Should it be illegal to kill animals for food?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Amoral/Legal

This.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

Humanist principles are, quite obviously, for humans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

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.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

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.

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 ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 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 ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.