Eating babies

I recently asked in a blog post:

"what exactly is the significant difference between slaughtering an unwanted new-born infant ‘proto-person’ (or indeed a ‘humanely reared’ adult human with the most limited of mental faculties), and dispatching an intelligent and social animal such as a pig? Do those who kill and eat pigs have philosophical warrant to point the finger of accusation at an imagined society of baby-killing cannibals either?"

Vegatarians can say there is no difference, both are (equally?) wrong. And those with certain religious convictions can point to a supposed difference between man and the rest of creation. But if species isn't important in itself, what do meat-eaters say to it?

I'm really hoping not to have to give up bacon sandwiches or admit that cannibalism is no worse.

=

the blog piece appears in The Philosophy Magazinbe (TPM) under the title 'Puppies, fava beans and a very nice Chianti' here:

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=3432

But it really is not necessary to read it to deal with the substantive question above which is what I'm really keen to hear views on (I don't know the answer myself).

[Scott]

Infanticide has been considered acceptable in numerous societies, such as ancient Sparta. It is even common nowadays in certain pockets of the world mainly as an apparent result of poverty. If in such dire circumstances as extreme poverty or say being lost and hungry on a desert island knowing our community cannot support its current members plus the newborn, is preferable take care of the newborn and let someone else starve or euthanize the newborn right off the bat? It is actually tough choice. I personally would probably take care of the newborn namely for two reason: (1) the instinctive, emotional response invoked by a needy newborn human is just too powerful, and (2) I have become who I am in conditions that are so different, more secure and less dangerous than those that I have become habituated to not needing to make tough decisions and instead heavily trusting my sympathies.

As a matter of culture and the laws the stem from it, I have no doubt in the future slaughtering the more intelligent animals such as pigs for food will be treated as infanticide is generally treated now, mirroring the difference between the way infanticide was often treated historically versus how it is treated now. In that way I am reminded of a quote by Thoreau, "I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized." Though I believe such would have been the case even without any further technological advancements, it most certainly will be the case considering technology is making so nutritionally and tastefully equivalent artificial 'meat' can be created just as efficiently if not more efficiently than the inefficient process of meat-production via feeding years of food to calorie-burning livestock for one batch of meat containing in a different form the little left unburnt from those calories fed to the animal.

I do not speak in moral terms. (See my posts: The Clarity of Amorality, What Moral Terms Can Mean, and The four types of equivocal moral debates.) Moral terms aside, I do not think an equality can be claimed in the context given between human babies and cats or pigs, nor do I think an equality can be claimed between cats or pigs and gerbils, nor do I think an equality can be claimed between a gerbil and an ant, nor do I think an equality can be claimed between an ant and a flower. It is not black and white. There is a long range of gray between the black of brutally murdering a relatively innocent, self-sufficient adult and the white of killing a plant for food because you have to survive. On that scale, slaughtering the relatively intelligent, sentient pig or cat is, in my analysis, not quite as black as infanticide but is blacker than bug spraying ants. Others my disagree since the scale would represent the particular factors that make one opposed to, disturbed by or wanting the criminalization of a certain form of killing a living thing. For me, those factors include namely the sentience of the creature, the intelligence of the creature, the assumed sophistication and potential of the creature's consciousness, the short-term self-sufficiency of the creature, and the long-term self-sufficiency of the creature--all in the context of the practical benefits and costs of killing the creature versus letting it live, e.g. 'we can eat it and be nourished' or 'we can take care of it and it will become a financial asset in the future.'

The main mistake I think people tend to make is trying to be too black and white, in which case in some context one forces oneself into choosing between treating a pig or cat the same as the average adult human or the same as the average insect. Of course, that is an obvious false dichotomy. Which is closer on the long one-dimensional scale with so many shades of gray to an adult human for the purposes of deciding whether or not to kill it--a pig or a newborn baby? I think most would agree with me that it is the baby. Using that as the philosophical basis on which to make a decion, a reasonable person who feels similarly would need there to be a lot more to be gained from infanticide to do that than from killing pigs to kill pigs.

Vegatarians can say there is no difference, both are (equally?) wrong. And those with certain religious convictions can point to a supposed difference between man and the rest of creation. But if species isn't important in itself, what do meat-eaters say to it?

I don't think there could be a significant difference. Using 'species' as a criterion is just as arbitrary as 'race' or 'gender'. Especially if one thinks about what 'species' actually is, biologically. Imagine a line-up of ancestors backwards in time, daughter, mother, grandmother... and so on until one reaches the common ancestor of humans and cows, then forward again to modern farm animals (i.e. cows). Biologically defined, two groups of organisms belong to different species when they cannot interbreed successfully. Is that really our criterion for moral consideration? Would we be justified to kill the first individual just far enough away from us in that line of ancestors, while not being justified to kill/torture her 'human' daughter? It's insane. Or what if we'll evolve -- artificially or naturally -- into different species in the future, could we then torture Homo sapiens survivors? Or vice-versa? Or what if a pig had a macro-mutation that made it intelligent enough so it could speak and go to school. Would we still treat it like a normal pig?

The morally relevant criterion should be capacity for suffering. As for killing, I would actually say that killing, by itself, is not something bad. I've been 'dead' for billions of years before I was born, how could there have been anything wrong with that? Obviously however, there are all sorts of indirect reasons why killing is bad, it creates fear and suffering, and it's hardly ever done painlessly, especially not in the animal industry where it involves long transports, forced positioning and stunning bolts that don't always stun for long enough.

There's the argument that human infants have a potential to become self-aware persons, and that therefore they should have special 'value'. This argument seems flawed though, why should we treat potential x the same way as actual x? If I'm a potential winner in a chess game, should I start celebrating already? Moreover, doesn't a fertilized egg cell, or a sperm even, have the same 'potential'? Are we doing wrong in not have massive amounts of offspring?

If one regards it to be wrong to kill a human infant even when there would be no other indirect bad consequences, then I can't see how one could justify arriving at a different conclusion for the killing of sentient non human animals. Even if one -- like me -- does not think that killing by itself is wrong, then all the harm done to animals would, in light of the speciesism argument, have to be judged the same way as if it were done to human infants. Once one accepts this conclusion, the outlook for the world fundamentally changes. 56 billion land animals are slaughtered each year! All the suffering they endure within their lives is unnecessary, because there are healthy and tasty vegan alternatives.

I'm really hoping not to have to give up bacon sandwiches or admit that cannibalism is no worse.

There's seitan, tofurkey and other stuff that tastes similar to meat. If enough people pioneer veganism and work towards social change, the future might bring cultured meat. Healthier, cheaper, better for the environement, produced without suffering. Not that we need meat -- far from it -- but it seems unlikely that humans will make the necessary changes without some outside help. Going vegan, reducing the amount of animal product intake, donating to charities like 'Vegan Outreach' or 'New Harvest', it all makes a huge difference.

Scott,

Thank your thoughts, I will need to spend some more time digesting them. You are, of course, right about infanticide, it is a relatively new taboo. And thinkers from Seneca to Singer argue for it being permissible in some circumstances. Though I am quite sure most would agree with you, I'm still not clear why slaughtering the relatively intelligent, sentient pig should not be not quite as black as infanticide, rather than the other way round if what we value is actual intelligence the adult pig seems nearer the adult human. Of course, you do mention *potential* and I think we do tend to feel something hangs on that but then again many would deem abortion permissible but also hold that killing a pig for food is wrong. And there is no question about potential in the case of the human with severely restricted faculties. Of course if you do not speak in moral terms, I should try to get a grip on where you are 'coming from' as it were. In any case, in the meantime, many thanks for taking the time to reply and for, as it were, the food for thought.

-- Updated Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:35 pm to add the following --

Wowbagger,

Thanks for your reply. I am rather inclined to think it is difficult to make out the case that killing and eating the baby is, in principle, wrong whilst killing and eating the pig isn't. The 'potential' argument does not convince me and it rather occurs to me we should drop the non-issue of species. So it see,s we may indeed feel forced towards the vegatrian option (or at least the idea that we should not kill animals for food, eating roadkill may well be permissible).

Of course one could accept there is no moral difference but claim that both are, in principle, permissible (even if contingently we can not legally permit infanticide+baby eating). If the death is painless (of course this is not the reality for the very many animals who generally suffer in appalling conditions before they are slaughtered in a traumatic manner) it could be argued we do them no wrong (and once they are dead it hardly maters what we do with their bodies of course). I shall have to give your comments some more thought later as I'm signing off for the night but many thanks for taking the time to reply..

f

Yeah, roadkill would be okay to eat. Hunted animals too if the hunting serves the purpose of keeping the populations low enough so there's no starving in the winters.. Though there might be more humane methods to achieve that goal, immunocontraception for instance.

As you say, even if the killing itself is not wrong, the way it's carried out nearly always is. To me, that by itself is reason enough to be vegan. Then all the inefficient use of resources in the production of animal prducts, it seems absurd given the stats about world poverty. And last but not least, it's bad for the environment..

[Scott]

Fidel, you are a step ahead of me in empathizing the issue of potential in regards to the question of which out of pig-killing and infanticide is more like insecticide as opposed to murdering the average adult human. You are also a step ahead of me in mentioning the complexities potential brings to the table namely in regards to abortion. If it helps in understanding where I am coming from, I feel very about the same towards abortion as I do towards killing animals for food. I generally would never do it and in most modern cases would urge others not to do it (at least in the case of second and third term), but at this time I would not support criminalizing it. Those are all good points you raise in my opinion.

***

Wowbagger, I enjoyed reading your whole post and you made a lot of interesting and intelligent points. I refer to post #3. Excuse me for the ad hoc method of response below.

The morally relevant criterion should be capacity for suffering.

What do you mean by the term should be? As you are using the term in the sentence above, what is the difference in meaning between one saying, 'X should be Y,' 'X is Y', and, 'X is not Y'?

There's the argument that human infants have a potential to become self-aware persons, and that therefore they should have special 'value'. This argument seems flawed though, why should we treat potential x the same way as actual x? If I'm a potential winner in a chess game, should I start celebrating already? Moreover, doesn't a fertilized egg cell, or a sperm even, have the same 'potential'? Are we doing wrong in not have massive amounts of offspring?

These are very good points, and may be at the heart of the issue depending I think on what age a human child's intelligence and 'capacity for suffering' exceeds that of the animal in question.

Your reference to a fertilized egg cell or even just sperm and eggs wisely demonstrates that 'potential' is not the only factor to say the least. There must be some other quality that distinguishes an embryo from an infant.

To understand this though, I think we need to again realize that it is not black and white.

For instance, consider giving an abortion to a woman name Mary who is still pregnant but is slightly past her due date and who doctors firmly believe would otherwise safely and successfully give birth in the coming days to a healthy newborn. In terms of the issues being discussed, I think giving an abortion to Mary would be more similar to infanticide than to giving an abortion to a woman who is 2-weeks-pregnant. I do not think the issue is black and white with an infinitely small theoretical line either drawn at conception or birth, but rather conception, birth and the moments and days preceding and following each are just different shades of gray on a much wider scale--with people disagreeing about which shade of gray is located where. (I hope I am not being too metaphorical, but if I am I apologize.)

Yes, in some ways, the embryo, the fetus of the 2-week-pregnant woman, the fetus of the 9-month pregnant woman, the newborn infant and the 6-month-old baby all have the same potential. That is a potential that is not shared by an adult pig or even an adult ape.

Maybe neither the potential nor the current reality alone is what makes a newborn's life more valuable than a pig's life or torturing/killing a newborn more intolerable than torturing/killing a pig. That is if one feels as I do that it is indeed more valuable and more intolerable respectively. The pig may share a similar sentience, liveliness or 'capacity for pain' to the infant but not the 'potential'. The embryo may share the 'potential' but not the sentience and such. What do you all think of the idea that perhaps it is the combination of the moderate sentience with the 'potential' that arguably makes the infant's life more valuable to preserve and more intolerable to end than the pig's life?

So that is one idea regarding the affect of 'potential': 'potential' is a deciding factor perhaps only in the sense it combines with the other major factors namely sentience or 'capacity for pain'. Following is another.

If we take the idea 'potential' in terms of saying a newborn has potential that a pig doesn't a little differently, we may have a concept that is not so chronologically linear. Let me explain what I mean by starting with an example.

In some ways a sleeping person or even a person in a temporary coma may not be conscious, sentient or even capable of feeling pain. In fact, for all we know despite odds and medical opinion in the other way, the person may unexpectedly die of natural causes before waking up and realizing their potential. One may see the sleeping person's or coma patient's unexpected natural death as analogous to the way a pregnancy not intentionally aborted could still unexpectedly and naturally result in miscarriage. Now we would hardly let a wife off the hook for murdering her husband during his seemingly dreamless sleep if she argues that it is less of a destruction than slaughtering a non-sleeping, conscious pig for dinner because the pig at that moment is more conscious than the husband at the moment. The reason we would still look at the mariticide as so different than the pig-killing has to do with potential. But the potential in this sense may be quite a bit different than the potential that a sperm and egg separate in a dish together have to become an adult. This potential is no so chronologically linear. The potential has already been realized in some ways, but is dormant at that moment. In a more detached analogy, we might look at the potential of a house that is temporarily unlivable because it is being fumigated as opposed to the potential of an empty lot. The potential already has been realized in the first case in many ways, it just is currently negated. A human baby may still have values that are dormant or temporarily gone in comparison to a coma patient, sleeping adult or more analogously a house undergoing fumigation. For instance, consider that the human brain is such an amazing machine. The human baby has this great machine which the pig doesn't, but the human baby is, maybe, only temporarily below the pig alongside coma patient adults because the human baby's amazing asset is temporarily unusable. But it is not quite right to say the human baby's temporarily unusable asset is as useless as the pig's brain anymore than it is quite right to say a house undergoing fumigation is as useless as an empty lot because you cannot at this moment live in it but both only has potential to be lived in. The human babies brain is still an incredible feature, an incredible natural machine, much like the house is incredible but is only temporarily negated by current circumstances. Yes you could make this incredible machine or building, and eventually put into use by purchasing the empty lot or by having a woman carry and nourish the embryo. But even thought it is not able to be used at the moment, the already-built building, the human baby brain, the sleeping adult brain, the coma patient brain is already a great, powerful, useful thing. The baby brain does not have the potential to become greater than the pigs; it already is. Some of the practical manifestations of its greatness are simply dormant for the moment. Excuse one more analogy attempting explain what I mean: While in one way a brand new top-of-the-line computer that has yet to be plugged in and charged may be with its empty battery as useless as your old, outdated broken computer that has a fraction of the data processing speed and hard-drive space AND they both have the potential to become a useful awesome computer by being recycled and built into a even newer even more top-of-the-line computer, STILL there is something way more valuable, more useful, and more worthy of saving from destruction about the temporarily disabled new top-of-the-line computer. The 'potential' of the new computers empty hard-drive and currently unpowered data processors is a different concept than the 'potential' of any old pile of silicon, plastic and metal to built into a computer. It's unused or temporarily unusable tool as opposed to an unbuilt, currently non-existing tool. The qualities of the human baby's brain certainly mirrors the emptiness of the new top-of-the-line computer's hard-drive and the unpowered super data processors. It's a different kind of potential. It's not the potential for something to exist at some later date, but the potential of something powerful, amazing and useful that already exists to be put into use at some later date even if it can't right now.

I'm sorry if I've rambled on too long on this specific issue of potential. But I think the original poster has started a very interesting topic. The finer points of the differences between the killing/torturing/saving an animal like a pig versus a human infant in light of its are very interesting taken philosophically.

Thanks!
Scott

What do you mean by the term should be? As you are using the term in the sentence above, what is the difference in meaning between one saying, 'X should be Y,' 'X is Y', and, 'X is not Y'?

Bad word choice on my part. The ethically relevant criterion imo IS capacity for suffering. We'd run into big trouble trying to justify other criteria. For instance, if intelligence were relevant, would Einstein have been allowed to mistreat stupid humans? Would be justified to mistreat infants? And so on. Every sentient being avoids suffering. Suffering is intrinsically awful, if someone disagrees, they should whack their finger with a hammer and then we can talk again

To understand this though, I think we need to again realize that it is not black and white.

Indeed, babies for instance do develop and grow gradually more aware of the world. A very late abortion is not much different from infanticide, after all, how can it be morally relevant whether a being happens to be inside a womb or outside of it, if it basically has the same attributes. My main point is just that x amount of human pain hurts just the same as the same amount of animal pain, and that there's no justification for weighing it differently.

Maybe neither the potential nor the current reality alone is what makes a newborn's life more valuable than a pig's life or torturing/killing a newborn more intolerable than torturing/killing a pig. That is if one feels as I do that it is indeed more valuable and more intolerable respectively. The pig may share a similar sentience, liveliness or 'capacity for pain' to the infant but not the 'potential'. The embryo may share the 'potential' but not the sentience and such. What do you all think of the idea that perhaps it is the combination of the moderate sentience with the 'potential' that arguably makes the infant's life more valuable to preserve and more intolerable to end than the pig's life?

I'm not convinced by the arguments for potential. There's no other area in life where we regard 'potential x' the same as 'actual x', or give special consideration to it. The argument only works if we say potential x is important because actual x must be maximized. In that case, we'd have an ethical obligation to populate the world with as many sentient beings / humans as possible. That's also the answer I'd give to your computer analogy, it only works if there's a 'use' for the computer, if no one needs them and if computers aren't intrinsically valuable so they should be maximized, then there's nothing wrong with destroying them. The problem with the maximizing is that it, apart from being counterintuitive, leads to absurdities. (i.e. the "Very Repugnant Conclusion", where a massively huge population of beings with lives just a tiny bit above 'worth living' and a very small population of individuals in terrible suffering, would be ethically superior to a medium population of perfectly happy beings. That seems absurd to say the least, that's why I think what matters are only those preferences that exist now. No amount of new happiness can make up for existing suffering.)

You admit that you're searching for ad hoc reasons to justify your sentiment that human infants are more 'valuable' than adult pigs. That's of course not a very objective way to go about it, and merely noting that maybe sentience in interplay with potential leads to the magic result seems highly dubious. If potential is a relevant criterion, then we should reason like that in all areas, that would be the coherentist view.

In some ways a sleeping person or even a person in a temporary coma may not be conscious, sentient or even capable of feeling pain.

Peter Singer and other philosophers actually do make an ethically relevant distinction based on 'personhood'. They regard 'preferences' (or the satisfaction thereof) as valuable, and since persons have future-related preferences, there are more preferences, which makes their death worse. I don't agree with this view because I don't see why preferences should matter isolated from happiness and suffering, but I think it's a consistent view. Singer for instance would argue that the sleeping person, even though temporarily unconscious, has had future-related preferences, and that they still apply. Killing the person would make nonsense out of all kinds of activities and plans for the future said person had made in her life. But again, this view only applies if the future-related preferences have actually existed at some point.

At last, I'd like to say something about our intuitions. We certainly have strong intuitions that human infants are more important than animals. In some way, this is a good thing because it creates bonds that lead to a lot of happiness. I just think we should be careful about making conclusions based on such kinds of intuitions. Where did intuitions come from? Evolution. And evolution is a blind, indifferent process. It's about the differential replication of alleles, not about the well-being of sentient creatures. It would be a huge coincidence if our intuitions about morality were by nature the same as an ethical system designed to make the world the best possible world. This is likely not the case, therefore we should be ready to abondon our intutions if coherent argument leads us away from them. We definitely enter dangerous territory then -- but then again, if our intutions aren't to be trusted, we already are in dangerous territory anway. There's a common sentiment that changing things is very dangerous. Sure, but if we don't change our attitudes, we're essentially saying that our attitudes are perfectly right the way they are, and how is that not dangerous? It always works both ways, and in the end it's always about making the best informed and argued judgements.

Hi Scott & Wowbagger,

Thank you both again for your insights. I should come clean about the fact that I am the author of the piece linked to (I have re-edited the opening post to that effect) I'm not quite sure now why I chose not mention it at the outset but I should have (sorry).

Although I do find Scott's attempt to justify the intuitive claim that it is worse to kill and eat babies rather than pigs and wonder if it might develop into something useful - the significant difference being a complex one - I do find Wowbagger's arguments hard to attack. Suffering does seem the relevant criterion and potential seems unimportant. That said, though our Intuitions may well be out, it certainly seems like we should kill the pig to feed the starving infant (even if the pig would suffer more). Can our intuitions be that wrong? (Knowing humans, probably).

Killing, I think, would be viewed by many as bad by itself in many instances (though it clearly is not always so). There seems the opportunity to enjoy further 'worth-living' life that you rob from unwilling parties But there is perhaps a tension between my thinking this and failing to see the significance of 'potential' for personhood. I'm not sure. But I do think many philosophically-minded vegatrians would think killing an animal (without good cause) is a wrong. And I think I'd need to be more clearly convinced about why killing a living being without good cause does not wrong them.

I am inclined to agree that what seems (most) relevant in term of how we choose to deal with animals is indeed suffering.The reality of of life and death for many farmed animals is usually painful and traumatic. But these facts of themselves do not seem to support arguments against killing animals for food per se. Points about the "inefficient use of resources in the production of animal prducts ... given the stats about world poverty' and points about the environemnt bring me no further. That the crops that could feed the world (several times over) are instead fed to Co2 producing cattle that go into a cruel industry with a high carbon footprint (and responsibility for the destruction of forests etc) and that our over-consumption of red meat burdens the health resources of Western nations, all seem arguments against 'Big Meat' and over-consumption. But hunting sustainably (if you are competent with a rifle) and having very moderate consumption of locally sourced-meat from humanely reared and dispatched animals from small-scale farms seems consistent with these concerns. That eating meat isn't strictly necessary for survival or a healthy lifestyle does not settle the issue either.

Without the claim that it is wrong to kill an animal unnecessarily we don't seem to end up with the claim that it is wrong to kill animals for food or the claim that it is wrong to do so with babies, only the claim that they are due equal consideration in so far as they must be caused no pain (or less pain than they would from living) in the process. But perhaps that is all that can be said and we just have to re-adjust to it?

Thank you both for your thoughts which I'm still mulling over.

Hello Fidel.

The question you are really asking is about the relative values of lifeforms.
The issue of suffering has little merit as all lifeforms experience suffering, the human, the domesticated and the wild lifeforms.
Before going farther, let me remind you what you are: you are an intelligent bipedal omnivorous mammal.
Now as such you have as your main focus the welfare of your own specie, just as in other species there is a special place for their own.
So in the wild there is a special place for the young of the specie, and as a general rule the young are not food except in dire circumstance.
However this rule does not apply to young of other species.
Many today have romanticized the natural world as ideal, but it is a constant fear of becoming food for some predator, that fills the life of most animals.[Perhaps Walt Disney has done to good a job of skewing our judgment.]
So one of the laws of nature is, you protect the young of your kind, so the pig goes and the baby is safe!

As an ethical question this has only a very limited meaning, because if this was voiced in the majority of the world you would be met with looks of total incredulity, perhaps even questioning your sanity.
So this issue only comes from those who have become alienated from the natural world.

There are those who have chosen not to eat any meat, or in extreme, no products having any animal animal connection, and if that is their choice for health reason, that's fine, but if they think it more ethical to live this way for themselves, they should realize that this does not therefore make it universal.

Regards, John.

The question you are really asking is about the relative values of lifeforms.

Indeed, and I rather think you are right about the following:

As an ethical question this has only a very limited meaning, because if this was voiced in the majority of the world you would be met with looks of total incredulity, perhaps even questioning your sanity.

The site where I blog gets a good readership and some 90 odd folk have shared this with somebody since Friday night which I take to be a sign that it interests some (of course they may also be adding "look at this nonsense"). And though I have had had some comments nobody has attempted to get at the heart of the matter. I suppose vegaterians (or indeed baby-killing cannibals") view this as a question that burdens those who would argue that its fine to kill and eat non-human animals. They may see it as a good rhetorical tool. I also think you are spot on about this:

Many today have romanticized the natural world as ideal, but it is a constant fear of becoming food for some predator, that fills the life of most animals

I do think suffering is the most pertinent issue concerning how we treat animals. And that we should not cause unnecessary sufferring to animals and that the Big Meat industry causes enormous harm to the environment, man and animals alike. But I am inclined to think that sustainable hunting and moderate consumption of humanely reared and dispatched locally-sourced animals is not an obvious wrong. We may have obligations to give the pigs we eat a happy life and a quick end, and to bring a quick end to those we hunt but I am unconvinced there is anything wrong with the practises in principle even if we can live without meat. Pertient to this seems the fact that humanely reared animals in a small scale farm seem to enjoy a better life than their counterparts in the wild (and they only exist because we will eat them) and also pertinent to this is that both they and those we hunt will enjoy a swifter and easier death than those in the wild. If we are really concerned about animal suffering - and life for wild animals seems a constant struggle of fear, hunger and pain - then theanswer eems to be to exterminate them and put them in well-run reserves, zoos and farms.

one of the laws of nature is, you protect the young of your kind, so the pig goes and the baby is safe!

I guess I'm looking for more than a 'law of nature' . And though I suppose the question may only arise for, or seem important to "those who have become alienated from the natural world" I am inclined to think there must be an argument that can make a robust defence of the claim that it is (generally) wrong to kill babies for food but generally permissible to do this with animals (whatever tends to happen in the natural world). I don't know that we can get that only from looking at what occurs in the natural world or at our intuitions. But they may well be the only places we can look.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Jim

The issue of suffering has little merit as all lifeforms experience suffering, the human, the domesticated and the wild lifeforms.

That makes it worse, not better. Suffering is crucial here.

So in the wild there is a special place for the young of the specie, and as a general rule the young are not food except in dire circumstance. However this rule does not apply to young of other species.

I don't know about you, but I'm not a caveman, so why should I care about how things go "in the wild?"

So this issue only comes from those who have become alienated from the natural world.

Yup, I'm alienated from the natural world. I value democracy, contraception, health care, welfare, charity. All highly unnatural concepts. Are you supposing we should live like cavemen again? If yes, fine do it, but don't pretend for even a second that how animals are held today is "natural". Growth hormones, antibiotics, milking machines, conveyor belts for slaughtering. This has got nothing to do with nature. And even if it did, what's so good about nature anyway? It seems more like you have romanticized nature, not me. Nature is the product of a process called evolution, a blind, indifferent process. Evolution is about the differential copying success of alleles, not about the well-being of individuals. We should NOT get our ethics from "nature".

There are those who have chosen not to eat any meat, or in extreme, no products having any animal animal connection, and if that is their choice for health reason, that's fine, but if they think it more ethical to live this way for themselves, they should realize that this does not therefore make it universal.

It's just that there really is no justification for how one could object to racism or the holocaust while not objecting to slaughterhouses. You need two premises: 1. Causing unnecessary harms to human infants is wrong. 2. Discrimination based on group attributes (i.e. racism, sexism) instead of relevant criteria is wrong. Whoever accepts these premises will be forced to accept the antispeciesist conclusion. I spelled out the exact arguments here and elswhere. Whoever thinks it's not a big deal to consume animal products simply hasn't understood the scope of it yet. Life's nice if you don't think about things, is it not?

But I am inclined to think that sustainable hunting and moderate consumption of humanely reared and dispatched locally-sourced animals is not an obvious wrong. We may have obligations to give the pigs we eat a happy life and a quick end, and to bring a quick end to those we hunt but I am unconvinced there is anything wrong with the practises in principle even if we can live without meat.

Take a step back and think about it again. Would you be saying the same thing if it concerned human infants instead of animals? I agree that there isn't anything wrong with a practice where there's no unnecessary suffering, but really, why risk it? Why risk that animal well-being is compromised for our unnecessary preferences? There'll always be motives to treat them badly to some extent, unless we'll go through a fundamental change of attitudes. And that's not going to happen if we keep saying "just give them some more space and then we'll kill them quickly, then all will be fine". Moreover, animal-friendly animal product production would need so much land and resources that it would be impossible to feed all of the word -- it could only go to a rich minority. So why even bother with it? We should just get rid of the idea that we should be entitled to exploit animals for food, entertainment or fashion-related purposes.

Pertient to this seems the fact that humanely reared animals in a small scale farm seem to enjoy a better life than their counterparts in the wild (and they only exist because we will eat them) and also pertinent to this is that both they and those we hunt will enjoy a swifter and easier death than those in the wild.

You're not doing an animal a favor by bringing it into existence. If it doesn't exist, nothing's there to complain. So that's not an excuse. Far from it, every single second of pain is bad for the animal, and by unnecessarily causing it to exsit, we'd be responsible for that.

As for hunting, in the short term, this might be the best option to keep populations down. But it's far from a good option, it often involves a lot of suffering, i.e. shots not killing instantly, or mothers getting separated from kids. We should focus on better methods, i.e. immunocontraception.

If we are really concerned about animal suffering - and life for wild animals seems a constant struggle of fear, hunger and pain - then theanswer seems to be to exterminate them and put them in well-run reserves, zoos and farms.

Why would you put them into zoos or farms? But I'm happy that you see the problem here, life for wild animals is indeed quite ****. Know Richard Dawkins? Evolutionary biologist, he once wrote the following:

"During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying from starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so."

Must it really be so? I don't think the idea of exterminating wild animals will be able to get public support, but what we can and should try is to make people aware that there's a problem, and that we should, in the future once the relevant technology exists, intervene in nature compassionately. We already intervene now, but for the wrong reasons.

And though I suppose the question may only arise for, or seem important to "those who have become alienated from the natural world" I am inclined to think there must be an argument that can make a robust defence of the claim that it is (generally) wrong to kill babies for food but generally permissible to do this with animals (whatever tends to happen in the natural world). I don't know that we can get that only from looking at what occurs in the natural world or at our intuitions. But they may well be the only places we can look.

You're inclined to think so? I used to be like that too, trust me, I spent a lot of time searching. I did, after all, want to continue eating meat and stuff. But at some point, I realized there is no such argument.

Wowbagger.

If we logically follow your reasoning the human race should eliminate itself, as you and I are killing lifeforms all the time.
You can not stop, for every time you use the bathroom, you are condemning lifeforms to death.
So don't have any children, as each additional person is a threat to nature.
The only way you can allow yourself the luxury of thinking this way is because you are part of an affluent part of the world, and you really have not thought this issue through to its inevitable conclusion.
What would you do with all the domesticated animals? Turn them loose te fend for themselves? Would you feed the cockroaches, mice, rats and never take an antibiotic again? Just remember, every antibiotic pil causes millions of deaths!
Without controls and culling you soon would not be able to drive a car or take an airplane flight because of collisions with animals.
The balance in nature depends on herbivores and carnivores for the existence of all, so what you propose simply can not work.
Without carnivores the herbivores would soon multiply to such an extent they would outstrip the resources and have massive starvation, which is also suffering.

I live in an area which has black bears at times roaming in towns as they have no predator except mankind to fear.
This is happening much more often since the spring hunt was eliminated. Now there is only the fall hunt and the bear population is increasing to the point of danger to humans.
When I travel at night by car on the roads here where I live, and also when traveling in parts of the USA, my eyes are constantly roaming from one side of the highway to the other for the telltale reflection of light on eyes, in order to minimize the chances of a collision with bears, deer and moose.
And this is with controlled hunting, so if hunting was removed, it would not be many years before we would have to stop driving at night.

I do not hunt or fish, not because of ethics, because I can assure you that venison and moose-meat tastes just fine as does horse-meat.

Wowbagger,

Thanks agin for your input.

Clearly animal-UNfriendly production needs so much land and resources that it is impossible to feed all of the world (so animal-friendly rearing won't allow for as all to survive on a meat-heavy diet) . The levels of meat production and consumption must be radically reduced (at the very least) for environmental reasons, along with concerns about human health in the West and starvation in the rest of the world before we even get to talking of animal suffering. And the suffering endured by battery hens and the like is such that I think it can be truly said they do not have a life worth living, that we do them a wrong by bringing them into existence. I don't think its clear that the life of a humanely reared pig is not worth living but you are quite right to say that we do not do an animal (of whatever species) any favour by bringing it into existence. And that if we do bring a being into existence we have a special responsibility to ensure it has a worthwhile life with as little suffering as possible, whatever species it belongs to.

In the absence of radical intervention in the natural world to prevent animals sufferring in the wild - given the sorry lives and deaths faced by wild animals - I am still left with the thought that if a animal with no young is shot by a competent riflemen, the hunter commits an unitentionally humane act, even if it is not done in the most hedonically efficient manner, it does seem preferable to allowing it to live.

Wooden Shoe,

I note you responded as I was writing. I don't think Wowbagger commits himself to concern for all lifeforms, only those that suffer pain so I don't know that talk of antibiotics hits the mark. But if life itself has no intrinsic value - and beings lose nothing by being killed - and what we are only concerned with is reducing suffering, then this does sound like Negative Utilitarianism and mass extinction of pain-suffering animals sounds like the morally preferable outcome. But I imagine this can only be because we haven't heard the full account of Wowbagger's moral theory. I do have sympathy with your view that not killing animals is something of a luxury afforded to those who are affluent and away from the encroachment of wild animals though (and if we must kill animals there is no reason not to eat them).

Hello Fidel.

I will try to explain my understanding of the reason and purpose of our existence as humans.
The reason for our existence is the continuation of our specie, just as that is also the reason for all lifeforms.
So the purpose for our life is to improve the chances for that continuation, as we are the only species able to change our environment and condition.
So out of this also comes the urge to keep other lifeforms existing, as it would be a lesser world for our offspring without these lifeforms.
When we start to humanize animals we do them a diservice, because we place human-like values on them.

This debate has nothing to do with suffering in itself, eventhough it certainly has bearing on what we do.
People who have never worked on a farm have no idea as to what is best for farm animals.
For instance chickens living in a "freerun" type of farm have a much higher death rate then chickens in cages, because at night they wil all gather in a heap suffocating the ones at the bottom.
None the less, there is stil a lot of room for improvement in animal husbandry.

If we logically follow your reasoning the human race should eliminate itself, as you and I are killing lifeforms all the time.
You can not stop, for every time you use the bathroom, you are condemning lifeforms to death.

I never said anything about killing being bad. But I'm sure it's easy to put people who disagree into preconceived 'boxes', then you don't have to actually think about the points raised.

So don't have any children, as each additional person is a threat to nature.

30'000 children die every day of starvation. Why exactly should we bring more people into this world? There's always adoption.

The only way you can allow yourself the luxury of thinking this way is because you are part of an affluent part of the world, and you really have not thought this issue through to its inevitable conclusion.

What kind of argument is that? Sure, if I were dying from starvation myself, I couldn't care less about veganism. But I'm not dying of starvation, and neither are you I premise. Every kind of ethical -- or intellectual in general -- endeavor is only possible when certain needs are met. So what? We have a choice, it doesn't matter whether others have it too. And I think I've spent a lot more time thinking about such issues than the average person, I rather think I've thought things through.

What would you do with all the domesticated animals? Turn them loose te fend for themselves? Would you feed the cockroaches, mice, rats and never take an antibiotic again? Just remember, every antibiotic pil causes millions of deaths!

If we don't farm them anymore, their numbers will go down and they might even die out. There's nothing wrong with that, non-existence per se is not problematic, what's problematic is inviduals in suffering. And bacteria aren't even sentient, I don't get why you think that I'd give them any moral consideration at all. But if you disagree, you may well try to found 'people for the ethical treatment of bacteria'.

The balance in nature depends on herbivores and carnivores for the existence of all, so what you propose simply can not work.
Without carnivores the herbivores would soon multiply to such an extent they would outstrip the resources and have massive starvation, which is also suffering.

A: Just to note, this is an important issue, but it has not much to do with the question of whether we should eat animal products or not. The suffering in death factories is still as horrible as always, even if there's unpreventable suffering going on in nature too. (If lots of women are raped somewhere in Africa, that doesn't make it less bad to rape a women in Denmark.)

B: Yeah, population control is important, that's why I mentioned immunocontraception. One could also micro-manage ecosystems with technology, or reprogram predators and prey to experience less suffering. Those are futuristic prospects, and maybe they wouldn't work. I'm not advocating to carry through with somethign that doesn't work, obviously! I'm just saying that if there ever is a method to make it work, we have an ethical imperatif to do so.

Fidel, you said some good things. You only mentioned battery hens, are you aware that there's a lot of suffering in the nicer forms of egg production too? I wrote a brief summary here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5524

In the absence of radical intervention in the natural world to prevent animals sufferring in the wild - given the sorry lives and deaths faced by wild animals - I am still left with the thought that if a animal with no young is shot by a competent riflemen, the hunter commits an unitentionally humane act, even if it is not done in the most hedonically efficient manner, it does seem preferable to allowing it to live.

I tend to agree, especially if populations are high relative to the amount of food there is. And if one wants to, one could even eat the meat of that shot animal.

But if life itself has no intrinsic value - and beings lose nothing by being killed - and what we are only concerned with is reducing suffering, then this does sound like Negative Utilitarianism and mass extinction of pain-suffering animals sounds like the morally preferable outcome. But I imagine this can only be because we haven't heard the full account of Wowbagger's moral theory.

Mass extinction is probably not feasible, we need a functioning ecosystem to survive. Not that I per se think there must be humans, but still, it's important that we do survive, so we may someday be able to technologically overcome all the problems Darwinian evolution has left us with. A much more promising approach is the abolition of suffering: http://www.hedweb.com/

However, whatever one's views are about wild animal suffering, I don't think it makes a difference either way as for the fact that raising animals for food purposes is unjustifiable, at least if there's suffering associated with it.

I will try to explain my understanding of the reason and purpose of our existence as humans.
The reason for our existence is the continuation of our specie, just as that is also the reason for all lifeforms.

Are you a Social Darwinist? We shouldn't just adopt whatever nature provided, nature is neither good nor bad. Besides, it's even wrong, biologically, that animals act for the "continuation of the species". It's only about genes, not about species. But that just as a side note, my main point is that if we want to find ethical principles, we better shouldn't look at evolution.