Talk Elections

Seems like the underlying question from this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=152673.0

Amoral/Legal

This.

None of these options are suitable for my outlook on the matter, which is that life forms should be treated according to their respective qualities of personhood. I believe it would be amoral - and should be legal - to prey on the most basic living things. And yet to me there eventually comes a point beyond which harming a critter unnecessarily becomes immoral and ought not to be illegal.

I would need a lot of input from scientists to decide which living things ought to have which rights.

It would be far more cruel to eat them whilst still living, which is the only alternative I can imagine.

Wow, I didn't realize how many left-leaning folk only apply humanist principles within speciesist moral parameters. Maybe I'm quite a bit more radical in perspective than my PM score suggests.

I disappoint myself, but giving up meat would be too difficult :(

Humanist principles are, quite obviously, for humans.

I used the term humanist instead of personist since the latter is not one most people are familiar with. It is tolerable if folks prefer to apply its prescriptions only to human beings but I figure such a stance is anti-egalitarian in its implication that a human in-group should dominate and also exploit subordinate animal out-groups irrespective of their interests and sophistication of mental faculties.

Well, certain animals do exploit other animals for food. The difference with humans might be that we are capable of not eating meat and surviving. This is different from other omnivores in the wild, or even our ancestors, since we have the resources to get the right amount of nutrients through a diversity and abundance of plant sources. In the wild, someone might not have that luxury. Thus, is it really moral for us to kill animals? I still go with amoral since obviously not everyone will have the resources to make that happen and sometimes someone might need a micronutrient they need from small amounts of meat and we can't say they are immoral for keeping themselves healthy. Moreover, if we ate more plants and less animals, we would become more sustainable as a species. We would increase our carrying capacity by making this simple change.

How is killing animals for food amoral?  If they were a) carnivorous and b) hungry they would kill you.  It's not like we're talking about hunting a species to extinction.

Moral/Legal

Amoral means without any moral content or implications whatsoever.  I can't agree that it applies here.  You would have to posit that the value of animal life is exactly zero for that to be the case.  

Killing for food is morally problematic, ambiguous, circumstantial.  That's not to say it is immoral, but I believe that if you are going to kill an animal for food, you should have a reason for doing it as opposed to seeking another food source, and that reason will be morally significant. In a lot of places and times in human experience, meat has been necessary for human health and prosperity.  That may be true for some people today in our society as well, but its not necessary for many people today, and in such cases to abstain from meat is morally positive.  It should not be illegal because the government is not capable of making the decisions about the needs of each person.

I think sometimes that killing for food might be better than relying on others to kill your food, since you are more aware of the reality of what you are eating and its cost.

Of course it's anti-egalitarian. Why in the world should humans and non-humans be treated the same way ? It would be quite an insult to humanity.

Moral/legal

It’s entirely ‘moral’ to kill animals for food. Those who consider it immoral or amoral need to give consideration to our other food source; plants. You’re still killing a plant when you tear it from the ground and eat it. You cannot feed 7+billion people on plants alone (or synthesised funghi); we simply don’t have the arable land available or the irrigation required. The only way to feed the world without killing animals is to lower the human population artificially so that we can be sustained. And you all know what that means and that would be immoral. Of course all the animals we breed for food would be a drain on land and resources. So they too would have to be culled as if they were left to their own devices would damage vegetation as we have done away with natural predators in agricultural societies in order to protect livestock.

You do realize animals have to be fed as well, don't you? All that land used to grow grains for animals could be used to feed humans. And all the water used to grow animal feed, and given to animals in factory farms could be used for agriculture and other human needs. We pump into animals way more than we get out. That is basic biology. We would be able to feed more people if we didn't eat animals.

Who said anything about not taking mental faculties into account? "Personism" would only apply to people. Obviously when most of us think about killing animals for food we're thinking about animals with lower intelligence than humans, or in other words beings we don't consider to be people. I imagine if cows started talking and holding intelligent conversations our answer in regards to cows would be different.

It depends on how one opts to frame the issue. I do not support all species having the same rights since we possess limited quantities of resources to work with and they have inherently differing attributes. The inequalities dividing individuals of varied species are markedly greater than those dividing individuals within any given species. As I mentioned before, what I favor is extending social rights to all members of each species (including our own) in accordance to their typical mental faculties. This is to suggest humans should be entitled to more rights than dogs, for example, but that the relatively advanced minds of dogs would also make it morally dubious for a human society to treat dogs and, say, sea cucumbers identically under the law.

Hypothetically, if we at some point in the future make contact with a sentient species of critter from another world, and that species happens to possess far greater mental abilities than us, would it not be insulting to them if we were to cling to a notion that only our species is worthy of being treated with the privilege of personhood? And what if they were to have the same attitude toward us? Do you think it would be righteous or amoral for another species to round us up for butchering to be consumed as exotic cuisine, be killed for some body part or another traditionalists among the alien species consider to possess medicinal or supernatural properties, or to be enslaved? After all, we may seem like mere "beasts" or primitive savages from their point of view. Is there a good rationale for it that doesn't rely on some intolerant, exclusive variation of nationalism, selfish egoism, or some other dismissive notion like "might makes right?"

It is perfectly alright for us to agree to disagree with mutual respect if that's how it will need to be but I reckon when anthropocentrism is taken too far it starts to very strongly resemble other bigoted perspectives such as sexism, racism, ageism, and some forms of nationalism. If taken to their furthest conclusions my values are wholly incompatible with human supremacy.



The notion of being a person is socially constructed. It need not be exclusively reserved for members of one species. Varying gradients of partial personhood could also conceivably be extended to other species. As with all ethical dilemmas we face, the lines drawn will always be subjective in nature. I would argue some forms of life are so basic we can do anything we want with them without reservation, whereas some other critters, even if we consume them, should be entitled to certain standards of conscientious treatment all throughout the process. What most offends me is our species' tendency to take whatever it wants however it wants without factoring into consideration or placing sufficient weight on the interests of others we coerce and exploit.

It's no more immoral than killing plants for food.

The only people who would think it's immoral are PETA members.

The only people who would think it's moral are KFC eaters.

But... but... I don't like PETA. D:

Amoral/legal.

But if there were a way to get the taste and nutrients without killing the animal (may be possible someday), it would be better than the current situation.

Amoral/Legal

Me neither...I have a cousin who is a member, and he's nuts about vegetarianism.

As for me Amoral/legal. Many animals kill other animals for food, and we humans are biologically animals (omnivores) so I guess it's all instinct for us to kill other animals for food.

Amoral/legal.

Let's face it I can't see how vegans would survive effectively. And meat's just so delicious.

I think the difference with humanity and other species is greater than a difference in the degree of intellectual faculties. A monkey can prove quite intelligent in several aspect, but this doesn't make it any closer to a human being. What makes us infinitely different from any animal specie is self-awareness. We are not only able to do impressive things with our minds, but we do them consciously. Not by instinct. We are not ruled by the primary instincts which every living species is subject to (even though they are present in us as well), we are able to resist these instincts. We are able to rationalize, to think freely, to formulate concepts. No animal species, even the most intelligent, even come close to doing. That's why I am absolutely convinced, beyond any scientific consideration, that humans cannot be considered as animals. We are too different for a comparison even being possible. How did we manage to shape the entire world to our desire ? How did we reach the supremacy we now hold on the entire realm of nature ? Not because of intelligence, but because of self-awareness. Because of our ability to think ourselves and the world around us.

This difference goes infinitely beyond any hypothetical difference you could find among human being. That's why I think comparing this to racism is utterly ludicrous. It has been scientifically proven that human races don't exist, that there is only one human race. The idea that certain humans naturally have lower intellectual capacities than other humans was factually wrong. Instead, it is impossible to deny the utter and absolute difference existing between a human being and an animal. If there were another self-aware species in the world, we should obviously treat them like we treat humans, because self-awareness, and the ability to reason which goes with it, it the basis of our superior dignity.

This is not to say animals have no right at all. Gratuitous cruelty, mistreatments and complete exploitation should not be tolerated. However, every time the interests of humanity are concerned, animals can and ought to be sacrificed. If making experimentations at a guinea pig can help creating a life-saving medicine, it would be immoral not to do it, because a human life is infinitely more precious than an animal life. And since consuming animal meat is part of the human nature (and culture), it is perfectly justified that we kill animals to eat them. After all, some animals are carnivore, some animals kill each other, so why should we treat them differently than how they treat each other ?

perhaps because we can.

Only when It becomes illegal to kill plants for food. You bigots, my Bromelias are as living beings as your pets.

towards a radicalized Speciesism

;D

Immoral, legal.

I'm not trying to be a dick -- maybe I am a little -- but do you guys really most of these arguments as compelling as you're letting on?

"Animals" would try to kill you if they could?  Some animals would.  Why does a bear entitle you to kill a cow, when it doesn't entitle you to kill a human?

Would you be OK with killing a mentally retarded human with no relatives, if you're using an intelligence test?  Maybe intelligence is your litmus test between "murder" and "Thursday night's dinner."  That seems rather black-and-white to me, but whatever.  Most people arbitrarily extend this at a species level, and this doesn't make much sense to me.

afleitch, you do realize that feeding animals requires many much more agricultural product than vegetarianism/veganism?  Trophic levels. It's not even close.

Antonio, why do you observe that humans have moral intelligence, and then use that to justify slaughtering other animals?  I'm not saying that argument is logically untenable.  However, considering that it's the opposite of the "intelligence -> moral responsibility" connection usually works the other way in our society.  Intelligence holds us culpable for what we do to less capable entities.

I often feel that people are trying to rationalize conventional behavior in this debate instead of seriously considering whether their practices are sound.  I'm inclined to vote Immoral/irrelevant.  At minimum, I think it justifies some pretty thoughtful consideration that I don't think happens often.

I said the unalienable right to life is reserved to self-aware beings. This isn't the same as saying intelligent beings, which, as you pointed out, would have pretty dreadful implications. Moral responsibility is what compels us not to do what we think should not be done (in a Kantian view, I'd say). An idea of what should be done, and of what I should do, naturally comes only when one first and foremost acknowledges his existence and of the existence of what surrounds it. So yes, if you replace intelligence with self-awareness, I agree with the connection you draw. How, however, does that constitute an argument against killing animals ?

Fair enough.  Are you OK with the slaughter and consumption of humans who lack the current or potential future capacity for self-awareness?  And why is the "inalienable right to life" reserved to self-aware beings, so much so that the punishment for killing a self-aware being is years of imprisonment, while we culturally celebrate the killing of non-self-aware beings?

I'm not saying this distinction is logically indefensible.  It comes down to a fairly arbitrary decision about what life is valuable and what creatures are rights-bearing.  That's fine.  What irritates me is people who pretend these answers are obviously true, completely compelling, or even particularly intuitive.  They're not, and it totally befuddles me why so many people think they are.

I'm not sure what kind of humans would be concerned by such definition. Even the most mentally ill person usually has some degree of self-awareness. The only thing which could fit your definition would be people in vegetative coma (and even then, only those with absolutely no possibility of recovery). Regarding these people, you can call me a monster, but I don't really mind them being killed or not. As for why we don't consume their flesh... I guess that "because it creeps us out" is a sufficient reason. :P



I don't know why you are bringing this up. I don't think the distinction is obvious or that everybody should agree with me. But it still strikes me as a viewpoint significantly more, say, down-to-earth than that of vegetarian crusaders. I find giving the same worth to any form of life without distinction to be an extremely misguided and potentially dangerous idea.

A profoundly autistic person doesn't have much more self-awareness than domestic animals.  In any case, what kind of "self-awareness" triggers the flip over from "transcendent moral evil" to "Wednesday night's dinner"?  "Self-awareness" is a pretty abstract concept, and probably operates on a spectrum.  We send people to jail for life for killing another human...and yet just down the spectrum, it isn't even socially taboo to eat some fairly intelligent animals.  The kind of "logarithmic" pattern to valuing "self-awareness" seems pretty bizarre to me, more like a rationalization than anything.

Not sure what you mean that you don't know why humans should be concerned with "such a definition."  Because it doesn't affect us, or for some other reason?


I'm bringing it up because it's my reaction to many of the posts in this topic.  I'm not seeing the confusion.

I don't think most "vegetarian crusades" think that all life is exactly equal, and I'm not really interested in defending arguments I think are bad, anyway.  Your position may be more "down-to-earth" than the most militant vegan out there.  However, I don't see why you find your argument "down-to-earth."  You've said that self-awareness is such an important characteristic as to make murder unacceptable.  You've also conceded this is morally ambiguous.  Yet you're not willing to slightly limit our immensely broad food choice to err on the side of caution, and on not slaughtering creatures that are -- to some degree -- "self-aware."

There's nothing to objectively prove that your distinction is unreasonable.  However, that's true of any distinction like this.  This stuff's subjective.  Imagine if society drew this distinction within the human population.  Would you not argue then that there is a moral responsibility to be cautious in the face of these grave, arbitrary decisions, when the only sacrifice is some food selection?  If so, why there, and not here?

I think you probably get my basic argument by now.

And why should living beings be privileged over inanimate objects?  Did the atoms in this computer ask to be made into a computer?  Have I not enslaved them?

In any case, this debate reminds me of this discussion on Andrew Sullivan's blog about whether human consciousness as we know it is actually an extremely recent phenomenon:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/04/what-is-consciousness-made-of-ctd-1.html

It always sort of confuses me when people use a caricature of a very unpopular position to attack that position, and don't do the same with the similarly thoughtless justifications used to justify the mainstream position.  This is especially bizarre considering this argument hasn't been presented in this thread, but plenty of comparably terrible ones on the other side have.

No one is arguing -- nor would anyone intelligent likely argue -- that it is wrong to eat anything that could theoretically be arbitrarily ascribed rights.

A couple of you want to make it illegal for me to eat meat?  Really? How is that even enforceable?  Are we going to hire a bunch of meat police?

Amoral is defined by the absence of principles that decide right and wrong. In this case, it would be defined as humans not knowing that killing animals is wrong. At first, I thought this absurd, as we would never start a post if we didn't have such morals. But then I considered it, and I found amoral/legal to be the best option. The average American goes to a McDonald's and orders a hamburger. When enjoying this hamburger, the American cares not about what is in or on the burger, nor how the animal to make that burger was killed. They merely care about the taste, therefore I choose amoral/legal

Not only legal, it should be mandatory. People should earn a meat licence - when they're 16, they need to go and kill an animal, skin/pluck/prepare it, and then cook it to earn their licence.

Wait would that license be for restaraunt owners who kill animals for meat or would it be for the consumers?

Pretty minimal enforcement (e.g., licensing) would probably be enough to drastically cut down on meat consumption.

Did you rip off the licensing thing from me in chatting with Badger about the penalty for abortionists? :P  Can you imagine what will happen to the value of my Iowa corn fields if folks all stopped eating meat?  Oh the horror! 

well i come from a family that likes to hunt, my uncle gets deer elk meat for fodus for the holidays and well besides i don't think it should be illegal

This is true.  The massive amounts of superfluous agricultural product needed to maintain livestock certainly helps Iowa, and if they can keep methanol afloat...my idyllic enforcement regime is pretty screwed.  Damn, and we were so close to hitting 1% popular support in the polls!

>Morality

Nope.

Why does this question even exist? Do some people actually want our species to go extinct? Animal abuse laws should exist, but going as far as to illegalize a major source of food for humanity is a terrible idea for reasons that need not be explained.

You're definitely going to have to explain this one

I am a meat lover myself, but humans can easily survive without meat and its more energy efficient to eat the plants yourself than having them processed by an animal which you then eat. So in terms of avoiding food shortage we should all go vegetarian.

Meat is a massive food source for our species that is easily producible. We don't have enough resources to feed our entire planet as it is.

At least you realize animals eat plants. I don't even know how to argue with people who don't think cows and pigs eat plants...

I'd recommend meat eaters just stick to "Meat is tasty and I don't care about animals." No, you won't get to prove vegetarianism wrong like you so desperately want, but a vegetarian can't necessarily argue with that. But any time you make it an issue of morality or science, you will lose.

You didnt get my point. Eating animals wastes energy, so its an inefficient way to produce food and a waste of valuable resources.

Also, there are enough resources to feed the whole planet. It's just that folks have other priorities.

What on earth gave you the idea that I "desperately" want to "prove vegetarianism wrong?"  I don't give a damn what people eat (putting aside the "fats" thing), just let me have my meat (which beyond the satiation aspect, also helps one buff up).  By the way, are we just talking about mammals, or any animal?  How about insects?  

Only the first paragraph was a response to you.

The second paragraph was in response to the anti-veg crowd in general.

Oh OK. I thought you had lost it there for a moment. :) I am still interested in my insect question, or birds or fish, or whatever. Are some animals 'better" than others?

...I don't eat bugs if that's what you're asking. :P

That is 100% wrong.  We (as a species) make WAY more food than we need.  I don't know why this myth gets perpetuated.

Remember trophic levels from high school biology?  If we get x energy from beef, we need to feed that beef far more than x energy level in agricultural product.  Meat consumption, on the macro level, is actually a pretty massive waste of resources.


I think most people make some sort of distinction between the rights or rights-bearing creatures.  I mean, carnivorous humans do -- the question is if it's the most logically defensible one...

Yes, but the cost is the thing here. One public policy argument with some traction here I think for cutting down on meat consumption is that it will reduce the price of grains by some amount (you don't need to plant as much marginal land with higher production costs), which is the single best thing one can do to increase the well being of the poorest of the poor on this planet, and the single most compelling reason why ethanol subsidies which suck up grains in exactly the same way as cows and pigs do, is sheer unadulterated evil. The cost of basic food staples is where the rubber meets the road,  when you make 3 dollars a day.

I remember reading about the British corn laws, and some 19th century economist or whomever, noticing that the wheat fields in Britain (corn equals wheat for the Brits because they really don't speak "English"  :P) ) were spreading up onto the uplands due to inflated prices (due to import quotas and/or tariffs in that instance). He knew something was rotten in Denmark because he could see it with his own two beady little eyes. So when it becomes profitable for me to cut down the trees on the slopes of my farm, and plant a crop, you know things have really gone out of control. So, next time you are in Iowa, take a look at just how much corn is growing on steeper slopes. If you see it growing on the "Iowa Alps" of Madison County, call your Congressman.

See I can argue both sides of an issue at the drop of a hat. :P

I do think there is a genetic consanguinity component to this vegan thing. Few would object if you consume protozoa. Another component is the pet thing. Few would not object when it comes to eating cats and dogs, or presumably those foxes which have been bred into pets, with cute floppy ears, and a loveable disposition.

There are certain animals, such as dogs, that it should be illegal to kill period, let alone for food.

Other than that, I'd say it's OK.

I see you haven't been attacked by a dog....