Dietary (and related) ethics [split from Do plants have minds?]

Sci, in your laudably self-reflective post, there were a couple of occasions on which you acknowledged something like cognitive dissonance:



Making moral choices requires us to transcend our feelings where those feelings are prejudicial, and those two quotes seem to me to highlight cases of exactly that - ones of which you seem to be self-aware, at least to an extent.

Many and maybe most of us for whatever reason are predisposed to preference an in-group over an out-group. That's fine and even necessary to an extent - it's generally good, for example, for us to be able to count on our immediate family for support rather than having to beg it from strangers, and thus to in turn preference helping our immediate family over strangers - but it's not good when it leads us to violate the basic rights of members of an out-group simply because they're not part of our in-group.

Unfortunately, farmed beings are very much an out-group for most modern humans, and that leads to awful consequences for them, via cruelty and exploitation which are perpetrated effectively with impunity. It is up to each of us via our consumptive and political choices to show compassion and respect for that out-group, avert those consequences, and - where possible - hold those responsible to account.


There is no question that animals in factory farms suffer intensely: that's one of those awful consequences that we have the power collectively as consumers and political agents to avert.

Suffering is the most important consideration, but it's not the only one. The deprivation of a full life which could have been lived pleasurably - or even just satisfactorily - matters too, and so does the relegation of sentient beings to property: commodities and objects instead of persons and subjects.


Of course in general we have to oppose human commodification and exploitation too. How we do that in specifics could be discussed, although this probably isn't the thread in which to do it.


A being of infinite compassion would probably make very radical choices in the modern world.

Thanks for the kind words! Yeah I wasn't trying to take any kind of definitive stance, just feeling out my own feelings.

In general I do agree that we cannot simply rely on the feelings of closeness to some living beings over others, though I think this gets tricky because logic and morality are also feelings. (Part of the reason I'm an immaterialist, I think Physicalists severely downplay the way the qualitative informs our existence.)

I think it is actually quite difficult to oppose human commodification, but at the  same time I understand that it would be a "what-about-ism" to insist that eating factory farmed animals is justified by the suffering of humans.

My suggestion in regards to efficacy, however, would be managing the cruelty of factory farms over the insistence that humanity transfers over to veganism.

Relating back to the main topics of our forum, I really do wonder what the intention of the Designer(s) - who may or may not be ourselves - was in making the universe this way. As @nbtruthman notes even if we are willing participants it feels as if we-as-spirits - and perhaps then also the Designer(s) - are vastly different beings than who we are as humans. Yet this doesn't seem to be completely true, as we have dead relatives reassuring the living and even [dead] loved ones reincarnating to be near [living] loved ones.

Attanasio once wrote, "Life feeds on life and only God makes it Holy". Is there something spiritual to be gained in our participation of consuming and being consumed? A test to see if we can transition into the least cruel forms of consumption over time?

edit: An interesting article ->

What Farm Animals’ Personalities Are Like When They’re Free

Seth Millstein

Animals raised in factory farms live short, unpleasant and largely immobile lives. But put those same animals in a natural, spacious environment, and it’s a whole different ball game. Farm animals, it turns out, are actually complex, thinking creatures with rich inner lives, and a look at farm animals’ personalities when they’re free shows that in truth, they’re not as dissimilar from us as we might think.

In science, too, the language used to describe animal behavior is often clinical and detached, even when that behavior is very similar to ours. Humans have emotions, but animals merely have “core affects.” It’s common practice for some scientific literature to refer to an animal as “it,” rather than “he” or “she.” And it took decades to acknowledge evidence of animal culture.

[Laird]

Well what is the difference in terms of consciousness between a tiny ant and you? The fact that I'm a bit stuck on what terminology to use, doesn't mean there isn't one!

Why are you turning the question back on me? You made the claim that other beings have a lower "degree" of consciousness. It doesn't matter what terminology you use. Call it a lower "splurgle" of consciousness if you like, just explain what you mean by it.

I suggested a couple of possibilities for what you might mean, but you dodged either affirming or denying them. Why?

[Laird]

An interesting article ->

What Farm Animals’ Personalities Are Like When They’re Free

It is an interesting article, and, honestly, I don't understand how anybody who took that article and its sentiments to heart could say something like this:

My suggestion in regards to efficacy, however, would be managing the cruelty of factory farms over the insistence that humanity transfers over to veganism.

Maybe, given that you edited the article in after writing that, you'd reconsider your suggestion? Or maybe you didn't take its sentiments to heart, and literally just thought that they were interesting.

Relating back to the main topics of our forum, I really do wonder what the intention of the Designer(s) - who may or may not be ourselves - was in making the universe this way. As @nbtruthman notes even if we are willing participants it feels as if we-as-spirits - and perhaps then also the Designer(s) - are vastly different beings than who we are as humans. Yet this doesn't seem to be completely true, as we have dead relatives reassuring the living and even [dead] loved ones reincarnating to be near [living] loved ones.

It baffles me too, Sci. My working hypothesis as a dualist is that it wasn't like this to start with, but got corrupted over time.

Attanasio once wrote, "Life feeds on life and only God makes it Holy". Is there something spiritual to be gained in our participation of consuming and being consumed? A test to see if we can transition into the least cruel forms of consumption over time?

If it is, it's a pretty cruel test, and I'd say the Designer(s) failed their own test (of their capacity to design a reality with fair tests for the rest of us).

It is an interesting article, and, honestly, I don't understand how anybody who took that article and its sentiments to heart could say something like this:

Maybe, given that you edited the article in after writing that, you'd reconsider your suggestion? Or maybe you didn't take its sentiments to heart, and literally just thought that they were interesting.


It baffles me too, Sci. My working hypothesis as a dualist is that it wasn't like this to start with, but got corrupted over time.

If it is, it's a pretty cruel test, and I'd say the Designer(s) failed their own test (of their capacity to design a reality with fair tests for the rest of us).

Regarding my statement that the focus should prioritize ending the cruelty of factory farms over the idea that humanity will become vegan, I was talking in terms of strategy.

One day humanity may completely remove itself from eating animals, but my suspicion is this won't happen until lab grown meat is widely available...and even then many will refuse it.

However I do think, given veganism's success from a mocked subculture to many restaurants offering vegan options, that it might one day be possible. But in the current time period I think even many meat eaters would join in the fight against factory farming.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say, though you may still disagree.

Regarding the nature of this reality and the Designers...I agree with you that it feels like something has gone wrong. Not in the Gnostic sense that evil forces completely control this reality but perhaps more like a solar powered smart building that has been overrun by Nature. It still somewhat works as intended, but many parts don't function with their original intention.

This feels the most logical to me, as I don't think this world is exactly like a prison but neither is it a school or gym or anything else that yields more reliable positive results for participants.

I do suspect that the Designer(s) of this reality are not the One who is the Ground of Being...though I am not sure what said One is doing to alleviate all the suffering on our world that I presume exists to some degree across realities...

[Laird]

Regarding my statement that the focus should prioritize ending the cruelty of factory farms over the idea that humanity will become vegan, I was talking in terms of strategy.

One day humanity may completely remove itself from eating animals, but my suspicion is this won't happen until lab grown meat is widely available...and even then many will refuse it.

However I do think, given veganism's successes from a mocked subculture to many restaurants offering vegan options, that it might one day be possible. But in the current time period I think even many meat eaters would join in the fight against factory farming.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say, though you may still disagree.

I understand now, yes. Thanks, that clarifies it.

Personally, I think we should take an uncompromising position: that the cruelty, exploitation, and slaughter should end immediately, so, while I recognise of course that less cruelty is better than more, I don't endorse a "process of reduction" approach, even if only temporarily, because it is too compromised, and tacitly condones in the meantime cruelty, exploitation, and slaughter that cannot in good conscience be condoned.

Those who are unwilling to take an uncompromising position might still do some relative good. I agree that many meat-eaters could be part of that in fighting against factory farming.

I am uncertain of the ethics - and thus wary - of lab-grown meat, and don't plan to eat it myself if/when it becomes widely available and affordable, but, wariness aside, it does offer great hope of averting cruelty, exploitation, and slaughter.

Regarding the nature of this reality and the Designers...I agree with you that it feels like something has gone wrong. Not in the Gnostic sense that evil forces completely control this reality but perhaps more like a solar powered smart building that has been overrun by Nature. It still somewhat works as intended, but many parts don't function with their original intention.

This feels the most logical to me, as I don't think this world is exactly like a prison but neither is it a school or gym or anything else that yields more reliable positive results for participants.

I see it similarly except that I infer more of a causal role for evil than you seem to, although, like you, not in the "total control" Gnostic sense, more in the sense of ongoing conflict.

I do suspect that the Designer(s) of this reality are not the One who is the Ground of Being...though I am not sure what said One is doing to alleviate all the suffering on our world that I presume exists to some degree across realities...

Due to similar sentiments, I have provisionally come to the conclusion that whatever the ground of reality, it is not perfectly good; again, I infer a dualism, either in the form of dual (or a plurality of) morally-opposed grounds, or of a morally-ambivalent unitary ground that spawned two (or more) morally-opposed progeny.

Personally, I think we should take an uncompromising position: that the cruelty, exploitation, and slaughter should end immediately, so, while I recognise of course that less cruelty is better than more, I don't endorse a "process of reduction" approach, even if only temporarily, because it is too compromised, and tacitly condones in the meantime cruelty, exploitation, and slaughter that cannot in good conscience be condoned.

I think that sounds clear, but may not be really. Leaving aside the medical questions relating to vegan/vegetarian diets, we come to the complication that your conviction would, if generally followed, give us a world in which a lot of species would be all but wiped out.

All the animals that provide meat or milk would either be killed, or at best be allowed to die of old age without being replaced. Maybe some would be kept, but the vast majority would cease to exist.

I suppose that cats could be permitted to continue as feral animals that would kill and eat other animals, but pet owners would not be able to feed them.

The situation in relation to dogs isn't totally clear to me.

What would you do about zoos? Would you let them keep their big cats, and other carnivorous animals? If so, they would need a supply of meat!

Also fields are treated with animal dung as part of keeping the soil in good condition. I am not sure if there are good alternatives to this, but are people going to keep flocks of animals just to supply dung?

Since you have repeatedly stated your conviction about these matters, I think it is reasonable to expect you to have thought out the consequences of your change.

David

[Laird]

Leaving aside the medical questions relating to vegan/vegetarian diets

Framing matters, David. One could equally or even better frame that as: "Leaving aside the questionable healthfulness of a diet that includes animal products compared to a well-planned one that does not."

we come to the complication that your conviction would, if generally followed, give us a world in which a lot of species would be all but wiped out.

All the animals that provide meat or milk would either be killed, or at best be allowed to die of old age without being replaced. Maybe some would be kept, but the vast majority would cease to exist.

Again, framing matters. A massive excess of farm animals exist - who otherwise wouldn't have existed - because we humans deliberately breed them at scale for selfish purposes. When we stop artificially breeding them, their numbers will simply return to what they would have been prior to our intervention, in the ecosystems in which they originated - at least, where we haven't wiped those ecosystems out. So-called ferals will of course also continue to exist - at least, where we don't deliberately wipe them out.

Another consideration is that some animals have been bred to have cruelly fragile bodies: chickens bred for meat, for example, have been bred to now grow so rapidly that their bones often break under their own weight. It seems uncontroversial that - absent human selfishness - it is best that breeds like that do go extinct, in favour of, in this case, chickens with healthy phenotypes.

Finally: of course I don't advocate for animals to be killed during the switch. I do think that on land on which they are non-native though - such as Australia - they ought to be neutered prior to being released from their cruel confinement, so, yes, I endorse your sentiments that they be allowed to die of old age without being replaced.

I suppose that cats could be permitted to continue as feral animals that would kill and eat other animals, but pet owners would not be able to feed them.

Nutritionally complete vegan cat food exists.

The situation in relation to dogs isn't totally clear to me.

Nutritionally complete vegan dog food also exists.

What would you do about zoos? Would you let them keep their big cats, and other carnivorous animals?

Only in the exceptional circumstance in which those animals would not be able to survive in the wild, such as if they have been too badly injured, and not in the confines of a zoo: only in an area in which they can roam freely.

If so, they would need a supply of meat!

That's a genuine moral quandary. Is the injured lion painlessly put to death to save the live of the wild animals - his/her natural prey - which would otherwise have to be hunted and killed by humans to feed him/her, or are the lives of those wild animals taken to keep the lion alive? I don't have an immediate resolution to it. There might not even be an incontrovertible one. Either way, one or more animals die early.

Also fields are treated with animal dung as part of keeping the soil in good condition. I am not sure if there are good alternatives to this, but are people going to keep flocks of animals just to supply dung?

There most definitely is an alternative to this: synthetic fertiliser produced via the Haber-Bosch process, which, it's estimated, now supports approximately half of the global population.

Since you have repeatedly stated your conviction about these matters, I think it is reasonable to expect you to have thought out the consequences of your change.

Indeed. Now, will you finally answer the question I have put to you (multiple times)?

This debate actually opens a sort of "can of worms" of closely related problems and questions that only further incite the consciences and cognitive dissonances of thoughtful meat-eaters.

It's interesting that there is a fairly strong current of "give rights and freedom to animals" and "to avoid cruelty eat vegan/vegetarian" activism in our society. As of yet it has had little effect in the area of factory farming, but has definitely helped many other species and related situations. I think the factory farming abomination will always remain to some extent or another, though reduced somewhat by slow dietary changes and development of economically practical industrial-level lab-grown meat production. 

The following long article goes into into detail on the follow-on logical question of whether animals are intelligent in various ways and deserve political rights and representation.


A few scattered quotes from a new article at https://lithub.com/all-living-creatures-...sentation/ :

"The Canadian philosophers Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson explore what this could mean in a book called Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights, which was published in 2011 and, among people interested in animals and philosophy, was perhaps the decade’s most influential work. At its heart is the proposition that—for animals as well as humans—moral status isn’t enough. It’s also important to be considered a member of society.
........................................
In Kymlicka and Donaldson’s model, domestic creatures—so intimately shaped by our wants and needs, and for whom we’re uniquely responsible—would receive full co-citizenship. Their interests would merit special consideration; their situation would be akin to that of young children or cognitively different people who might not be capable of conventional political participation but are represented by trusted people obligated to act on their behalf. Wild animals living in wilderness areas, who actively avoid humans and our settlements, would be seen as citizens of other nations. The wilderness—a concept critiqued by environmental historians as socially constructed and problematic in its elision of humans, but still a useful reference—would be their domain. Relations between us and wild communities would be governed according to established norms of cooperation, conflict mediation, and limited intervention. Once again humans would represent animals’ interests but be guided by the principle that those wild creatures and their homes should be free from exploitation and invasion. Intervention might occur, but only for their own benefit, as with humanitarian aid.
.........................................
There are those creatures, like pileated woodpeckers or coyotes, who survive in wilder pockets of settled areas; all those animals who thrive in urbanized ecosystems, such as white-tailed deer, house sparrows, and pigeons; and also the so-called ferals, the escapees and descendants of animals bred by humans. The starlings and cottontail rabbits of the stormwater pond, the cormorants on Leslie Street Spit — would be considered denizens, not unlike immigrants who are not citizens but are still accepted as members of society. They don’t qualify for citizenship’s full benefits but merit consideration and some degree of representation in society’s deliberations.
All of this might sound impractically radical as well as academic—something for ivory-tower theorists oblivious to the profound disagreements that exist about representation for fellow humans, much less animals. Yet it’s still vital to grapple with what it means to see animals as fellow society members.
.........................................
A classic passage from the naturalist Henry Beston’s The Outermost House:
We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals….We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.
..........................................
Liz White, a former nurse who had previously worked for the Humane Society........helped found a political party now known as the Animal Protection Party of Canada. White and company didn’t actually expect to win elections, or even come close, but by running candidates they might help shape public conversation.......White, who still exudes a nurse’s brisk competency, offered me a slice of vegan cake and explained how the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority had been ready to start shooting cormorants at Leslie Street Spit, (but had been prevented). 
White and company didn’t actually expect to win elections, or even come close, but by running candidates they might help shape public conversation. They were “there to defend the rights of animals and make people understand that the planet is a finite entity, and that we’re all in it together,” White told me when I visited their headquarters, which doubles as a shelter for rescued cats and dogs. Adorning the walls were photos of animals they’d helped: seals, cormorants, cows and sheep, a turtle kept in a bucket for 20 years for whom they’d found a sanctuary home."

Indeed. Now, will you finally answer the question I have put to you (multiple times)?

Sorry Laird, I've (honestly) forgotten what that question was exactly. However by now I just want to drop this debate - this is not a court of law.

David

This debate actually opens a sort of "can of worms" of closely related problems and questions that only further incite the consciences and cognitive dissonances of thoughtful meat-eaters.

Part of the challenge, and why I think this inevitably will end up being a political discussion, is that there a variety of evils one can take a stand against. Many of them affect humans, including/especially children.

As such it isn't clear to me how we could discuss the treatment of animals without asking about the treatment of humans, and that seems to inevitably lead to the political.

I realize one can claim this is a "whataboutism", and I do acknowledge that. But if we're talking about cramped living conditions and exploitation of living beings, can we really ignore the ways in which we benefit from human exploitation?

As you say, there is a "can of worms" here that makes me think of those prank nut cans that shoot out fake worms/snakes...