Mr.Samsa wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Morality is not based on belief, rather it is an inconsistent reality. It's what we are stuck with. If you want a consistent logical set of beliefs you wont find one. You will find beliefs from one camp or another, one or another pole, but there is no one true morality derivable by reason.

I assure you you don't want there to be. You wouldn't like it.

I don't understand why you say this. Morality can only be derived by reason, otherwise we're simply spouting opinions. Logically consistent moral systems aren't impossible to find, and if people are unhappy with the implications of their beliefs then they need to change their beliefs, or give up the notion of morality altogether.

As long as we are just spouting opinions:

Generally, animals don't suffer much, except for a few minutes whilst they are being eaten by carnivores, or when they are degenerating at the ends of their lives. Only people suffer for seventy or eighty years wringing their hands about all the suffering that goes on, interrupted by brief bouts of euphoria over The Intrinsic Good. A vast reduction in suffering would result from the extinction of human beings. Barring that, a great reduction in suffering would result from heart-felt reductions in moralising, which is really the only thing that rains on most people's parades, if they're honest about it. How could one moralise if one was not unhappy about something?

Mr.Samsa wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Morality is not based on belief, rather it is an inconsistent reality. It's what we are stuck with. If you want a consistent logical set of beliefs you wont find one. You will find beliefs from one camp or another, one or another pole, but there is no one true morality derivable by reason.

I assure you you don't want there to be. You wouldn't like it.

I don't understand why you say this. Morality can only be derived by reason, otherwise we're simply spouting opinions.

I am suggesting we do neither.

Logically consistent moral systems aren't impossible to find, and if people are unhappy with the implications of their beliefs then they need to change their beliefs, or give up the notion of morality altogether.

The Holy Grail. If we just figure this thing long enough and get the right amount of weapons stockpiled we'll have ourselves a right human race. No suffering for anyone or anything unless I deem it necessary! Of course I wont put myself in charge, I'll set up a committee to oversee the execution of the One True Moral.

You don't need to look any further than a set of randomly selected articles on ethics from past thirty years to realize that the quest for a consistent moral theory is hopeless, at least within the analytic tradition. In the twentieth century, ethics (at least within the analytic tradition) has become an overgrowth of non-referential, ad hoc definitions, and a never-ending game of creating useless distinctions from those definitions. We cannot come to a consistent ethical system because there's nothing behind our ethical discourse, it was created by Plato and has been continually sustained by Christ, Kant and their descendants.

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:You don't need to look any further than a set of randomly selected articles on ethics from past thirty years to realize that the quest for a consistent moral theory is hopeless, at least within the analytic tradition. In the twentieth century, ethics (at least within the analytic tradition) has become an overgrowth of non-referential, ad hoc definitions, and a never-ending game of creating useless distinctions from those definitions. We cannot come to a consistent ethical system because there's nothing behind our ethical discourse, it was created by Plato and has been continually sustained by Christ, Kant and their descendants.

Whoooooshhhh!

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:You don't need to look any further than a set of randomly selected articles on ethics from past thirty years to realize that the quest for a consistent moral theory is hopeless, at least within the analytic tradition. In the twentieth century, ethics (at least within the analytic tradition) has become an overgrowth of non-referential, ad hoc definitions, and a never-ending game of creating useless distinctions from those definitions. We cannot come to a consistent ethical system because there's nothing behind our ethical discourse, it was created by Plato and has been continually sustained by Christ, Kant and their descendants.

Utilitarianism is the ultimate truth of ethics always and everywhere. All Hail Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism? Ethics... Not so sure. I'm pretty sceptical of thinking ethics is purely based in instrumental utility / happiness..


---
Dave W
http://dispirited.org
---

Cito di Pense wrote:[
Generally, animals don't suffer much, except for a few minutes whilst they are being eaten by carnivores, or when they are degenerating at the ends of their lives.

Yeah, they are all happy.

Witticism wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:[
Generally, animals don't suffer much, except for a few minutes whilst they are being eaten by carnivores, or when they are degenerating at the ends of their lives.

Yeah, they are all happy.

Well being "happy" isn't the opposite of "suffering". The articles discussed seemed to imply that significant efforts were being made to make animals "happier" though, so this seems like a significant step forward.

If only we had prozac when I was a young boy on the farm. Think of all the needless animal pain!

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Witticism wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:[
Generally, animals don't suffer much, except for a few minutes whilst they are being eaten by carnivores, or when they are degenerating at the ends of their lives.

Yeah, they are all happy.

Well being "happy" isn't the opposite of "suffering". The articles discussed seemed to imply that significant efforts were being made to make animals "happier" though, so this seems like a significant step forward.

No.

All “happy meat” does is [attempt to] appease the conscience of those who consume meat.

It increases the profit margins for produces and it increases consumption.

It does nothing for animal rights or welfare.

The “happy meat” movement is intended to make the public feel more comfortable about animal exploitation and to ensure that social discussion about animal ethics remains focused away from the relevant question—why are we eating animals in the first place given that it is not necessary for human health, is an ecological disaster, and, most importantly, results in our imposing suffering and death on sentient nonhumans?

The “happy meat” movement is achieving these goals, and that does not represent any sort of progress. Quite the contrary. The “happy meat” movement represents a significant step backwards.

*My emphasis in the quote above.

Witticism wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Witticism wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:[
Generally, animals don't suffer much, except for a few minutes whilst they are being eaten by carnivores, or when they are degenerating at the ends of their lives.

Yeah, they are all happy.

Well being "happy" isn't the opposite of "suffering". The articles discussed seemed to imply that significant efforts were being made to make animals "happier" though, so this seems like a significant step forward.

No.

All “happy meat” does is [attempt to] appease the conscience of those who consume meat.

It increases the profit margins for produces and it increases consumption.

It does nothing for animal rights or welfare.
...

I don't know what happy meat is but treating animals well is not good for animals?

Witticism wrote:

Well being "happy" isn't the opposite of "suffering". The articles discussed seemed to imply that significant efforts were being made to make animals "happier" though, so this seems like a significant step forward.

No.

All “happy meat” does is [attempt to] appease the conscience of those who consume meat.

It increases the profit margins for produces and it increases consumption.

It does nothing for animal rights or welfare.

The “happy meat” movement is intended to make the public feel more comfortable about animal exploitation and to ensure that social discussion about animal ethics remains focused away from the relevant question—why are we eating animals in the first place given that it is not necessary for human health, is an ecological disaster, and, most importantly, results in our imposing suffering and death on sentient nonhumans?

The “happy meat” movement is achieving these goals, and that does not represent any sort of progress. Quite the contrary. The “happy meat” movement represents a significant step backwards.

*My emphasis in the quote above.

It does a lot for animal welfare and rights, as it results in less suffering and much better lives. Essentially, not only does it "appease the conscience" of meat eaters, but it also puts them in a position of perfect ethical consistency. It's only a step backwards for those who believe that killing animals is, or should be, inconsistent with animal rights or welfare, but of course this isn't necessarily true.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

It does a lot for animal welfare and rights, as it results in less suffering and much better lives.

How?

Is this a fact or your opinion?

"... better lives" ... according to who?

There is increasing consciousness about this horrible state of affairs, but the solution proposed by most animal advocates is to increase welfare standards. Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation" and regarded by many as the "father of the animal rights movement," agrees with Bentham that it is morally defensible to use animals if we provide reasonably pleasant lives and relatively painless deaths for them.

Popular writers such as Jonathan Safran Foer, Michael Pollan, Sarah Palin speech writer Matthew Scully and an endless parade of celebrities, rock stars and environmentalists have joined Singer in condemning factory farming and in calling for larger cages, "free-range" conditions and what are, in the grand scheme of things, minor modifications of a most horrific process. Large animal protection organizations promote various "happy" meat and animal products labels, which supposedly guarantee that the animals whose corpses or products have the particular label were treated better.

But no one is really kidding anyone here. The most "humanely" raised animals are treated and killed in circumstances that would constitute torture were humans involved.The standards required to get "happy" certifications require what would be analogous to padding on water boards at Guantanamo Bay; there is precious little difference between conventional battery eggs and "cage-free" eggs, where thousands of birds are, in effect, crammed into one large cage.

The bottom line is clear in that, although we can delude ourselves with myths about "happy" or "humane" animal products, welfare standards will necessarily be very low because animals are property and because it costs money to protect animal interests.

Can you expand ...

Mr.Samsa wrote:Essentially, not only does it "appease the conscience" of meat eaters, but it also puts them in a position of perfect ethical consistency.

" ...ethical consistency" with what?

Mr.Samsa wrote:
It's only a step backwards for those who believe that killing animals is, or should be, inconsistent with animal rights or welfare, but of course this isn't necessarily true.

Surely if you are a person who takes the position that - at the very least - non-humans should not suffer unnecessarily then it is inconsistent to want more of them to suffer unnecessarily - and this is exactly what happens with "happy meat".

Witticism wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

It does a lot for animal welfare and rights, as it results in less suffering and much better lives.

How?

Is this a fact or your opinion?

"... better lives" ... according to who?

According to every measure we currently have for assessing animal welfare. Surely everyone agrees that making improvements to, for example, holding pens that allow more movement and space will reduce suffering? And this translates to a relatively better life?

Witticism wrote:

There is increasing consciousness about this horrible state of affairs, but the solution proposed by most animal advocates is to increase welfare standards. Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation" and regarded by many as the "father of the animal rights movement," agrees with Bentham that it is morally defensible to use animals if we provide reasonably pleasant lives and relatively painless deaths for them.

Popular writers such as Jonathan Safran Foer, Michael Pollan, Sarah Palin speech writer Matthew Scully and an endless parade of celebrities, rock stars and environmentalists have joined Singer in condemning factory farming and in calling for larger cages, "free-range" conditions and what are, in the grand scheme of things, minor modifications of a most horrific process. Large animal protection organizations promote various "happy" meat and animal products labels, which supposedly guarantee that the animals whose corpses or products have the particular label were treated better.

But no one is really kidding anyone here. The most "humanely" raised animals are treated and killed in circumstances that would constitute torture were humans involved.The standards required to get "happy" certifications require what would be analogous to padding on water boards at Guantanamo Bay; there is precious little difference between conventional battery eggs and "cage-free" eggs, where thousands of birds are, in effect, crammed into one large cage.

The bottom line is clear in that, although we can delude ourselves with myths about "happy" or "humane" animal products, welfare standards will necessarily be very low because animals are property and because it costs money to protect animal interests.

It's obviously absurd to compare human conditions to animal conditions. If we treated children like we treat pet dogs, like making them sleep outside in a kennel, then that would be considered torture and inhumane as well. This isn't to say that current farming practices are perfect, but obviously introducing standards and methods which work to increase the well-being of these animals is a good thing.

Witticism wrote:Can you expand ...

Mr.Samsa wrote:Essentially, not only does it "appease the conscience" of meat eaters, but it also puts them in a position of perfect ethical consistency.

" ...ethical consistency" with what?

With their own moral systems. That is, they can oppose animal cruelty and support farming practices.

Witticism wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
It's only a step backwards for those who believe that killing animals is, or should be, inconsistent with animal rights or welfare, but of course this isn't necessarily true.

Surely if you are a person who takes the position that - at the very least - non-humans should not suffer unnecessarily then it is inconsistent to want more of them to suffer unnecessarily - and this is exactly what happens with "happy meat".

Maybe I've misunderstood the article, but isn't the gist of the movement the idea that we should reduce suffering and improve living conditions for farm animals? This is a good thing. Whether it results in more animals going in there is irrelevant, unless the conditions remain at a level that induces suffering - but that's what the movement is working against. In other words, suppose we have the ideal farm, where there is absolutely no suffering from the animals on it. Then there would be no problem with increasing the numbers of animals that don't suffer. Obviously there is some middle ground before we reach that point, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards that ideal goal.

I’m not sure I am making the point clear?

Sorry if I am not providing clarity.

Mr.Samsa wrote:[According to every measure we currently have for assessing animal welfare. Surely everyone agrees that making improvements to, for example, holding pens that allow more movement and space will reduce suffering? And this translates to a relatively better life?

So a “holding pen” that is say 1m x 1m more “humane” than a holding pen 90cm x 90cm?


There is no such thing as free range– and sadly, in many instances, bigger cages can mean more cruelty not less.

And that is what is implied when you say, “every measure we currently have for assessing animal welfare”.

Theses “measures” are flawed because they treat non-humans as property and not as sentient beingswith their own interests – interest not to be enslaved, tortured and kill for the enjoyment of humans.

Mr.Samsa wrote:With their own moral systems. That is, they can oppose animal cruelty and support farming practices.

Well a moral system that ignores reality as there is nosuch thing as happy meat. If one truly opposes animal cruelty then surely they should extend that to not paying people to enslave, torture and kill animals for their pleasure – as that is the reality no matter how big the cage.

Maybe I've misunderstood the article, but isn't the gist of the movement the idea that we should reduce suffering and improve living conditions for farm animals? This is a good thing. Whether it results in more animals going in there is irrelevant, unless the conditions remain at a level that induces suffering - but that's what the movement is working against. In other words, suppose we have the ideal farm, where there is absolutely no suffering from the animals on it. Then there would be no problem with increasing the numbers of animals that don't suffer. Obviously there is some middle ground before we reach that point, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards that ideal goal.

What makes a human more 'special' than a non-human

The point you raise about ‘ideal farm’ i is a myth and not relevant to the topic – you may as well talk about a mythical afterlife called ‘heaven’ where everyone goes when the die and everyone is ‘happy’.

And the ‘ideal’ farm can’t exist … ever … not whilst animals are treated as property that must provide an economic return for the owner and not whilst the only reason for their existence is to live short lives that end up at a slaughter house so people can consume rotting flesh.

As a brief example, Dairy cows live horrible short lives and are 'spent' after about 4 or 5 yrs (and sold to the slaughter house) - they should live to about 20yrs old and 'ideally' they'd only have enough milk for their own off-spring - and that would notbe ideal for the dairy farmier as the farmer is not going to keep an dairy cow for 20yrs so that is can produce no milk for them - so the 'ideal farm' is non-sensical.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Maybe I've misunderstood the article, but isn't the gist of the movement the idea that we should reduce suffering and improve living conditions for farm animals?

The gist is this ...

Animal rights theory, as it is presented on this site, concerns the use of animals and has as its central focus the abolition of animal use rather than its regulation. We have no moral justification for using nonhumans for our purposes. Moreover, as long as animals are human property, animal welfare standards will never provide adequate protection to animal interests. A shorthand way of describing the view presented here is to say that all sentient beings should have at least one right—the right not to be treated as property. If we recognized this one right, we would be compelled to abolish institutionalized animal exploitation. We would stop bringing domesticated nonhumans into existence for human use.

Spearthrower wrote:One thought that always pops into my head when I see the title of this thread is: Imagine the outrage if someone wrote a 'challenge to vegetarians' to just go and eat some meat. It's interesting how such topics have an inherent imbalance to them, and how turning the same arguments back to the other side would be considered outrageous, and quite possibly offensive.

Spear, forgive me for being obtuse but, how would you phrase such a challenge?`I read the original OP's challenge:
"Give your reasons/justifications for eating meat ONE POINT AT A TIME, and i will try and test the logic of these reasons/justifications."
I find it fairly difficult to re-phrase that as a challenge to a vegetarian. "Give you reasons for eating vegetables."
Or, "Give you reasons for not eating meat"?

NilsGLindgren wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:One thought that always pops into my head when I see the title of this thread is: Imagine the outrage if someone wrote a 'challenge to vegetarians' to just go and eat some meat. It's interesting how such topics have an inherent imbalance to them, and how turning the same arguments back to the other side would be considered outrageous, and quite possibly offensive.

Spear, forgive me for being obtuse but, how would you phrase such a challenge?`I read the original OP's challenge:
"Give your reasons/justifications for eating meat ONE POINT AT A TIME, and i will try and test the logic of these reasons/justifications."
I find it fairly difficult to re-phrase that as a challenge to a vegetarian. "Give you reasons for eating vegetables."
Or, "Give you reasons for not eating meat"?

Seeing as this business of morality and eating meat has absolutely nothing to do with logic and reason I could question the vegans in several different ways. The first would be as Spearthrower was thinking; what is the basis of jamming your morals sown someone else throat at the dinner table? I suspect this has rich psychological dirt to mine from religiously stained guilt-thinking to control issues.

There are social trends afoot and this meat hater thing fits right in to some really dangerous and ugly thinking. You will notice in these threads that there isn't much talk about measuring the happiness of men or the size of THEIR cages. Man is bad. Meat is tasty. Tasty is pleasure. Pleasure is bad. Cows are good. Man shouldn't eat cows.

Now if there were escalating viscous cow attacks on children out west it would be: man invaded the cows habit and we shouldn't be there! The cows can't help it! They're cows. It's what they do. They eat children of men who invade their natural habitat.

Alrighty. I stop over to this thread to piss myself off every month and it helps combat depression and low blood pressure.