Vegetarianism and veganism

Mediochre, have you ever seen footage of factory farms, or at least read descriptions of them? Nobody's saying that the happiness of chickens and cows is "more equal" than anybody else's, but rather that at the very least they deserve not to be treated in the brutally cruel and callous way that they are. I'm not sure how you expect them to stage a rebellion - they have no weapons nor tools nor the opposable thumbs to use them even if they did have them. The people best placed to help them are us as consumers. I'm sure you would hope for the same mercy if you were in the same situation - with no way out other than the kindness of strangers.

I agree, Laird, it's appalling the way they are treated !  But the question of animal suffering is complex and there's never going to be a satisfactory answer to it, even if we were to stop eating meat completely. For me God's creation failed to be perfect.

[Laird]

I'm glad that you agree that the treatment of animals in factory farms is appalling, tim - and certainly I would have hoped that you, as the decent human being you seem to be, would have agreed as much, so it's good to see your basic decency affirmed.

In turn, I agree that the question of animal suffering is complex, whether we attribute it to an imperfect divine creation or to anything else.

I think that for the most part though, the question of how to react to human-caused animal suffering (as opposed to that inherent in the natural world) is simple: do not support it in any way, especially not via your consumer choices, and actively oppose it when given the opportunity. Would you agree with that?

Hey Brian, just a heads-up: that image doesn't load unless you're logged in to the forum which hosts it, which I suspect won't be the case for most folk trying to view it in this thread (including myself - I still don't know what the image is of).

I removed it.  Is there a way to upload images from my hard drive? The image function only allows URLs.

Try this one then

I'm glad that you agree that the treatment of animals in factory farms is appalling, tim - and certainly I would have hoped that you, as the decent human being you seem to be, would have agreed as much, so it's good to see your basic decency affirmed.

In turn, I agree that the question of animal suffering is complex, whether we attribute it to an imperfect divine creation or to anything else.

I think that for the most part though, the question of how to react to human-caused animal suffering (as opposed to that inherent in the natural world) is simple: do not support it in any way, especially not via your consumer choices, and actively oppose it when given the opportunity. Would you agree with that?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Laird. I think the question of decency in relation to these matters is also more complicated. One can eat meat and still be 'decent' in my opinion, I suspect in yours, too but I also suspect you didn't mean to imply anything other than that ? 
 
I don't want to debate this much further, not because I'm uninterested; rather it's just that I'm certain that the issues would be unresolvable. I wouldn't deny my granddaughter a packet of chicken nuggets from McDonalds (she's already had them--not from me) therefore that means that I'm not actively opposing it, no. On that basis, I don't see much point in refusing to buy McDonalds chips, either. They also have blood on them, I suppose. 

My consumer "choices" (I love how that modern privilege 'choice' is now taken for granted--not by you) do include small amounts of meat, mostly fish now, nothing factory farmed as far as I know, but do I really know ? I doubt it. 

You would want all farming of animals to cease, I guess but I wouldn't. I can't see how that could even begin to be feasible. Factory farming/cruelty, absolutely, I would. An unsatisfactory and hypocritical position to hold though, I'm well aware. I'm also aware of the horrors of what might happen if there was a sudden enormous change, the only kind of change that could potentially at least end all animal suffering. Would it ?

[Laird]

Is there a way to upload images from my hard drive?

Yep, you can use the "Attachments" function below the post editor in full editing mode (which you can get to either by clicking "Reply" at the bottom of a post, or via the Quick Reply editor in a thread view by clicking "Preview Post").

[Laird]

I think the question of decency in relation to these matters is also more complicated. One can eat meat and still be 'decent' in my opinion, I suspect in yours, too but I also suspect you didn't mean to imply anything other than that ?

In the modern world, I hold that abstaining from eating meat and from consuming animal-derived products in general is morally obligatory, but in earlier indigenous societies which did not have (nor probably even want) vast agricultural systems, such that their choices of food were more limited and seasonal, I think hunting wild animals for meat could perhaps be morally justified. I guess it would depend on the exact nature of the society in question and its other food choices and the reasoning behind them.

I don't want to provoke offence but nor do I want to dodge a direct answer to your question, tim, so, to be direct: avoiding a moral obligation could be seen as indecent, yes. Of course, a person can be decent in some respects and indecent in others, and probably we are all to an extent complicit in some degree of indecency in the modern world, in which the profit motive rules, and in which much harm (of a variety of types, including environmental and human) is done in pursuing that motive; harm that it is hard as a consumer to avoid at least tacitly contributing to given the complexity of supply chains and working out exactly what goes into each product that we purchase - which many of us lack the time to research for every product we purchase even if the information were somewhat readily available.

You would want all farming of animals to cease, I guess

Yes, I do think all farming of animals should cease. I think our fellow sentient beings deserve to be treated as such, not as mere means to our ends; as objects for our gratification at the expense of their own.

Happy to leave it there if, as you've indicated, you prefer not to debate this issue, but happy to follow up on any other comments you'd like to add too.

This is the one I posted earlier.



   

In the modern world, I hold that abstaining from eating meat and from consuming animal-derived products in general is morally obligatory, but in earlier indigenous societies which did not have (nor probably even want) vast agricultural systems, such that their choices of food were more limited and seasonal, I think hunting wild animals for meat could perhaps be morally justified. I guess it would depend on the exact nature of the society in question and its other food choices and the reasoning behind them.

I don't want to provoke offence but nor do I want to dodge a direct answer to your question, tim, so, to be direct: avoiding a moral obligation could be seen as indecent, yes. Of course, a person can be decent in some respects and indecent in others, and probably we are all to an extent complicit in some degree of indecency in the modern world, in which the profit motive rules, and in which much harm (of a variety of types, including environmental and human) is done in pursuing that motive; harm that it is hard as a consumer to avoid at least tacitly contributing to given the complexity of supply chains and working out exactly what goes into each product that we purchase - which many of us lack the time to research for every product we purchase even if the information were somewhat readily available.


Yes, I do think all farming of animals should cease. I think our fellow sentient beings deserve to be treated as such, not as mere means to our ends; as objects for our gratification at the expense of their own.

Happy to leave it there if, as you've indicated, you prefer not to debate this issue, but happy to follow up on any other comments you'd like to add too.

The modern world, Laird. But what exactly is that ? You mean NOW ? As I've tried to point out before on the forum, everyone that has ever lived has always been at the forefront in the modern world...now. There's nowhere else TO live  Presumably when fire was invented that was a modernisation in the the caves, no ?  

Secondly, morals are variable, not 'set in stone' (no pun intended) even if one accepts the principal of the ten commandments, so it may be seen as indecent by many but not by all and one doesn't automatically trump the other. I think it's very hard to argue that we aren't very cruel to animals, I certainly couldn't but I'm playing devil's advocate because some members from different communities would. 

Lastly if all farming ceased, billions of humans and animals would die anyway. I am going to leave it there but there is a touch of moral superiority in your approach (which doesn't serve your argument well-IMHO) to some of these issues, Laird, but knowing the high standards you set yourself, I understand and I don't want to fall out over it.

[Laird]

The modern world, Laird. But what exactly is that ? You mean NOW ?

Yes, now, but more particularly the methods of plant-based agriculture we have now that indigenous societies did not (as far as I know) have: in particular, machines which minimise the labour of "working the land" - especially planting and harvesting, and especially of crops like grains and legumes - and industrially mass-produced fertilisers, among other methods which I don't support so won't list.

Secondly, morals are variable, not 'set in stone'

I see morality as conceivable as a tree of principles (actually, more of a hierarchical network, but we can ignore that for now). At the top of the tree are the big, abstract principles. As the tree branches, those big, abstract principles are particularised into more specific principles which apply in more specific circumstances. At the top of the tree, those big, abstract principles are objective and uncontested. As we work down the tree, there is more scope for subjective values to influence the more particularised principles.

So, at the top of the tree I see such big, abstract, objective, and uncontested principles as "We ought not to take or harm lives unnecessarily". You can't propose a system of belief in which this fundamental principle is not honoured and still call it a "moral" system. It might be some sort of system, but not a moral one. You can, though, to an extent reasonably disagree as to how to apply (particularise) that principle in more specific circumstances, especially in the most specific circumstances.

So, the question becomes, is there room for a reasonable person to argue that it doesn't apply in the (more specific, particular) case of animal farming with the consequence that we ought not to farm animals? I think that the most likely way to argue that is to argue that the taking of lives in the case of animal farming is not unnecessary but instead necessary, because humans require meat and other animal products to survive. The mass of healthy, thriving vegans, though, put the lie to this contention.

There are a variety of other ways people try to argue, but those arguments also fail. I've gathered quite a few of them together on my page Responding to objections to the harm avoidance principle as applied to the non-human life of our planet. Many were also covered very eloquently in the video I posted a few posts back (a while back, before our exchange began).

So, no, I don't think the observation that there is some degree of flexibility (subjectivity) in the construction of a moral system/code grants us the right to farm animals.

I think it's very hard to argue that we aren't very cruel to animals, I certainly couldn't

And again, I appreciate that you recognise as much.

Lastly if all farming ceased, billions of humans and animals would die anyway.

I think that you intend this as an implicit argument, with the premise something like "Billions of human and animal deaths are unavoidable (inevitable)", and the (implied) conclusion something like "Therefore, we are not morally obligated to avoid those animal deaths (in farming) which are avoidable", but I don't see how that conclusion follows from that premise - it seems to be a non sequitur. Have I misunderstood your argument? Are there perhaps missing premises?

there is a touch of moral superiority in your approach

I think that's inevitable for any person who believes in incontestable rights and wrongs, especially people who are advocates for certain moral causes. After all, if there is an incontestable right choice, then it follows that making that choice is morally "superior" to making the incontestably wrong choice, right?

And there have been plenty of historical moral causes that we have ended up deciding as a society were justified, such as the cause which abolished slavery, and the cause which enfranchised female voters. Most people, then, in the current day would accept that choosing not to own a slave is morally superior than choosing to own one, in just the same way that I hope that most people in the future will see the choice not to support animal farming versus the choice to support it.

(which doesn't serve your argument well-IMHO)

I accept this. It rankles and sometimes angers people to have that thrown in their faces, which is why these days I tend not to throw it in people's faces (I was less cautious in days gone by), but I am willing to acknowledge it if directly questioned, as I was by you in your earlier post. After all, my aim is to convince, and putting people down is not an effective way to do that. Shocking them with the consequences of their choices can be though - e.g., showing them videos of the conditions in factory farms.

knowing the high standards you set yourself, I understand and I don't want to fall out over it.

I don't want to fall out with you over this either. It is something that I feel strongly about though, so I'm not going to make unnecessary concessions on it either (whilst trying to be respectful).