Offensive PETA ad / Animal ethics?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your tedious points do not require an answer. You insist that the world obey your 'moral' precepts. If it does not, it is, by your criteria, 'immoral'.

How silly. You insist that the world conform to your beliefs. You've established yourself as the moral authority, at least in your own mind.

As I said before, self-rightousness is ugly, and you indulge in an orgy of moral indignation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Five assumptions, without any justification.

P.s. I'm trying hard not to use the word wacko as a description of this pov.

 

What justification is needed? My position is that of nature and evolution. It's you who are trying to change eating habits, not me. And so far, the only argument you've been able to make is one based on your personal feelings. Because you feel a particular way, everyone else should conform to your dictates.

Zealotry.

Yes, I know. It's not an attractive aspect of personality, but it's the same impulse which drives one to poke at an animal in a cage, or rap on the side of a fish tank.

 

A friend of mine, when growing up, lived on a farm. The cow they had could open the gate with her tongue. One morning she did so, let all the other animals out, then shut the gate behind her on the way out.
Cows can, in fact, be eerily smart and sweetly affectionate critters. As smart as dogs or horses-both of which Americans would be icked out at eating.
Chickens though? mostly obnoxious and dumb. Someone described them as a fast vegetable. Maybe true of fryers. Mixed-breed yard hens tend to be...less stupid. Still not terribly bright though.

I'm not convinced everyone can go pretty-much vegan, but I do think the majority of Americans can. Why? I dropped 50 pounds when I did. Those who have trouble keeping weight on would probably be the ones who'd have problems.

And yes, eating meat/dairy pretty much triples your ecological footprint. Also, factory farming is, in effect, a disease hatchery for resistant bacteria and ought to be banned anyway. Cheap, fatty feedlot meat is made available by corn/wheat/soy subsidies; meaning I'm subsidizing people's waistline spread with my taxes.
Annoying.

There's a very good argument to be made, though, for only eating hunted meat/wild-caught fish, supposing it's done with sustainable harvesting in mind...because that means that the wild environment has to be left intact enough for a population of wild meat to live in it. Too, people who want to eat meat would have to be in good enough shape that they can go hunting and fishing.
Get them out in the wilderness appreciating it and stuff. Good for them.

The thing is, we're overpopulated, and meat-eating takes up more agricultural resources. I hope we stop popping out so many-we'd do better if we at least halved our population; but until then, meat ought to be as expensive as it actually is, not kept artificially cheap at my expense.
Unless of course we figure out how to make a petrimeat that doesn't take resources the way a live animal does-in which case, game on.

 

I didn't insist Jeffery Dahmer's actions are the moral equivalent, I am challenging you to consider the morallity of your actions by suggesting similarities between one species being killed for food and pleasure and another. Do you lack the imagintation to consider such a thing?

Nature is a struggle for survival, chomping on pork chops and cheese burgers hardly qualifies.

I'm not a zealot, I am presenting a conflicted view to your own. If that's being a zealot then we are ALL zealots on this forum and being called out as one hardly matters. If anyone is displaying zealotry it is you, you have refused to answer simple questions and instead repeated that you like the taste of animal body parts. Well done, I could write a program that keeps typing "I like eating meat" all day long. You are an intelligent human being, please try harder with your responses or kindly leave this thread and go eat some bacon.

 

KennyC, since you have prodded me I will respond.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have never eaten a plant that displayed the capacity for suffering.

Morally, could you justify feeding humans to pigs so that you could then raise the pigs to be eaten by humans?

 

I wouldn't call it ancient history, it is the current condition today for most of humanity. In a few prosperous and technologically advanced countries a vegan diet is possible for people who earn in a day what most of the rest of the world earns in a month or a year. Further down you say that cost and inconvenience are not excuses for failing to act morally but both cost and time are economic factors and are important to the moral equation.

If you wish to say that for you or I, living in first world countries with a surfeit of food and large amounts of disposable income, it is not a factor that is one thing. But you seem to be failing to realize the economic conditions that make it so. A vegan diet is a luxury from a global economic perspective. A vegetarian diet is more reasonable and a mostly vegetarian diet with some regular supplementation of meat even more so.

I agree with this principle but the point remains there is no death free alternative at this time. This changes the scope of the debate.

This is partly correct but not entirely. For one, this is primarily a condition in the same "first world" countries where meat consumption is very high. Most of the developing world uses grazing as the main food source for livestock. Which, importantly, can be done where it is very difficult to grow crops. This expands the food supply. Another important area where this is not the case is seafood.

Generally, I am against using human consumables to feed livestock for a number of reasons. I would like to see the practice of primarily grain fed livestock end.

Yes, I acknowledged this point already. In part, we grant this status to those humans who cannot fulfill their part of the social contract as would a fully functioning member as a matter of general principle. But it is not necessarily an all or nothing arrangement, for lack of a better term there are limited partners. Dogs for example, can willfully enter such a contract becoming intentional members of a society.

Along with the question of choice I find this argument anthropomorphic. While I don't disagree that all mammals have some level of emotional capacity, I don't see evidence that any but a very few have a capacity for thought or consciousness that even approaches a human's. I don't believe they have the ability to choose anything that isn't immediately present and they have no abstract reasoning at all. Concepts such as freedom or death or self are meaningless to a cow. If it has sufficient space to move about and enough food, water, and so forth it would not stand in contemplative thought longing for the vast prairie it was removed from and lamenting its loss. It will wait around while it watches one member of the herd after another killed.

The maltreatment of humans in slavery, genocide, and the like was typically rationalized by falsely proclaiming they were not human. Saying that a cow is not human is a true statement.

Neither, it's a contract because it is a relationship where the parties contribute intentionally.

I don't disagree in principle. We just differ as to where doubt and caution come into consideration. For example I'm not entirely sure if whales might be considered persons but given that they do display a fair amount of intelligence and some capacity to expand their social and environmental awareness I give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe we should run around killing and eating every creature that we see, but I don't find that it carries over to most traditional livestock, any fish, or shellfish, and the like.

Pain and fear are immediate and felt by all chordates, so yes I agree. I don't think animals should be unnecessarily made to feel pain.

I don't disagree with this part. I do find the massive consumption of meat and factory farming problematic. But this is a very different question than whether or not it is immoral to kill and eat animals.

Debatable point. Largely animals were considered to be either food or utilitarian objects for human use. Until recently the only concepts that animals were persons came in the form of supernatural religious beliefs, not from any rational consideration of merit. Even today where it is evinced I find most people's belief to be emotive rather than reasoned.

I don't. I said everything has some intrinsic value. The pebble on the beach was the example I gave of something that may be outweighed by mere whim. Plucking a flower I would give somewhat more consideration. Taking the life of an animal yet more seriously.

~Raithere

 

I post and say EXACTLY what I mean to say.

James R: why post if all you do is spew irrelevant repetitious words?

And why do you eat living vegetables?

 

How do you know plants don't suffer? They live just as you do, just a different branch on the tree of life.

Your second point is irrelevant, but in effect is what happens if truly look at the big picture.

 

The cow exhibited the same intelligence of an ant or cock roach, both of whom will escape by many different methods. For example, you sit on the ground and see an ant walking and you put you hand out to create a gate. The ant, if it sees your hand come down will access the situation and turn. the ant turns. Now do it again, the ant will access the situation and turn again. Keep doing it and the ant becomes more agitated\excited.

Heres the thing...the ant lives on the ground, how do you feel knowing that you step on so many ants everyday. Well, juts think about any bug then.

 

Its amusing that PETA would invoke the Nazis as an example for meat eaters. Hitler was a vegetarian.

But if they are going with that theme, there's Charles Manson, Pol Pot and even [allegedly] Genghis Khan!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Its actually haram to eat an animal that has died and not been killed in a halal fashion- so that would be a no

See previous

No, because monetary inducement is not a reason to eat.

Why does it have to be a dog? How about if its a cow? I don't know anyone who eats dogs - they are not considered edible animals in our culture. If it was a cow or a hen - which are considered edible animals - then sure, we usually exchanged animals with our neighbors since we did not like to eat the ones we kept.

I eat both beef and veal. So yeah, market price would be reasonable

Cultural differences. If you asked someone from a dog eating society, they would probably not find any differences. In our culture we don't eat animals without hooves and those that have "silent" wings.

Goes back to the question of whats haram. Eating people is haram.

Again, religious reasons.

Back to religious reasons

See previous

I have some questions for vegetarians

1. What is your opinion of using products, any products, whose safety and efficacy for human consumption has been determined through animal experimentation. Do you use any product which has been tested on animals? If yes, what are your moral justifications for doing so?

2. Do you have any pets? What is your position on keeping pets in the home? Would you keep a human child as a pet?

3. If you were to find that using a vegetarian product may be harmful for your child and for health reasons you needed to use a product of animal origin, what choice would you make? Why?

4. I've read research on soy formula which asserts that the level of isoflavones in it is equivalent to giving five birth control pills to a child every day. Given that we know so little about food components, what is your position about imposing your food beliefs on your child?

4b. If your child wanted to eat any food of animal origin, what would be your response?

5. If you were offered a choice between two life saving treatments, one which had been tested on animals and one which had been tested only on yeast, which would you choose, given that you could only choose one? Why?

6. If research showed that plants feel pain on being eaten alive, would it affect your position on vegetarianism?

 

And what about eating LIVING plants!

 

She Walks Like a Bearded Cow

James

I've tried a few times over the last couple days to respond to your post, but haven't been able to get past the religious zealotry of it. I've even gotten higher than Jesus in the meantime, and I just can't get high enough to make the obvious fallacies of your argument go away.

This is a dodge. Evolution may not be a moral process, but that's irrelevant. Humans are morally disposed.

If humanity collectively stops consuming meat, then the effect over generations will be a disruptive phenomenon whereby those more naturally disposed to a meatless diet will emerge to the fore of the species. As the disruptive gap closes, and the population restabilizes, it will be with a reduced dietary spectrum in nature.

Necessity is a fine reason to undertake such a change; in those cases, it is called adaption.

Morality, however, is a stupid reason to undertake such a change; in those cases, it is called engineering, eugenics, or some similar term.

"Evolution is not a moral process"? That's a dodge.

Remember how I said your rationality falters? Remember how you said, "Right back at you"? We're seeing that faltering here; you're straying farther and farther from the point. "Interfering" with evolution is a common process in humanity. There is a difference, though, between trying to manipulate a person's genes directly to cure a disease and transforming the entire species in order to feel good about yourself.

Actually, I was applying your argument to mine, in order to explore the implications. Like I said, James, faltering. Normally you would have figured that part out. You didn't this time because it is inconvenient to your argument. So you, as we see with this and the prior paragraph of your post, work to reshape my argument so that it can be more conveniently disposed of.

Science is laughing at your comparisons. Your hair-splitting morals are being reduced quite directly to a matter of aesthetics:

But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds.

When plant biologists speak of their subjects, they use active verbs and vivid images. Plants “forage” for resources like light and soil nutrients and “anticipate” rough spots and opportunities. By analyzing the ratio of red light and far red light falling on their leaves, for example, they can sense the presence of other chlorophyllated competitors nearby and try to grow the other way. Their roots ride the underground “rhizosphere” and engage in cross-cultural and microbial trade.

“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said.

Plants can’t run away from a threat but they can stand their ground. “They are very good at avoiding getting eaten,” said Linda Walling of the University of California, Riverside. “It’s an unusual situation where insects can overcome those defenses.” At the smallest nip to its leaves, specialized cells on the plant’s surface release chemicals to irritate the predator or sticky goo to entrap it. Genes in the plant’s DNA are activated to wage systemwide chemical warfare, the plant’s version of an immune response. We need terpenes, alkaloids, phenolics — let’s move.

“I’m amazed at how fast some of these things happen,” said Consuelo M. De Moraes of Pennsylvania State University. Dr. De Moraes and her colleagues did labeling experiments to clock a plant’s systemic response time and found that, in less than 20 minutes from the moment the caterpillar had begun feeding on its leaves, the plant had plucked carbon from the air and forged defensive compounds from scratch.

Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl. Some of the compounds that plants generate in response to insect mastication — their feedback, you might say — are volatile chemicals that serve as cries for help. Such airborne alarm calls have been shown to attract both large predatory insects like dragon flies, which delight in caterpillar meat, and tiny parasitic insects, which can infect a caterpillar and destroy it from within.

(Angier)

• • •​

Plants, scientists say, transmit information about light intensity and quality from leaf to leaf in a very similar way to our own nervous systems.

These "electro-chemical signals" are carried by cells that act as "nerves" of the plants.

In their experiment, the scientists showed that light shone on to one leaf caused the whole plant to respond.

And the response, which took the form of light-induced chemical reactions in the leaves, continued in the dark.

This showed, they said, that the plant "remembered" the information encoded in light ....

.... In previous work, Professor Karpinski found that chemical signals could be passed throughout whole plants - allowing them to respond to and survive changes and stresses in their environment.

But in this new study, he and his colleagues discovered that when light stimulated a chemical reaction in one leaf cell, this caused a "cascade" of events and that this was immediately signalled to the rest of the plant via a specific type of cell called a "bundle sheath cell" ....

.... Professor Christine Foyer, a plant scientist from the University of Leeds, said the study "took our thinking one step forward".

"Plants have to survive stresses, such as drought or cold, and live through it and keep growing," she told BBC News.

"This requires an appraisal of the situation and an appropriate response - that's a form of intelligence.

"What this study has done is link two signalling pathways together... and the electrical signalling pathway is incredibly rapid, so the whole plant could respond immediately to high [levels of] light."

(Gill)​

The problem is that your hair-splitting is being pushed from one context of aesthetic to another. Where once you were limited to the aesthetics of what we could and couldn't see—

The spectacle of a dying animal affects us panfully; we can see its struggles and, sympathetically, feel something of its pain. The unseen agony of a plant leaves us indifferent. To a being with eyes a million times more sensitive than ours, the struggles of a dying plant would be visible and therefore distressing .... The poison[ed] flower manifestly writhes before us. The last moments are so distressingly like those of a man, that we are shocked by the very spectacle of them into a hitherto unfelt sympathy.

(Huxley)​

—now you're verging into territory where you're left saying, "It doesn't look like human nerves," or, "It isn't fast enough." But the fact remains that the plant damn well knows what you're doing to it.

In a blog post on the Gill article, I noted:

For me, Huxley’s tale of touring the Bose Institute in Calcutta always comes to mind when eating Bibb lettuce, which is often packaged on the root, so that it is to some degree alive, and thus fresher when consumed. And every time I cut away the root, and cut the leaves for a salad, I cannot help but recognize that the thing is gasping, agonizing, dying on my plate.​

Once you assert a moral reason, that reason must be questioned by new data. Sure, I can understand that one expects that out of all the beautiful intricacies nature offers, plants must be the one brutishly simple thing in the Universe. But even that expectation is eroding quickly as new data comes in.

One of the comments to Angier's New York Times op-ed is from Max, in Santa Cruz, California, who writes:

Morally motivated vegetarians don't eat beef because, presumably, cows have the same sort of desire for life that people have. The same is not true for brussels sprouts.​

One hopes Max is characterizing the argument of people he isn't among; that way we can just say it's a bad summary. Because what it means when applied practically is that my cat isn't loud and annoying because her genes have gifted her with a vociferous meow, or that I'm an apathetic human, but because she is, innately, a fucking bitch.

Cows, like brussels sprouts, want to live. It is a natural drive within the organism. But a cow isn't scheming to save enough for a down payment on a new BMW, either. It isn't dreaming, tearfully, of its offspring's acceptance to Stanford or Dartmouth. So Max's summary seems a bit distorted.

Two primary points come to mind. As Quadraphonics pointed out, "comparing somebody to the Nazis/Holocaust is a guaranteed way to create outrage out of any proportion to the actual topic". And this works through two methods: One is the greedy, stupid attempt to annex the Holocaust tragedy; another is simply calling someone a Nazi. Neither aspect is going to go over well in a discussion.

So to borrow a quote from this thread: "Do you think that kind of thing advances your argument, or just makes you come across as an angry little man?"

So let me get this straight:

• Eat meat = Nazi — An excellent argument that is not hyperbole.

• Eat meat = killing child — An excellent argument that is not hyperbole.

• Some people sense the spiritual awareness of cows — What, really? What the hell, man? Suddenly you're backing spirituality?​

Yes, that's the scientist in you. It must be that one hasn't studied. It can't possibly be that your application is incorrect.

You know, we go through this a lot around here at Sciforums. Fascism, racism, sexism. Normally, you support the idea that it's not name-calling or insulting if the description is accurate.

Now you're suggesting that people owe a bunch of hyperbolic activists respect based on theory and hope, not on their conduct?

That's one of the keys, James. This is the observable effect of you forsaking your regular adherence to logic and science.

James, you do not appear to have thought this through. A simple comparison for example:

• Equal Consideration? Then put the cougar on trial instead of just shooting it. Put me on the jury; I'll acquit.

• Equal Consideration? File the damn lawsuit. Even if you keep me off the jury, you can expect the verdict:

Now over at the powwow things were getting rough;
All the kegs were fried, no-one's got enough.
Someone said "a burger," and though I thought it murder,
We were lookin' to be cookin' up the Hook 'Em Cow.

(Boiled in Lead)​

You're going to have to come up with something better.

Omnivores are Nazis, eating meat is the equivalent of raping children? And you're not an extremist?

• "Take a human man. Let's call him Mr Smith. Mr Smith decides that raping 8 year old children is good. He weighs up the interests of the children in not being abused against his extreme pleasure in raping them and concludes that raping kids is okay because his pleasure outweighs the suffering of the children." (#1025583/193)

• "Regarding raping babies, consider. Why do you eat meat? Because you like the taste. Because it makes you feel good. Why do baby-rapers rape babies? Because they like to do it, and it makes them feel good. So, what's the difference? It seems to me that you think the important difference is that the babies happen to belong to the species Home sapiens, while a cow does not. So, perhaps you can explain to me why humans are so special that mere membership of their species gives them special rights that no other animal is entitled to. Or are humans special just because you happen to human?" (#1029699/210)

• "The cow and the child and the alligator ought to have the same rights, unless there is a good reason they should have different rights. So, think. Any good reasons for differences here?" (#1047808/369)

• "Again, I need to repeat myself. My point is that the desire to rape is no different from the desire to eat meat. Both are desires which require a choice of action: to rape, or not to rape. To eat, or not to eat. The potential rapist can choose not to rape. The potential meat eater can choose not to eat meat. Both decisions have moral implications." (#1045231/334)

• "If species is an abstraction, then it is perfectly consistent to demand moral parity between humans and non-human animals, isn't it?" (#1052597/450)

• "Not necessarily. But if you could save the calf AND the child, what then? Would it then be immoral NOT to save the calf, in your opinion? Or wouldn't it matter either way? Or would it only matter if the calf was of economic value to you?

For that matter, what if one chose not to save the child, or the calf or the rat? Would it be immoral to watch the child drown? Would it be immoral to watch the calf drown? Would one be worse than the other? Why?" (ibid)

• "Are you aware that even sociopathic murderers have rights ...? For example, they have the right to a fair trial, the right not to be arbitrarily killed and eaten etc. etc. This is a recognition of equal intrinsic value in terms of basic rights." (#1057414/501)

• "Why is your pet entitled to moral consideration, while other animals are not? This is a violation of the principle of equal consideration." (ibid)

• "Drawing the line by species is arbitrary, and unwarranted by any principle of morality. You protect the human sociopathic murderer, while at the same time you kill and eat an innocent animal, and on no other basis than the murderer is a member of one species while the animal is of a different species.

By your arbitrary code, you could equally draw a line between men and women, and promote sexism in all forms. Why? Because you are happy to deny equal consideration for no justifiable reason." (ibid)​

Some of your greatest hits from last time, proving you're not an extremist.

And something of religious zeal. You assert a poorly-defined, philosophical outcome—e.g., Principle of Equal Consideration—as a fact. That is the cause to which you are loyal.

Looking back four years, to one of your baby raping posts, you opened with a straightforward question:

"Realise that nobody (or at least not me) is arguing that animals ought to have the same rights as humans. The question is: ought they to have any rights at all?"​

Yet most people perceive of your zealous adherence to the PEC exactly that problem. So you find yourself called upon to delineate for clarity. Now here's the problem: All of those delineations are built like religious doctrine; they're all subjective. The whole principle is subjective. The philosophical outcome is the necessarily eventual outcome of tracking through formulae of liberty and equality.

But so is Anarchism.

So is nihilism.

Not every necessary eventual outcome is valid in terms of function.

As I read through your explanations and justifications, the boundaries are practical and apparent:

"Of course there would be no food shortages. Producing meat requires much more overall food production than producing vegetables. It's a two-step process: first you need to grow the food to feed the animals, then you use the animals and some other food to feed the humans. Cut out the animals and you can use all the land for agriculture for humans instead." (#25)​

Do you really think so?

Do you really think food shortages are the result of eating meat? And, yes, that's a separate question, subordinate to the first.

Or could it be that the commoditization of grain, as we have structured the system, has an effect? After all, out of hundreds of viable grains, four or five lead the pack. And of those, how much of the produce is siphoned off for purposes other than food?

If I'm a farmer who raises corn, should I take the lower price to sell food to a foreign country, or the higher price to sell corn for biofuel? And if all works out as an American president suggested a few years back, why not abandon corn for switchgrass?

Getting rid of meat for human consumption is not going to solve this problem.

"Also, I think you're making assumptions about "people like you". You know very little about me." (ibid)​

But you are passing judgment and considering yourself better:

"Well, your experience is quite different from mine, then. I know many vegetarians and vegans, and in general they find that it is meat eaters who tend to raise the issue of what they eat, not them. It is generally the meat eaters who seem to have a problem with what people eat, strangely enough. I think it's because meat eaters feel uncomfortable when they are confronted by people who are morally superior to them." (ibid)​

Right, you're not an extremist. Just a supremacist. World of difference, there. But at least you've made it clear what this is about: Promoting your moral supremacy.

You know, kind of like the religious zealots.

"Of course, the immediate reaction of many meat eaters to the ad (see this thread for example) is "There's no valid comparison here! Killing animals is completely amoral, whereas the holocaust was immoral!" Hence the outrage. The people killed in the holocaust were worthy; dumb animals are not. Automatic, knee-jerk response. Hence the reaction." (#29)​

The incredible simplicity with which you regard people who eat meat is only shocking if we pretend you're not a supremacist. Or an extremist. This is exactly what you're accustomed to seeing of theistic zealots who think they are morally superior because they believe in God and need to cast you, the atheist, as a two-dimensional parody of yourself.

But, of course, you're not an extremist, which means you have the right to conduct yourself however you please, and anyone who doesn't see the objective truth of it all is just morally crippled.

"Ah, quadraphonics, my friendly stalker. Always a pleasure to hear more from you." (#43)​

When it's one of our infinitely-reincarnated trolls coming back to badmouth you, that sort of rhetoric makes sense. But as we see, those who disagree with you and won't shut up also count as stalkers.

You're sounding more and more zealous as you go.

"Do your views apply equally to breeding other humans for your consumption, too? I assume not. Because humans are special and "above" the cows and chickens. Is that correct? If so, tell me why. Why are you King of the Beasts, and Entitled ...?" (ibid)​

The scientist in you should have said, "Ping!" from the moment you thought that, much less typed it. But the subtle details of the problems of cannibalism can't possibly occur to Quadraphonics, right? Because he is morally inferior, and merely a cartoon.

Hyperbole of your point aside, meat eaters—by your view—apparently aren't capable of such subtlety as to recognize cannibalism.

Or, we might point out the obvious, which is that they are, in fact, capable. This, however, would only reinforce your desperate need to cast your opponents as pathetic parodies in order to feel like you're having a fair fight.

"When you start comparing what you call the intrinsic value of an animal to its value as food for a human being, then you need to make sure you're being ethically consistent. How do you rank the intrinsic value of a human being compared to his or her intrinsic value as food for another human being or for an animal? Would it be permissible to breed human beings solely to be eaten by other human beings? If not, why not? And if not, what is the morally significant difference between the cow and the human that makes such behaviour acceptable in the case of the cow? (#61)​

More of the same. Eating cows is comparable to cannibalism? Maybe I'm wrong here; maybe it's not that you think meat-eaters can't figure out what cannibalism is, or what problems are associated with it. Rather, maybe it's that you can't. Because—

"And again, why not eat another human for mere gastronomic pleasure? How about a depressed human who doesn't seem to be enjoying their life? Would your pleasure in eating that person trump his putative interest in remaining alive?" (ibid)​

—you really seem to be fixated on that one.

"By that argument, anything that allows you to survive and prosper is by definition morally good. i guess that would make stealing from other people good, or killing them to advance your own interests, or raping lots of women to spread your genes. Do you have any moral qualms about those things?" (#74)​

Really? You're not an extremist?

"The starting point is that all persons are entitled to equal consideration of their interests." (#76)​

This is one of those concepts that comes up around Sciforums from time to time. Sometimes, people say, "A little knowledge can be dangerous." But I think it suits just fine to say it's like kids with guns who think they're toys.

Yes, there is an argument that extends personhood beyond humanity. But, no, the supertechnological EBE who travels across the Universe to say "Hi" to Earthlings is not an automatic comparison to a cow, or fish, or pig—or snail, grasshopper, ant, &c.

I don't eat dolphin or whale because I have a hard time eating anything that's smarter than I am. No, really. That's what I tell people, and that's how it feels. I probably wouldn't eat elephant, either, unless it was a survival issue.

Maybe when a cow shows reverence or artistic ability equal to an elephant, I'll change my mind about cheeseburgers.

But you cannot take abstract personhood and render it as fact.

"Regardless, the food grown to feed the ranched animals is grown on land suitable for agriculture. Obviously." (#78)​

It's clover and alfalfa for everyone, then.

Alfalfa Charms, now with more lucky clover!

"I explicitly wrote in my previous post that some actions have no moral impact. It's up to you to explain why eating meat is one of those actions - if that's your argument." (#85)​

I think when the basis of that inquiry is a philosophical principle being argued as established fact, the burden of validity falls on you.

"Let me ask you directly: do you think there are any moral issues with eating a human being (i.e. not health issues, which seem to be TW Scott's only objection to cannibalism)? If not, then you're probably morally consistent in your meat-eating ways. But if you do, then you need to explain to me why eating cows is just fine but eating humans is evil." (ibid)​

Do you have any moral issues with killing or raping a human being?

For once, the United States can offer an instructive lesson that isn't embarrassing:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(Declaration of Independence)​

Now, I don't think you'll throw that one out because it mentions a creator. Nonetheless, what it reflects is one of those necessary outcomes that results from tracking a philosophical lineage.

The fundamental equality of all humans is a logical starting point; Thomas Paine wrote that a hereditary king is like a hereditary mathematician.

The difference between humans and other animals is much more apparent than the equality between human beings. Yes, that difference is what you question, but the counterpoint is what you presume.

Validate that presumption.

The moral issues with killing or raping another human being pertain to the fundamental equality we view ourselves as sharing. Why should we extend that equality to a cow?

What do cows do that merits that equality?

What is the role of the cow in society?

What should the role of the cow in society be?

These are all questions you seem to skip over in presuming the PEC factual.

"If you examine the field of ethics in general, you will find that most people agree that it is better to protect the weak and defenseless than to exploit your will and power ovef them." (#101)​

That generally applies to people, James. Now, yes, we understand that you demand extending that outlook to all animals with a nervous system that meets your satisfaction. We are aware that we're all morally inferior to you if we don't simply nod and agree. But you've posted the sort of philosophical distortion that we are accustomed to seeing from religious zealots trying to convince us that God is real and is telling us how to behave.

"It just seems to me that there's a huge blind spot for those who eat meat yet at the same time claim to care about non-human animals. Surely depriving an animal of its existence for your own pleasure is more cruel than merely keeping it cruely confined? Or isn't it?

Why be concerned about pain and suffering and not take the logical next step? Why not follow the reasoning to its logical end point?" (ibid)​

This is actually an interesting point, James. But I think where you'll run into trouble is in putting animals ahead of humans.

Yes, yes, I know: equality. But solving these problems for animals should not take priority over the human species.

I mean, sure, let's set aside the whole, "Fuck you!" thing and just get down to what's really at play here: Fuck Darwin.

Which is strange, because I never thought of you as an anti-Darwinian.

Live and learn, I guess.

"I'm just not sure what relevance this has to the morality of eating meat today, in our modern consumer societies. Even if it could be established that meat eating was morally justifiable in the past, we still need to determine what we ought to do in our present circumstances." (ibid)​

In that context, it's a complicated issue. Far too complex for us morally crippled, two-dimensional meat eaters to figure out.

But if I had to imagine what an enlightened, morally superior vegetarian would say, he would say there is no relevance, that meat eaters are akin to Nazis and child rapists, and that they're morally crippled if they don't get it.

I mean, right? It's not like that's extreme rhetoric or anything.

Or to take you more seriously than your aesthetic pride presently merits, yes, there is a huge question to be considered. But it occurs somewhere down the list. The problems of the food supply you can't blame on meat—and, yes, there are many—should be addressed first.

Secondly, what is the role of meat in the human diet that isn't purely about raping children? As humans do have umami receptors—which, according to Wikipedia accounts for the bacon phenomenon°—one wonders why nature would fail to select away from such a superfluous and unhealthy outcome.

Who knew? Nature really is extraneous, then. Congratulations, you are witness to a profound moment: One of my basic tenets for viewing the Universe has just come undone. And it's all meat's fault.

Damn, nasty, evil meat! How dare you!

Makes me want to go out and punch a cow. Not that I really would, but you know how it goes; sometimes you want to hit someone. Well, as cows deserve equal consideration, why not?

"But some human beings will never be able to do any of those things either. And yet we do not condone the killing and eating of those human beings (e.g. the mentally disabled)." (ibid)​

Because they're human.

Now you can bawl about species bias all you want, James, but that's the scale on which you want to change the basic human outlook.

"This is one of my main points - that a cow has intrinsic value, quite apart from any value as property to human beings. Every cow is a unique individual, in the same way that every human being is a unique individual. Moreover, every cow is a thinking, conscious, sentient individual, just like every human being." (ibid)​

Bullshit. I mean, for lack of a better word, bullshit.

And there I mean, fine, you're welcome to believe that all you want. But "every cow is a thinking, conscious, sentient individual"? "Just like every human being"?

She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies,
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meets in her aspect and her eyes;
Thus mellow'd to that tender light
Which Heaven to gaudy day denies.

One shade the more, one ray the less,
Had half impair'd the nameless grace
Which waves in every raven tress
Or softly lightens o'er her face,
Where thoughts serenely sweet express
How pure, how dear their dwelling-place.

And on that cheek and o'er that brow
So soft, so calm, yet eloquent,
The smiles that win, the tints that glow,
But tell of days in goodness spent—
A mind at peace with all below,
A heart whose love is innocent.

(Lord Byron)​

Why should that not be an ode to a cow, then? It's not so much that I'm waiting for the bovine Ode to the Framers, or Mask of Anarchy, but, rather, what part of cow culture even has such circumstances to reflect on?

Tell us about the wonderful culture created by the almighty cow.

"Can we ethically justify treating a cow as mere property?" (ibid)​

It's an interesting consideration, but apparently the answer is only "no" if we flip the equation according to your aesthetics and treat the PEC as some manner of established fact.

"Now, it seems to me that a cow or a dog shares many of the same capacities and desires than humans share. They get hungry and want food. They like sunshine. They like having fun. They avoid pain as far as possible. They experience fear. Given the choice, they would want their lives to continue rather than to die. Can anybody dispute this?

If a cow feels pain, then we should not deliberately lead to it experiencing pain, for the same reasons that we should not deliberately lead to other human beings experiencing pain. We ought to treat like as like. Similarly, if a cow has an interest in continuing its life, we ought to consider that interest in the same way that we consider the same interest in a human being." (ibid)​

Why ought we treat like as like? Barring the aesthetics of a qualifying nervous system, of course?

Given the course of human scientific research, how long, do you think, until we breed anencephalitic cows? Will you still complain?

"Current western consumption of meat far exceeds anything that occurs in the East. And such consumption is a thoroughly modern phenomenon - only dating through the past century or so. Prior to that, most animals were valued primarily for things other than food." (ibid)​

That's true. It's a little-known fact that the famous cattle drives of the American nineteenth century were actually labor migrations to staff electrical plants.

"I'm interested in how you think any mere whim could morally outweigh the intrinsic value of the life of a sentient, conscious animal." (ibid)​

I'm interested in how you come to believe cows are "just like humans". Seriously, here's a starter: Britney Spears or The Flaming Lips? What do cows prefer? And here I want some sort of cogent answer from the cows, not a summary of how much walking, shitting, and fucking they do while either is playing.

"I don't insist. I wish they would, sure. And yes, unless they can justify their own behaviour, then if I can present a good argument showing their immorality, it's a simple matter of undisputed logic that they (read "you") are immoral." (ibid)​

Does that argument hold up for you in any other form? "I don't insist, but just say explicitly that I'm morally superior, and you're inferior as long as you don't adhere to the same philosophical principle I do."

I mean, really. Some don't insist that you believe in God, but say explicitly that they are morally superior, and you're inferior as long as you don't adhere to the same philosophical principle they do.

Some don't insist that you believe torture is appropriate, but say explicitly that they are morally superior, and you're inferior (and a terrorist sympathizer) as long as you don't adhere to the same philosophical principle they do.

And so on, and so on.

But, hey, it's James, which means we've discovered the one time in the Universe that sort of rhetoric is appropriate and laudable.

Another fundamental myth smashed, then? You're on a roll, James.

"I gave you a detailed, reasoned argument, including a link to an extensive explanation of my position that I wrote in the past. That argument is based on a few fundamental premises, and thereafter proceeds logically to its conclusion." (#110)​

The argument is based on presuming philosophical assertions not demonstrated as factual truth.

You have to understand, James, some people are thinking about this PEC of yours much more deeply than you. They consider the issue, they see conflicts, knots, bottlenecks, and other challenges to fundamental, observable reality. And all you can do is insist over and over again based on the PEC, and belittle those who disagree with you.

But it's not extremism. It's not even zealotry. It's right. Correct. The way things really are, and everyone else is just too stupid, greedy, or rape-oriented to understand.

But think of all the women you could score. There's a whole century of American pseudo-Hindu and quasi-Buddhist charlatans out there for you to draw from.

Say it all you want, James.

So let me get this straight: You want to apply a philosophical maxim without any specific definition to such an extent as to affect the future of the human species, disdain the obvious questions that arise, and denounce those who disagree with you, and you're worried that this is just one area in which other people's inability to reason logically is striking to you?
____________________

Notes:

° bacon phenomenon — "It's the bacon that gets 'em," says a friend about vegetarians who start eating meat again. "It's always the bacon." Hardly scientific, but also something I've seen in action. And, yes, we might suggest some sort of correlation between fallen-away vegetarians and bacon, and umami might be the cause. Apparently, bacon has six components of umami, which, of course, triggers a specific neurochemical response. You're now talking about defying evolution itself, or else suggesting that nature really is extraneous.

Works Cited:

Angier, Natalie. "Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too". The New York Times. December 22, 2009; page D2. NYTimes.com. November 23, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html

Gill, Victoria. "Plants 'can think and remember'". BBC News. July 14, 2010. BBC.co.uk. November 23, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10598926

Huxley, Aldous. Jesting Pilate. (1926). New York: Paragon, 1991.

Neate, Rupert. "Cow farts collected in plastic tank for global warming study". The Telegraph. July 9, 2008. Telegraph.co.uk. November 23, 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...in-plastic-tank-for-global-warming-study.html

The Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776. USHistory.org. November 23, 2010. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Li, Xiaodong, et al. "Human receptors for sweet and umami taste". Proceedings of the National Academy for Sciences of the United States of America. February 14, 2002. NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov. Novembe 23, 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC123709/

Wikipedia. "Umami". October 14, 2010. En.Wikipedia.org. November 23, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami

Byron, George G. "She Walks In Beauty Like the Night". 1875. Bartleby.com. November 23, 2010. http://www.bartleby.com/106/173.html

—————. "An Ode to the Framers of the Frame Bill". Morning Chronicle. March 2, 1812. LUC.edu. November 23, 2010. http://www.luc.edu/faculty/sjones1/byr2.htm

Shelly, Percy B. The Mask of Anarchy. 1819. ArtOfEurope.com. November 23, 2010. http://www.artofeurope.com/shelley/she5.htm