal. Maybe being racist like Abraham Lincoln is something we would criticize and condemn, but surely saying those statements is something more worthy of criticism and condemnation if such statements were said by someone nowadays.

The average person today surely wouldn't consider Lincoln a hero like they do if Lincoln had gone and got himself executed like John Brown. But nowadays the average person would criticize someone for being as racist as Lincoln and not as stubbornly, utterly and violently opposed to racism and human slavery as John Brown.

***

Alethia,

I see no problem in eating meat products and by-products. We all die and most of us before very old age: humans and other animals alike. But the treatment in life must be of a quality that is respectful of the species needs: humans and animals alike. For our living experiences to be anything less than respectful is amoral.

Do you see a problem in murdering animals to harvest their meat to eat when other food alternatives exist that are just as if not more healthy and environmentally friendly? What if our technology becomes so advanced at producing synthetic meat products (i.e. fake meat) that in a blind taste test a person cannot tell the difference between meat that has been taken off a murdered animal and vegetarian fake meat?

If you don't see a problem with that, then with what do you see a problem and why do you see a problem with that? Do you see a problem with murdering humans? Do you see a problem with child abuse? Do you see a problem with dog fighting like what Michael Vick did?

This all sounds perfectly sensible I'm sure, but how many people would dare deny the corporations their profitable due by boycotting their amoral meat and meat by product production to seek a more expensive yet moral option? Not many is the answer and that is why such torturous atrocities exist not only for chickens, but for other animals also.

Unfortunately, I think that is an apt description. It's the same reason sweat shops and products made from human slavery occur in such massive amounts.

***

I don't look up to sharks, lions and wolves.

What you appear to be doing is making a fallacious appeal to nature. Rape is natural. Lions commit rape too. This is hardly a reason for humans not to intelligently and/or compassionately choose to abstain from this activity either on an individual basis or collectively during the ongoing process of civilization.

However, I do not understand the correlation of inhumane treatment of animals and the death of an animal for food and clothing. To recap, am in favor of humane farming and hunting pratices, not in favor of turning the balance of nature on its head.

I completely agree with you. Death is inevitable. Death before you reach old age or very old age is more likely than not. This is as true for humans as it is for animals. I find it absurd for animal liberationists to focus in on the death of the animal in an argument to the detriment of that animals living quality. Why should we care of the age at death when the living of the life has more meaning and moral significance? To live is to die. It is as simple as that. So let us make the living of life for all those who are influenced by humans a quality experience and let us make the death, if by our hands, swift and painless.

In this regard, it is the factory farming of animals that is at fault and those who would eat such factory farmed animals but not the eating of animals itself which humans have done since pre-history.