The Ethics of Eating Meat: A Fowl Dilemma

[polishgenius]

13 minutes ago, IFR said:

And then you are using the vox populi fallacy

You are either misreading or deliberately misstating my argument if you think that I was using the reaction of the masses as support for... well, anything really. All I said was that since most people will be offended using the comparison makes your argument less likely to succeed. I'll go for the second, since this pretending-to-be-the-grownup, actually-deliberately-dismissive nonsense
 

13 minutes ago, IFR said:

That way those who think that the value that non-human animals are objectively inferior to humans can carry on with their values unquestioned.

ignores that in the quote you were directly replying to I said outright that you can question whether humans are superior at all.

[IFR]

@larrytheimp, @polishgenius

Honestly, I think the discussion of whether the comparisons were appropriate isn't going to find a point of agreement and we should move on.

I hope you both understand that I do not aim to antagonize, but feel like I was holding to the integrity of my argument. You can agree or disagree with my reasoning, and that's fine; and I, likewise, will hold to my thoughts regarding your reasoning.

But I suggest we proceed with the original discussion, since we have reached a dead end on this particular detour. I have the best wishes and good will to both of you from my end, but I will not respond further on the issue of whether the comparisons were appropriate.

[polishgenius]

Yeah sounds good.

I said it in DM but I'll say it publicaly to clear the air: I would have disliked the comparison either way, but looking back I did read more hostility in the original post than you evidently meant to include and was overly angry in the response. So my bad on that.

[IFR]

And I likewise sent a DM expressing that I enjoy polishgenius' posts (that applies to you, too, larrytheimp). 

We're all people who want to make a confusing world a better place.

Anyway, back to your regular progamming!

[Mentat]

22 hours ago, IFR said:

the premise of human superiority

 

This is a very widely held opinion, though. Vegans might consider that harming animals to obtain nourishment which can be obtained through plants is wrong, but if we could, say, breed pigs with organs compatible to our own for transplants (not as outlandish as it might sound) and then sacrifice said pigs to save human lives, very few would find it objectionable, though it's clearly making a judgment on which life is superior to which other. We also view some animals (mammals) as superior to others (fish, and specially insects) because they're more similar (and appealing) to us. We could argue that a dog is superior to an ant because of its intelligence or biological complexity, but that's just another rather subjective assignment of values, really. Rejecting superiority can take us to very weird places, like considering whether we should build a block of flats on a space occupied by an ant-hill.

 

Also, though killing an animal (or having it killed for you) and eating its meat has an inherent component of selfishness, there's not necessarily a judgment of superiority (merely necessity, or if not, appetite). Human beings do tend to judge themselves superior to all other beings, but I think it's for different reasons.

 

Finally, though superiority might be contentious, it surely isn't that humans are vastly dominant over all other known species. We call all the shots. Any set of rights, adequate treatment, biological reservations, etc. assigned to animals will be done by us, with the input of scientists, conservationists or activists, but never the animals themselves. Regardless if we're superior in theory, we very clearly are in practice.

[argonak]

I cooked up four "ultimate" burgers from costco yesterday.  They looked a little different color wise until right up to when i took them off the grill, but everyone thought they they tasted great and couldn't really tell it was plant based.  

I don't know if I'd set my grill too low, but they seemed to take longer to cook than regular burgers.  Much less grease though, as one would expect.

[HoodedCrow]

Tofu hot dogs are good, fried in butter, with an okay bun, onions, mustard and relish, maybe sauerkraut .

[john]

On 6/12/2021 at 11:01 AM, IFR said:

And as brutal as natural deaths are, factory farming lives are far, far worse.

I don’t see how you can know that. You may well be right but there is no useful measure of whether a miserable farmed life ending in butchery is worse than a wild life (very probably also limited and deprived due to human activity) ending in the horrific trauma of predation, or hunting which you’ve said you’re in favour of.

[Starkess]

On 6/12/2021 at 4:01 AM, IFR said:

You may object to this comparison. How dare I compare the suffering of a human to mere animals? And that's precisely the disconnect. Vegans do not devalue the suffering of animals. You have a different mindset. As you stated, your money is worth more to you than the suffering of another individual because you devalue their suffering. You devalue it to such an extent that it probably strikes you as absurd to make the comparison that I have made.

Of course I have a different mindset, that's the entire point. I know plenty of pro-lifers who are genuinely 100% convinced that abortion is the murder of babies and they therefore refuse to countenance any and all pro-choice arguments. They truly believe they are morally correct and that I would be a murderer for getting an abortion. And I would walk right on by them on my way to an abortion clinic if I needed one.

I get that you think animal suffering is equivalent to human suffering. I just fundamentally disagree. You can tell me I'm wrong until you're blue in the face and I'll listen and nod and then pick up a burger and eat it.

FWIW, I do find your metaphors of equating humans and animals incredibly fucking insulting and dehumanizing, but whatever.

[IFR]

11 hours ago, Mentat said:

This is a very widely held opinion, though. Vegans might consider that harming animals to obtain nourishment which can be obtained through plants is wrong, but if we could, say, breed pigs with organs compatible to our own for transplants (not as outlandish as it might sound) and then sacrifice said pigs to save human lives, very few would find it objectionable, though it's clearly making a judgment on which life is superior to which other.

Yes, I think the issue of medical research is a very interesting one. It's extensive enough a topic (and outside of the issue of eating meat) that it probably deserves a thread of its own. But since you brought it up, I will address it briefly here.

I have in this entire discussion mentioned that factory farming is not necessary for human survival, and I've further recognized that practicalities of life have limited any idealist approach to treating all organisms as equal (eg the benefits of predation by the wolves of Yellowstone). Even among humans we are not valued equally, or treated equally. We can not all be given the same comforts as Jeff Bezos, even though it is an appropriate ideal to strive towards that all people be given every advantage possible. And there are many more limitations to the comforts we can provide other animals.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this. Unlike factory farming, medical research is a necessity for survival. We haven't yet developed methods to decouple scientific advancements in this area from animal test subjects. If you don't do the research, organisms will suffer. If you do the research, organisms will suffer. Either way, you are forced into prioritizing the well being of one group over the other.

Even among humans, this devaluation takes place. In China, allegedly the Uighers are having their organs harvested. In less extreme cases, within the bounds of modern laws, psychological experiments (for example) that can be distressing are performed on those who need the money. Do these experiments devalue non-human animals, or human animals due to their religion or financial status? Perhaps.

I don't have a real answer to this dilemma, since it's not like there's an easy plant-based alternative.

I would say that however the research is done, prioritizing the comfort of the test subjects (human or otherwise) should receive the utmost consideration. And of course if the opportunity to decouple the research from the need for a test subject arrives, it should absolutely be taken.

Fortunately, factory farming is not a necessity and is removed from this dilemma.

11 hours ago, Mentat said:

Finally, though superiority might be contentious, it surely isn't that humans are vastly dominant over all other known species. We call all the shots. Any set of rights, adequate treatment, biological reservations, etc. assigned to animals will be done by us, with the input of scientists, conservationists or activists, but never the animals themselves. Regardless if we're superior in theory, we very clearly are in practice.

Oh yes, I don't question that. Might makes right, effectively. However, the ability to reason, and have empathy, can and has tempered this maxim. Cultures abuse their dominance often, but sometimes they have the empathy to recognize that it is morally undesirable to exploit those they dominate. Which gives me some optimism.

6 hours ago, john MCG said:

I don’t see how you can know that. You may well be right but there is no useful measure of whether a miserable farmed life ending in butchery is worse than a wild life (very probably also limited and deprived due to human activity) ending in the horrific trauma of predation, or hunting which you’ve said you’re in favour of.

Certainly there is not direct evidence. It does require inference (as is common with a lot of science).

One can for instance observe behaviors associated with elevated stress, and identify the frequency of this behavior exhibited in a given situation.

Piglets, in their first weeks of life, will have their tails and needle teeth removed without anesthetics. There's certainly evidence that pigs feel pain, so this causes them distress. Male pigs have their testicles removed without anesthetics, also causing them pain. At this this point 9 out of 15 pigs will die. This is not seen in nature.

The pigs are then forced into thick wire cage stacks. Waste from the higher stacks falls onto the lower stacks. Movement is restricted. The pigs are then forced into cramped pens when they have grown sufficiently. Toxic gases and humid conditions in the cramped quarters causes about 30 to 70 percent of the pigs to have respiratory problems, and 4 to 6 percent to die. This is also not observed in nature. Disease is also rampant in these confines - also not seen in nature.

Furthermore, growth hormones promote numerous physiological defects and deformities that cause organ failures, arthritis, and orthopedic problems - which is again not observed in their non-factor farming counterparts. Stress indicators from these abnormalities can be observed.

One can also observe that pigs are roaming, social animals. This behavior of course is greatly restricted in factory farming.

From all the stress indicators, it is reasonable to infer that factory farming induces significant suffering. One can try to argue that being subjected to the health effects of growth hormones, toxic chemicals that damage the respiratory system, open wounds and disease, the severe inhibition of instinctual behaviors, breeding to the point of prolapse organs, etc., makes for less suffering, but substantial circumstantial evidence suggests this is unlikely. One can always go with the unlikely conclusion (for instance, perhaps our current trend of greenhouse emissions will cause the average global temperature to go down in a decade), but this seems like an unreasonable approach.

If you do have any research that suggests that factory farming is mentally beneficial to animals, I would be interested in reading it. I can point you out to studies that indicate the harm if you'd like.

3 hours ago, Starkess said:

I get that you think animal suffering is equivalent to human suffering. I just fundamentally disagree. You can tell me I'm wrong until you're blue in the face and I'll listen and nod and then pick up a burger and eat it.

Sure, I'm aware of this. We both have observed this. You have different values. We certainly agree there.

I simply pointed out that your values are not based on anything more substantial than opinion - just like my values, or anyone's values.

The end result of course is different. Your values are more permissive to inflict harm. I'm not saying this as an insult - you acknowledge in this very quote your willingness to eat factory farmed food in good conscience, and we've both acknowledged that factory farming involves the suffering of other animals.

3 hours ago, Starkess said:

FWIW, I do find your metaphors of equating humans and animals incredibly fucking insulting and dehumanizing, but whatever.

Well, yes, of course. As you pointed out, we have different values. You probably are aware that I find the free disregard of the welfare of others to be offensive, too.

I don't take pleasure in the fact that my values are offensive to you. I don't see any benefit in that. Why be satisfied that another is made discontent? I do not wish discontentment on anyone.

But I do think that people with different values can engage in a rational discussion, because I do not consider this topic to be a zero sum game. Any change or compromise in another person's perception that inclines towards elevating the welfare of others is something that I think is worthwhile.

[john]

8 hours ago, IFR said:

From all the stress indicators, it is reasonable to infer that factory farming induces significant suffering.

That’s a reasonable inference. But to conclude that it is “much much worse” than a brutal death in the wild is speculation.

Running through the forest, exhausted, frantic, frothing at the mouth, bleeding from mauling or a stray bullet, collapsing as your heart gives out, lying helpless as you are eaten while still alive, or torn apart, or watch as your throat is cut by a hunter. This is what you’re suggesting is better than a farmed life? (Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting or misquoting you).

It’s just a small point, it seems to sit oddly with your general assertions especially when you’re including hunting, a deliberate act by humans, as a manner of natural death.

[Isalie]

A lifetime of misery with a gruesome end or a natural lifetime with the possibility of a gruesome end, im sure both sides are the same..

[john]

We’re discussing brutal deaths in the wild specifically.

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 hours ago, IFR said:

Yes, I think the issue of medical research is a very interesting one. It's extensive enough a topic (and outside of the issue of eating meat) that it probably deserves a thread of its own. But since you brought it up, I will address it briefly here.

I have in this entire discussion mentioned that factory farming is not necessary for human survival, and I've further recognized that practicalities of life have limited any idealist approach to treating all organisms as equal (eg the benefits of predation by the wolves of Yellowstone). Even among humans we are not valued equally, or treated equally. We can not all be given the same comforts as Jeff Bezos, even though it is an appropriate ideal to strive towards that all people be given every advantage possible. And there are many more limitations to the comforts we can provide other animals.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this. Unlike factory farming, medical research is a necessity for survival. We haven't yet developed methods to decouple scientific advancements in this area from animal test subjects. If you don't do the research, organisms will suffer. If you do the research, organisms will suffer. Either way, you are forced into prioritizing the well being of one group over the other.

Even among humans, this devaluation takes place. In China, allegedly the Uighers are having their organs harvested. In less extreme cases, within the bounds of modern laws, psychological experiments (for example) that can be distressing are performed on those who need the money. Do these experiments devalue non-human animals, or human animals due to their religion or financial status? Perhaps.

I don't have a real answer to this dilemma, since it's not like there's an easy plant-based alternative.

I would say that however the research is done, prioritizing the comfort of the test subjects (human or otherwise) should receive the utmost consideration. And of course if the opportunity to decouple the research from the need for a test subject arrives, it should absolutely be taken.

Fortunately, factory farming is not a necessity and is removed from this dilemma.

Oh yes, I don't question that. Might makes right, effectively. However, the ability to reason, and have empathy, can and has tempered this maxim. Cultures abuse their dominance often, but sometimes they have the empathy to recognize that it is morally undesirable to exploit those they dominate. Which gives me some optimism.

Certainly there is not direct evidence. It does require inference (as is common with a lot of science).

One can for instance observe behaviors associated with elevated stress, and identify the frequency of this behavior exhibited in a given situation.

Piglets, in their first weeks of life, will have their tails and needle teeth removed without anesthetics. There's certainly evidence that pigs feel pain, so this causes them distress. Male pigs have their testicles removed without anesthetics, also causing them pain. At this this point 9 out of 15 pigs will die. This is not seen in nature.

The pigs are then forced into thick wire cage stacks. Waste from the higher stacks falls onto the lower stacks. Movement is restricted. The pigs are then forced into cramped pens when they have grown sufficiently. Toxic gases and humid conditions in the cramped quarters causes about 30 to 70 percent of the pigs to have respiratory problems, and 4 to 6 percent to die. This is also not observed in nature. Disease is also rampant in these confines - also not seen in nature.

Furthermore, growth hormones promote numerous physiological defects and deformities that cause organ failures, arthritis, and orthopedic problems - which is again not observed in their non-factor farming counterparts. Stress indicators from these abnormalities can be observed.

One can also observe that pigs are roaming, social animals. This behavior of course is greatly restricted in factory farming.

From all the stress indicators, it is reasonable to infer that factory farming induces significant suffering. One can try to argue that being subjected to the health effects of growth hormones, toxic chemicals that damage the respiratory system, open wounds and disease, the severe inhibition of instinctual behaviors, breeding to the point of prolapse organs, etc., makes for less suffering, but substantial circumstantial evidence suggests this is unlikely. One can always go with the unlikely conclusion (for instance, perhaps our current trend of greenhouse emissions will cause the average global temperature to go down in a decade), but this seems like an unreasonable approach.

If you do have any research that suggests that factory farming is mentally beneficial to animals, I would be interested in reading it. I can point you out to studies that indicate the harm if you'd like.

Sure, I'm aware of this. We both have observed this. You have different values. We certainly agree there.

I simply pointed out that your values are not based on anything more substantial than opinion - just like my values, or anyone's values.

The end result of course is different. Your values are more permissive to inflict harm. I'm not saying this as an insult - you acknowledge in this very quote your willingness to eat factory farmed food in good conscience, and we've both acknowledged that factory farming involves the suffering of other animals.

Well, yes, of course. As you pointed out, we have different values. You probably are aware that I find the free disregard of the welfare of others to be offensive, too.

I don't take pleasure in the fact that my values are offensive to you. I don't see any benefit in that. Why be satisfied that another is made discontent? I do not wish discontentment on anyone.

But I do think that people with different values can engage in a rational discussion, because I do not consider this topic to be a zero sum game. Any change or compromise in another person's perception that inclines towards elevating the welfare of others is something that I think is worthwhile.

I don't really have much of an opinion on animal testing for medical research (cosmetic products are different IMO) but the bolded is just plain wrong.  Necessary for what?  

Humans survived for tens of thousands of years without this.  

[Isalie]

1 hour ago, john MCG said:

We’re discussing brutal deaths in the wild specifically.

Seems hella disingenuous to not compare the lives up until death. 

[john]

58 minutes ago, Isalie said:

Seems hella disingenuous to not compare the lives up until death. 

Ok, well IFR introduced the subject so throw that shade at him if you want.

The idea that a factory farmed life is much worse than a natural life that ends in a brutal way is what I find doubtful. A natural life without predation, yeah, that’s probably going to be better but I don’t see why you would dismiss the chance of a horrific death, especially due to hunting.

Realistically, there’s a lot of reasons why life in the wild would be miserable, many also caused by humans; malnutrition, sickness, misuse of habitat. Non cruel farming or game reserves would be a compromise although those would still end in butchery.

[Conflicting Thought]

2 minutes ago, john MCG said:

Ok, well IFR introduced the subject so throw that shade at him if you want.

The idea that a factory farmed life is much worse than a natural life that ends in a brutal way is what I find doubtful. A natural life without predation, yeah, that’s probably going to be better but I don’t see why you would dismiss the chance of a horrific death, especially due to hunting.

Realistically, there’s a lot of reasons why life in the wild would be miserable, many also caused by humans; malnutrition, sickness, misuse of habitat. Non cruel farming or game reserves would be a compromise although those would still end in butchery.

I mean, you think a pig, for example, is having a better live living in factory farm conditions than in the wild or "free range"  because they might have a brutal death?

I think you are missunderstanding why life in a factory is horrible in totaly different  ways that what is natural. I mean sure being eaten alive by wild dogs must be horrible, but, common, there are so many different reasons for why its no even close to being the same than LIVING and DYING in a factory, where the animal cant even move, their bodies attrofy, the dont walk, they dont know what earth or grass is, i mean, cant you see the myriad of ways that factory farming is much worse than living in the wild?. 

I dont know man, i dont know if i was able to translate my thoughts on here(damn you adhd) , but i just think there are so many ways that the argument that, animals suffer in the wild so factory farming, is sooo wrong. 

 

[john]

Yeah, I agree on factory farming. I think you guys are misinterpreting my point. I disagree with a small part of one of IFR’s posts, not his argument in general. In fact, I don’t even disagree I just think there is no way of telling that factory farming methods are worse than being preyed upon.

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, john MCG said:

Yeah, I agree on factory farming. I think you guys are misinterpreting my point. I disagree with a small part of one of IFR’s posts, not his argument in general. In fact, I don’t even disagree I just think there is no way of telling that factory farming methods are worse than being preyed upon.

Idk, at least when you are being preyed upon, you have a chance of scaping. 

[A wilding]

While the points about factory framing are fair enough, nobody should get the impression that life in the wild is idyllic for most animals. Injury, starvation and disease are ever present threats for most of them as well as predation. It is generally not a question of when an animal will die horribly, but how.