Eating animals that can display affection?

[LordKiran]

So here's another thing I've been thinking about. Does anyone think it is wrong or at least dubious to kill and consume the flesh of an animal capable of expressing its affection for you? Typically this applies to household pets but why stop there? Cows can love people on a level comparable to your household pets, can't they? So if that's not the hang up, then what is? How do you personally reconcile this with your decision to eat what you do assuming you do eat animals capable of such? If you do find this to be distasteful then that just creates more questions! What does it mean for an animal to display affection and how can this be possibly graded or qualified? Are there animals capable of processing such emotions but not showing it outwardly?

I regularly consume the flesh of said animals but have lately considered changing this.

 

[bilby]

I have no real problem with the killing of humans, as long as they are complete strangers who are supporting a cause which I find morally repugnant. The guys defending the beaches in Normandy on D-Day were more than capable of expressing affection - many of them had wives and children who they loved very much. But I don't have a strong objection to them being killed; I feel that it was necessary for the greater good of humanity, and in particular of my family and friends.

Had I been involved in some way in the planning, i would have had no qualms about inventing ways to kill those defenders more efficiently. I would like to think that I would prefer more humane options for killing them as quickly and painlessly as possible, so i probably would have advised against the use of poison gas, for example - but even that advice would be more based on not wanting to provoke the Nazis into using poison gas against my family and friends.

Animals? Same deal. Hurt my dog, and I will fucking hammer you. But some cow that I have never met? I have no problem with its being killed so that I can have a nice steak - as long as it is done as humanely as is practical.

There's a Blue-Tounged Skink living under a rock in my backyard. It has never shown the slightest affection towards me; But I would be sad if I saw it hurt or killed, and if it was under attack (perhaps by my dog) I would defend it. I kinda like having it around the place.

People's emotional ties to other animals (including, but certainly not limited to, other humans) are rarely rational or easily understood. We form bonds with those individuals we interact with, and extend our friendship to those who are similar to those we interact with. And we care little about the rest.

I care about the killing, even for food, of dogs I have never met; But not so much with cows. Probably because I don't know many cows.

Of course, it's also worth considering that those animals we humans farm are far more numerous in the world than similar species we do not farm. If people stopped eating beef, the world population of beef cattle would quickly plummet. If we stopped eating pork, pigs could become an endangered species. If we eschewed both eggs and chicken, poultry would be reduced to paltry numbers.

So even if you decide that you like pigs (in general, not one specific individual pig), deciding not to eat pork might be counterproductive.

It's a complicated situation; Simple answers (of any kind) are probably not going to lead to desirable outcomes.

 

[LordKiran]

I have no real problem with the killing of humans, as long as they are complete strangers who are supporting a cause which I find morally repugnant. The guys defending the beaches in Normandy on D-Day were more than capable of expressing affection - many of them had wives and children who they loved very much. But I don't have a strong objection to them being killed; I feel that it was necessary for the greater good of humanity, and in particular of my family and friends.

Had I been involved in some way in the planning, i would have had no qualms about inventing ways to kill those defenders more efficiently. I would like to think that I would prefer more humane options for killing them as quickly and painlessly as possible, so i probably would have advised against the use of poison gas, for example - but even that advice would be more based on not wanting to provoke the Nazis into using poison gas against my family and friends.

Animals? Same deal. Hurt my dog, and I will fucking hammer you. But some cow that I have never met? I have no problem with its being killed so that I can have a nice steak - as long as it is done as humanely as is practical.

There's a Blue-Tounged Skink living under a rock in my backyard. It has never shown the slightest affection towards me; But I would be sad if I saw it hurt or killed, and if it was under attack (perhaps by my dog) I would defend it. I kinda like having it around the place.

People's emotional ties to other animals (including, but certainly not limited to, other humans) are rarely rational or easily understood. We form bonds with those individuals we interact with, and extend our friendship to those who are similar to those we interact with. And we care little about the rest.

I care about the killing, even for food, of dogs I have never met; But not so much with cows. Probably because I don't know many cows.

Of course, it's also worth considering that those animals we humans farm are far more numerous in the world than similar species we do not farm. If people stopped eating beef, the world population of beef cattle would quickly plummet. If we stopped eating pork, pigs could become an endangered species. If we eschewed both eggs and chicken, poultry would be reduced to paltry numbers.

So even if you decide that you like pigs (in general, not one specific individual pig), deciding not to eat pork might be counterproductive.

It's a complicated situation; Simple answers (of any kind) are probably not going to lead to desirable outcomes.

Sorry I know you had a lot to say here but this argument always kinda bugs me. As if cattle and pigs were capable of even envisioning their species in a macro sense or capable of appreciating the psuedo-symbiotic relationship they share with humans. What's more, even if they were, I would think it'd be a cold comfort next to having your entire species, everyone you know or will ever know, being penned in and harvested for sustinence and goods made from your flesh.

it'd be like if aliens thought us people were delicious and decided to capture our entire race and then seed us across the galaxy so they could better harvest us. The fact that humans are now a pan-galactic species would be a pretty small consolation for knowing that you're predestined to die once you hit maturity (Potentially sooner, if they found baby/child meat to be particularly tasty!)

Sorry, I just think that one particular argument is really dumb. It was dumb when the AmazingAthiest made it and its dumb now.

Now would you agree that there is a distinct moral/ethical difference between murdering someone who's actions will directly harm or threaten others, some of whom you may know and love and murdering someone who had nothing to do with anything, but was just minding thier own business? Does an animal's ability to emote (Communicate) to or with you not in itself have any value to you whatsoever?

 

[Underseer]

Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, eat monkeys. Monkeys are far more capable of affection and self-awareness than a cow. I don't know that the ethics of this is so clear cut.

 

[bilby]

I have no real problem with the killing of humans, as long as they are complete strangers who are supporting a cause which I find morally repugnant. The guys defending the beaches in Normandy on D-Day were more than capable of expressing affection - many of them had wives and children who they loved very much. But I don't have a strong objection to them being killed; I feel that it was necessary for the greater good of humanity, and in particular of my family and friends.

Had I been involved in some way in the planning, i would have had no qualms about inventing ways to kill those defenders more efficiently. I would like to think that I would prefer more humane options for killing them as quickly and painlessly as possible, so i probably would have advised against the use of poison gas, for example - but even that advice would be more based on not wanting to provoke the Nazis into using poison gas against my family and friends.

Animals? Same deal. Hurt my dog, and I will fucking hammer you. But some cow that I have never met? I have no problem with its being killed so that I can have a nice steak - as long as it is done as humanely as is practical.

There's a Blue-Tounged Skink living under a rock in my backyard. It has never shown the slightest affection towards me; But I would be sad if I saw it hurt or killed, and if it was under attack (perhaps by my dog) I would defend it. I kinda like having it around the place.

People's emotional ties to other animals (including, but certainly not limited to, other humans) are rarely rational or easily understood. We form bonds with those individuals we interact with, and extend our friendship to those who are similar to those we interact with. And we care little about the rest.

I care about the killing, even for food, of dogs I have never met; But not so much with cows. Probably because I don't know many cows.

Of course, it's also worth considering that those animals we humans farm are far more numerous in the world than similar species we do not farm. If people stopped eating beef, the world population of beef cattle would quickly plummet. If we stopped eating pork, pigs could become an endangered species. If we eschewed both eggs and chicken, poultry would be reduced to paltry numbers.

So even if you decide that you like pigs (in general, not one specific individual pig), deciding not to eat pork might be counterproductive.

It's a complicated situation; Simple answers (of any kind) are probably not going to lead to desirable outcomes.

Sorry I know you had a lot to say here but this argument always kinda bugs me. As if cattle and pigs were capable of even envisioning their species in a macro sense or capable of appreciating the psuedo-symbiotic relationship they share with humans. What's more, even if they were, I would think it'd be a cold comfort next to having your entire species, everyone you know or will ever know, being penned in and harvested for sustinence and goods made from your flesh.

it'd be like if aliens thought us people were delicious and decided to capture our entire race and then seed us across the galaxy so they could better harvest us. The fact that humans are now a pan-galactic species would be a pretty small consolation for knowing that you're predestined to die once you hit maturity (Potentially sooner, if they found baby/child meat to be particularly tasty!)

Sorry, I just think that one particular argument is really dumb. It was dumb when the AmazingAthiest made it and its dumb now.

Now would you agree that there is a distinct moral/ethical difference between murdering someone who's actions will directly harm or threaten others, some of whom you may know and love and murdering someone who had nothing to do with anything, but was just minding thier own business? Does an animal's ability to emote (Communicate) to or with you not in itself have any value to you whatsoever?

I thought I made it very clear (above) that it does have a value: "We form bonds with those individuals we interact with, and extend our friendship to those who are similar to those we interact with. And we care little about the rest."

The arguments start when deciding which animals fall into 'the rest', which is a judgement with almost as many answers as there are people. I know what the right answer is FOR ME; I would not seek to impose my opinion on YOU, as your opinion is likely different from mine, and I would be a hypocrite if I tried to force you to accept my position, while resisting (as I do) any attempt made by others to impose their position on me.

Everyone is at the pinnacle of the moral high ground, looking down on everyone else. I don't see the battle to impose my specific and detailed set of answers on everyone else (all 7.5 billion) as one that is worth the fight, so I will just let you all be wrong, unless and until any of you impinge upon me personally (for example by trying to eat my dog).

 

[skepticalbip]

I think Douglas Adams had to solution to this in his "Restaurant at the end of the universe". We need to breed an animal that actually wants to be eaten and is capable of saying so clearly and distinctly.

 

[ronburgundy]

it'd be like if aliens thought us people were delicious and decided to capture our entire race and then seed us across the galaxy so they could better harvest us. The fact that humans are now a pan-galactic species would be a pretty small consolation for knowing that you're predestined to die once you hit maturity (Potentially sooner, if they found baby/child meat to be particularly tasty!)

Would you rather not exist at all or exist in the life you currently enjoy but knowing that you would be killed for meat at age 30?

Actually, farms animals don't live knowing they will be killed for meat, so that's too generous an analogy. If a person lives their life, then is killed at age 30 by a lion an eaten, do you feel like it would be better if they had never lived at all?

Most farmed meat is from subspecies we created. They wouldn't exist without us eating them. They all still display a "fear of harm and death" as much as any wild animal, showing that they prefer their existence to the non-existence. They don't have the capacity to know they are "caged" or not "free".

And the life of wild animals is rather brutal and they die far more painfully than farmed animals.

In general, I think intellectual capacity is more relevant than "displaying affection" which is mostly our own projections onto what they are actually feeling when they rub against us, which is like not much more than they would feel toward an inanimate object that they learn will feed it when they rub against it. Even reptiles and some fish (not just whales, dolphins, and octopus) "display affection" in some ways. Pretty much any organism that relies on other members of its species in some way will display behaviors like seeking proximity to others in its group that we call "affection". After all, those actions are rooted in the basic affective "fight/flight" systems in the most "primitive" parts of the brain. Intellectual abilities are more select and better differentiate parts of the phylogenetic tree.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Why would it make a difference if it feels affection for me? I guarantee that once I kill it it has no more affection for me. And presumably the taste and nutrition it provides is the same no matter how it feels about me.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I think Douglas Adams had to solution to this in his "Restaurant at the end of the universe". We need to breed an animal that actually wants to be eaten and is capable of saying so clearly and distinctly.

I'm pretty sure we did this with people. The eater still went to prison.

 

[untermensche]

Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, eat monkeys. Monkeys are far more capable of affection and self-awareness than a cow. I don't know that the ethics of this is so clear cut.

Ethics is humans talking about human behavior.

The behavior of no other species is relevant.

In the US it is not only the killing and eating of certain animals which is debatable but it is the torture of animals before they are killed, due to "market forces", which is not as easily defended.

 

[Kusa]

I can solve this. Let’s just eat animals that die of old age.

 

[BH]

I had some baby snapping turtles that I kept for about ten years. They grew fairly large. Because they were not out in the wild they never learned how to be "mean". I could hand feed them and they would not try to bite me. I could even pet their heads like one would a dog and they had no problems with it. They would even wave their legs when I held them to pet them. Did they have affection for me? I know they are reptiles with more primitive brains but they say alligators can care for their young. Who knows.

I wouldn't eat an ape, an oragatang, or a chimp. Nor would I eat a dog. I wouldn't eat a whale or a dolphin because they seem to have some sense of sentience, well, not the dog, but I like dogs. I wouldn't eat turtles either because I had too many as pets.

 

[rousseau]

I'm more or less on board with not eating mammals at this stage of my life, although I do see that morality is arbitrary and subjective. At some point, any given society, when given the opportunity to extend their care to animals, will have to decide what type of society they want to be.

At this stage I think what the plant-based debate is making clear is that a lot of people don't give a shit about animals.

 

[humbleman]

A long time friend had a carpentry shop. I used to visit him when I was in need to make a project in home. He had all kind of machines and lots of space for making parties. One day I saw a small pig in his shop.

The pig was fed with the best of the best, fresh apples, leftovers from the table, vegetables, no garbage at all. The old daughter took the pig to walk around the block everyday, This female pig grew up healthy by all means. Her name was Clara.

He invited me to his 10th wedding anniversary. But, he told me to go very early, around 8:00am.

Over there, in the carpentry shop were three guys and their wives who came from his farm area. My friend used to be a farmer.

The pig was over some doors resting on the floor, with a big pot on her side. The guys asked me if I knew how to kill a pig. I said I never did it, so they hold the pig (four guys) and they gave me a long knife. First thing I was instructed to do was to make a hole in the neck. Second was introducing the long knife looking to hit the heart. It took me a few seconds, the animal appeared to be nervous but showing no signals of pain.

Finally I hit something because blood started to come out like crazy. Immediately they put the animal facing the big metal pot, and all the blood was poured inside. At one moment I saw the pig shaking and they asked me to help them holding the animal. Suddenly, the pig hit harder with the leg making us almost falling back, but it was just a kick, the pig was death.

One of the guys opened the front of the animal looking for the liver I think, He told me that a single drop of bile should mess up the entire body, so it was very important to take it out very carefully.

After that, hot water over the body and shaving the animal. Later, hanging it with the extremities open in all directions. With a sharp knife they started to make square lines and the skin was threw to a big metal barrel that had fire under it. The rest, the head, tail, etc. they started to mix them with spices and more.

The women took the blood and added cropped onions and lots of cropped vegetables. They "washed" the intestines with lime juice and they put inside the blood with the additives. The BBQ started one hour later.

I didn't eat any of it. I myself walked the pig once around the corner, and I was kind of sentimental with the animal. I ate the fresh chicken his friends brought alive to the shop. They tasted delicious... like chicken.

I do eat animals, fish, cow, sheep, etc. I understand they do have feelings, they do get used to people, but life and survival go together hand to hand. Or the animals or me.

Me is the right answer. The lion won't care about me, the cow won't miss me if I'm not around anymore. So, by principle of survival, I think is fair eating animals.

 

[untermensche]

That is very different from the meat most people eat.

With most consumed meat in the US the animal was tortured for a long time before it was killed.

In terms of morality, if some harm can be avoided that is the moral thing to do.

Thinking about what a lion might do is not morality.

 

[fromderinside]

Whither to eat animals morality is not about affect or mood, morality about eating animals is about dentition and digestive system.

 

[bilby]

With most consumed meat in the US the animal was tortured for a long time before it was killed.

Have they divulged any useful information yet?

Or are they being handled without the expectation that they will reveal a secret or admit to a crime, in which case the word 'tortured' is just an hyperbolic appeal to emotion?

Cruelty to animals is abhorrent; but the routine treatment of animals prior to slaughter is not needlessly cruel, and it's certainly not torture. Even if they do know something, they're not talking.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know who told you extraction of information has anything to do with it.

 

[bilby]

I don't know who told you extraction of information has anything to do with it.

Nor do I; as a native English speaker I have known, for as long as I can recall, that torture is deliberate and purposeful infliction of pain, usually with the purpose of extracting information or confession.

Wikipedia defines it as:

Torture (from the Latin tortus, "twisted") is the act of deliberately inflicting physical or psychological pain in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or compel some action from the victim. Torture, by definition, is a knowing and intentional act; deeds which unknowingly or negligently inflict pain without a specific intent to do so are not typically considered torture.

English is widely spoken, so if you want further lessons, you shouldn't have much trouble finding a qualified teacher.

 

[untermensche]

It is possible to torture a human in an attempt to extract information.

It is impossible to get information from a pig by torturing it.

Pigs are deliberately tortured in the US for profit. Not for information.

You should have been able to understand things like this a long time ago. But I understand some are rather slow and I must be patient.