Eating animals that can display affection?

[fromderinside]

Or do you have an irrefutable argument for the objectivity of moral claims up your sleeve?

Of course. Moral anti-realism is not justified by evidence of evolution.

 

[untermensche]

Empathy is a product of evolution.

 

[fromderinside]

Yet off the same keyboard comes "The only "group" in question is humans".

So what is it? Only humans have empathy or empathy is a product of evolution from which one might generalize that at least some, perhaps many, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fishes. elasmobranchs, possess the capacity for empathy. If true then why not hold all accountable for anti-empathetic (immoral) behavior?

Ya swings by the tree what brotcha here.

 

[untermensche]

When you talk about deliberate human behavior with animals they have total control over the only moral issue concerns the behavior of the humans.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm pretty sure the lion, the bacteria, don't take in to account your status as a candidate for reproduction, just as humans don't for them.

If one is swept up in, say, a Nazi uprising, one doesn't stop to consider the prospects of those who are targets for elimination as they try to, themselves, stay alive. We are meat eaters and we don't give a vote to those which we are preparing for the table. We, after all, are only staying alive.

After the frenzy? Perhaps we do turn on those who were most harsh. Out of empathy? I rather think not. Writing it thus looks nice on one's resume though.

Isn't there a dividing line between acts related to survival between humans and those who mostly don't walk upright? Yeah. Humans either think animals are cruel, unthinking, instinct driven, or some other dehumanized mode of behaving. Humans do walk upright, do have souls, do have minds, do have morals, are humane, and a lot of other senseless bullshit because, wow, we are the chosen ones.

 

[untermensche]

I'm pretty sure the lion, the bacteria, don't take in to account your status as a candidate for reproduction, just as humans don't for them.

That is human morality.

Trying to elevate above the lion and bacteria.

If one is swept up in, say, a Nazi uprising, one doesn't stop to consider the prospects of those who are targets for elimination as they try to, themselves, stay alive. We are meat eaters and we don't give a vote to those which we are preparing for the table. We, after all, are only staying alive.

The moral issue is not eating meat. That is not so clear.

The clear moral issue is the deliberate torturing of animals.

 

[fromderinside]

Humans use any existing method or apparatus that minimizes costs, cleanup, doesn't interfere with meat development. To say using restrictive cages are cruel is a very narrow view. Such cages keep the animals from harming one another, makes feeding and waste removal very easy, increases health and management of animals, while maintaining weights delivered very cost effectively.

The 'harm' is to the sterile eyes of PETA advocates who only see restricted animals without taking into to account health and cost benefits. So if your judge is Hitler then, yeah, he sees the equivalent of harm to the Ayrian race in having jews nearby.

Besides in my experience I've been accosted by those who see harm to lambs that I bottle fed because they aren't getting the benefit of thier mama's teat. Well great. Those lambs I fed were shunned by their mamas who managed to have two or three lambs so she drove one away. So easy to cry cruel, inhuman, intentional, when you really have no idea of what you are talking about.

Is there some excess? Probably. Do cruel persons gravitate to such as managing food animals? Youbetcha. If you don't want such possibilities you should just stop eating meat. You won't. You want to have your cake and eat it too. That's not morality.

 

[untermensche]

Again, the complete lack of normal empathy is not an argument.

It is just an ugly distasteful position.

 

[fromderinside]

Again, the complete lack of normal empathy is not an argument.

It is just an ugly distasteful position.

I guess you missed this:

Besides in my experience I've been accosted by those who see harm to lambs that I bottle fed because they aren't getting the benefit of thier mama's teat. Well great. Those lambs I fed were shunned by their mamas who managed to have two or three lambs so she drove one away. So easy to cry cruel, inhuman, intentional, when you really have no idea of what you are talking about.

In the future please read before you respond

 

[The AntiChris]

Or do you have an irrefutable argument for the objectivity of moral claims up your sleeve?

Of course. Moral anti-realism is not justified by evidence of evolution.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying evolution disproves moral anti-realism? If so, how?

 

[untermensche]

Again, the complete lack of normal empathy is not an argument.

It is just an ugly distasteful position.

I guess you missed this:

Besides in my experience I've been accosted by those who see harm to lambs that I bottle fed because they aren't getting the benefit of thier mama's teat. Well great. Those lambs I fed were shunned by their mamas who managed to have two or three lambs so she drove one away. So easy to cry cruel, inhuman, intentional, when you really have no idea of what you are talking about.

In the future please read before you respond

Talking about the price of tea in China has nothing to do with the deliberate torture of animals.

It is a distraction.

Hand waving.

 

[fromderinside]

Moreso is accusing others of doing things deliberately, with intent to harm. Self serving hand waving by those who know nothing of the trade which they criticize. Are bad optics intention? How so?

 

[untermensche]

Moreso is accusing others of doing things deliberately, with intent to harm. Self serving hand waving by those who know nothing of the trade which they criticize. Are bad optics intention? How so?

I did not talk of intentions.

The intention is to make as much money as possible off some flesh.

The immorality is not that the torture is intentional.

It is caring more about the profit than the torture.

I also think trying to argue that torture is not torture is a kind of immorality.

 

[bilby]

Moreso is accusing others of doing things deliberately, with intent to harm. Self serving hand waving by those who know nothing of the trade which they criticize. Are bad optics intention? How so?

I did not talk of intentions.

The intention is to make as much money as possible off some flesh.

The immorality is not that the torture is intentional.

It is caring more about the profit than the torture.

I also think trying to argue that torture is not torture is a kind of immorality.

No, it's just a commitment to the correct use of language. The definition of torture includes intentionality; Unintentional cruelty to animals, while deplorable and to be avoided where possible, nevertheless is not torture, and your misuse of the word is hyperbolic and counterproductive - as indeed are most of your political arguments.

You might be surprised to find that I agree with many of your political positions (you poor grasp of logic notwithstanding - You are an excellent example of the fact that the emotional heuristic actually reaches correct conclusions more often than would be expected by chance, even though it bypasses logic almost entirely). But you are such an incredible arse about everything that I prefer to argue against the things you get wrong, rather than to support the few things you get right. So you are, as usual, driving people away form the positions you overtly wish them to adopt.

You should probably stop doing that, if you actually believe the things you say you believe. But perhaps you prefer to be the solitary crusader for what is right, and having other people on your side would make you feel less special?

 

[untermensche]

Moreso is accusing others of doing things deliberately, with intent to harm. Self serving hand waving by those who know nothing of the trade which they criticize. Are bad optics intention? How so?

I did not talk of intentions.

The intention is to make as much money as possible off some flesh.

The immorality is not that the torture is intentional.

It is caring more about the profit than the torture.

I also think trying to argue that torture is not torture is a kind of immorality.

No, it's just a commitment to the correct use of language. The definition of torture includes intentionality; Unintentional cruelty to animals, while deplorable and to be avoided where possible, nevertheless is not torture, and your misuse of the word is hyperbolic and counterproductive - as indeed are most of your political arguments.

You might be surprised to find that I agree with many of your political positions (you poor grasp of logic notwithstanding - You are an excellent example of the fact that the emotional heuristic actually reaches correct conclusions more often than would be expected by chance, even though it bypasses logic almost entirely). But you are such an incredible arse about everything that I prefer to argue against the things you get wrong, rather than to support the few things you get right. So you are, as usual, driving people away form the positions you overtly wish them to adopt.

You should probably stop doing that, if you actually believe the things you say you believe. But perhaps you prefer to be the solitary crusader for what is right, and having other people on your side would make you feel less special?

Torture is something that happens to an animal.

A person could be trapped outside and tortured by the cold.

The cold did not intend to do it.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Humans use any existing method or apparatus that minimizes costs, cleanup, doesn't interfere with meat development. To say using restrictive cages are cruel is a very narrow view. Such cages keep the animals from harming one another, makes feeding and waste removal very easy, increases health and management of animals, while maintaining weights delivered very cost effectively.

The 'harm' is to the sterile eyes of PETA advocates who only see restricted animals without taking into to account health and cost benefits. So if your judge is Hitler then, yeah, he sees the equivalent of harm to the Ayrian race in having jews nearby.

Besides in my experience I've been accosted by those who see harm to lambs that I bottle fed because they aren't getting the benefit of thier mama's teat. Well great. Those lambs I fed were shunned by their mamas who managed to have two or three lambs so she drove one away. So easy to cry cruel, inhuman, intentional, when you really have no idea of what you are talking about.

Is there some excess? Probably. Do cruel persons gravitate to such as managing food animals? Youbetcha. If you don't want such possibilities you should just stop eating meat. You won't. You want to have your cake and eat it too. That's not morality.

Excuse me? Easy for whom? Would that same work with humans? Wouldn't everything cost lower and cheaper if we let kids work? No more safety precautions need to be taken, let producers hire whomever and make people work in whatever conditions that they want? If someone gets hurt he just gets thrown out? No compensation, no need for insurance, no need for safety equipment - people working ungodly hours - much cheaper prices - easier for the rest of us and the factory owner, don't you think?

 

[Ramaraksha]

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.

The question is phrased a bit incorrectly - doesn't matter whether they display affection to us or anyone - all fish feel pain equally, not just Dolphins. Cows, pigs, chickens all feel pain the same way as dogs and cats do. The point is that we need to reduce pain and suffering - we as humans can do that by reducing our consumption of meat products - understand that i used the word reduce not eliminate though hopefully in the future we can do that

As someone posted if some alien intelligence were to treat us humans as food and treated us the same way that we treat cows, pigs and chicken, we would call them cruel and evil but somehow it is ok when we do it to dumb animals

We could start with stopping hunting - unless one hunts for food, hunting for pleasure sounds horrible to me - esp the likes of bird-hunting - lie in wait, let loose a bunch of bullets, the "lucky" birds get hit in the heart and die right away, the unlucky ones get hit in the wing or leg, drop down and unless the hunter finds him and puts him out of his misery, that bird gets to die a slow & painful death. And if it has young back in the nest, they get to die a slow starvation death as well

We don't need to do this - there is no pleasure and no need for hunting or fishing

 

[Jon Osterman]

I think most people would agree that torture is sometimes the most moral action. I recall a movie called Unthinkable, in which a terrorist has planted nuclear bombs in US cities. They capture him, and must decide whether or not to torture him to find out where he has hidden them. This is rather clearly a legitimate use of torture.

So whether or not torture is OK or not depends on the larger picture. If torturing one animal were to lead to massive benefits to the human race, then would it not be OK? If for example, by conducting a brutal and painful experiment on a single chimp we could cure HIV, would we not do it?

If you say yes, this means it is only a matter of where one draws the line. What is sufficient benefit to draw that line? This is of course subjective. If someone says the torture of an animal is a reasonable cost to provide me with the benefit of one tasty meal, you may disgree with where they drew the line, but you have to admit that their position is logically and ethically sound.

 

[J842P]

If you say yes, this means it is only a matter of where one draws the line. What is sufficient benefit to draw that line? This is of course subjective. If someone says the torture of an animal is a reasonable cost to provide me with the benefit of one tasty meal, you may disgree with where they drew the line, but you have to admit that their position is logically and ethically sound.

Using this reasoning, you have to admit everything is logically and ethically sound.

 

[Ramaraksha]

If you say yes, this means it is only a matter of where one draws the line. What is sufficient benefit to draw that line? This is of course subjective. If someone says the torture of an animal is a reasonable cost to provide me with the benefit of one tasty meal, you may disgree with where they drew the line, but you have to admit that their position is logically and ethically sound.

Using this reasoning, you have to admit everything is logically and ethically sound.

I agree - he says "benefit me" that's the key - as long as it benefits me I am ok with torture. Wonder if he would think the same if he was being tortured to benefit someone else. Or his little kid would be tortured to benefit someone else

The key here is that this is an animal - it can't speak, it has no rights and so we think we can do whatever we want with them