Childhood indoctrination

[Forbinator]

This is the point of morality being subjective and therefore consensual. You call them victims, we call them food. You feel it is horrible. We feel that they, like ourselves, are part of the food chain. You have exhorted us to rise above our base animal nature. We embrace our animal nature.

A lot of it is subjective, yes, but much of our morality is so uniformly applied that it could be considered objective (e.g. murdering humans for pleasure, stealing from humans for pleasure, inflicting pain on humans for pleasure, senseless animal cruelty for no perceived gain). Everyone here would believe that all four of those things are immoral (and yes I realise I open myself up to being accused of populist reasoning, but I know I have to concede any argument to a person who doesn't believe those four things are immoral). So what I can do is appeal to you to apply those moralities to situations involving non-human animals, to the extent that their interests overlap with ours. If we also recognise how completely unnecessary the animal exploitation industries are, it becomes easier to view them as approaching senseless animal cruelty as well, since their gain to humans is minimal or non-existent.

A victim is one who suffers as a direct result of one's actions, this has nothing to do with my feelings. Your animal nature does not provide a logically consistent argument for animal use, any more than it does for a man to rape a woman. (Please note I'm not saying the actions are morally equivalent, but a man could logically say that he is simply embracing his animal nature by committing rape)

Also there are a whole lot of reasons why humans are not naturally adapted to killing and eating animals anyway (lack of sharp teeth and claws for a start). Ability to hold tools doesn't count (since this evolved in primates who are completely herbivorous). There are many reasons why we are in fact biologically herbivorous: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html We have used our intelligence to find ways of doing lots of things that don't necessarily improve our survival rate.

Since our sentiments in this matter do not overlap your appeal to our moral nature has failed. It happens. It doesn't mean there won't be many more matters where we would share moral sentiments. Just not this one.

As I've already said I applaud you and yours for eating low on the food chain. (Can I get an amen for the fact that I've not and will not be breeding?) We're both contributing to a related problem.

I certainly agree with this, and human overpopulation definitely seems like an "elephant in the room", especially when people are discussing their plans for when they have babies and how many they will have.

[NoraBrimstone]

I hope that one day you are able to shift the focus away from yourself and towards the victims. When an action has a victim, I think it's very difficult to consider it a "personal choice", as the action necessarily affects others.

LOLWUT?

[littleendian]

This is the point of morality being subjective and therefore consensual. You call them victims, we call them food. You feel it is horrible. We feel that they, like ourselves, are part of the food chain. You have exhorted us to rise above our base animal nature. We embrace our animal nature.

Human society has long since abandoned its animal nature in many respects, we don't accept that the stronger can have his way with the weaker for example, rape is outlawed etc. So our animal nature is not always to be trusted as a "moral compass".

Now, I'll grant you that I've also arrived at my conviction by "feeling" that it is wrong to exploit animals in the most barbaric ways, and not only for the victims but also for us, because it dulls our ability for compassion also for humans. But I can also back up my position by reason, and my argument has stood up against fierce attacks from all sides even in this very forum, and I've not yet heard one rational chain of arguments that supports the distinction between human and non-human animals (lets focus on larger vertebrates for now).

My rational argument is: The basis for consideration is not a racial criterium but the ability to suffer, which is ultimately why we acknowledge other's rights, because we ourselves don't want to suffer and therefore don't afflict it on others. This has nothing to do with human or non-human.

Refute this without appealing to the arbitrary category of human/animal or provide your own argument for why theses non-humans don't count, and I'm convinced. Please do so and I'll be the first to devour a juicy steak! If you cannot provide a coherent, rational, non-circular argument for why you feel there is a qualitative line between humans and non-humans then you might commit the same fallacy as many racists and sexists who simply didn't question the status-quo.

edit: toned down a bit

[Aractus]

Cotton isn't a synthetic fibre, and I think there are other vegan non-synthetics if you must have them. Wool is also very bad for the environment, and a horribly inefficient use of land, as well as being bad for the animals, who have to endure painful procedures without anaesthetic (castration, ear-tagging, tail-docking, mulesing and pizzle-dropping depending on flystrike prevention methods).

And yet you live in Australia? I'll grant you that mulesing is a painful procedure, but it's far more attractive than the pain that the animal goes through if it endures flystrike. You know what happens to sheep that get flystrike because they were too young to go through mulesing? They either get put down - or they endure months of agony as they're slowly nursed back to health (if they're lucky).

As for being bad for the environment, why don't you go tell that story to Gregory's or, Sebel or, since you're from Melbourne, Schiavello? Maybe you can convince them that Wool doesn't provide the durability demanded by textile fabrics? When was the last time you saw them use nylon, or for that matter, cotton for hard-wearing textiles?

How is Nylon or Cotton going to be better for the environment, when the product wears out faster, thus has a shorter lifespan and so more net gets tossed into landfill? Not to mention the fact that synthetics are non-recyclable!

To produce the desired fine wool, it is often desirable to underfeed the sheep. Since meat is not the main product, farmers don't care if their animals starve, unless it causes them to die, as they have been genetically selected to put their energy primarily into wool growth. Shearing invariably causes painful cuts that can become infected, as shearing is usually rushed because herds contain sheep in their thousands, whose individual needs are not met.

Yep, you're loony.

[KichigaiNeko]

So we are not talking about vegetarianism/ veganism but about the qualitative line that humans have drawn between themselves and every other animal?

[Forbinator]

Cotton isn't a synthetic fibre, and I think there are other vegan non-synthetics if you must have them. Wool is also very bad for the environment, and a horribly inefficient use of land, as well as being bad for the animals, who have to endure painful procedures without anaesthetic (castration, ear-tagging, tail-docking, mulesing and pizzle-dropping depending on flystrike prevention methods).

And yet you live in Australia? I'll grant you that mulesing is a painful procedure, but it's far more attractive than the pain that the animal goes through if it endures flystrike. You know what happens to sheep that get flystrike because they were too young to go through mulesing? They either get put down - or they endure months of agony as they're slowly nursed back to health (if they're lucky).

I know about flystrike and agree that it is a worse fate than mulesing. This only strengthens the position that sheep farming is inhumane, particularly in a climate to which they are not adapted, where they have no natural resistance to parasitic infections. Farmers can never cure their herds of infections, only "manage" it, and when they are intensively farmed at high stocking densities, they are subjected to very high worm burdens.

Superfine Merino wool is viewed as a "luxury" item and has a certain economic status associated with it, and it is perhaps this issue that is the greatest barrier to abolishing the trade.

To produce the desired fine wool, it is often desirable to underfeed the sheep. Since meat is not the main product, farmers don't care if their animals starve, unless it causes them to die, as they have been genetically selected to put their energy primarily into wool growth. Shearing invariably causes painful cuts that can become infected, as shearing is usually rushed because herds contain sheep in their thousands, whose individual needs are not met.

Yep, you're loony.

Because you say so? Merino wool with a fibre diameter of <22 microns is considered desirable, and will fetch the highest price in the market. Feeding trials have been done that show a positive correlation between feed intake and fibre diameter. We have terrible droughts here in Australia which inhibit grass growth; do you really think a farmer will care if the sheep go hungry for a few days, as long as they're still standing and producing wool? Our sheep herds are very large (in the thousands), shearing cuts are real and cause a disease called caseous lymphadenitis. If shearers process thousands of sheep in a day, it is not feasible to manage individual wounds effectively.

---

So we are not talking about vegetarianism/ veganism but about the qualitative line that humans have drawn between themselves and every other animal?

I would have thought the issues were inextricably linked.

It should be pointed out that basically all of us (meat-eaters and vegans) are against senseless animal cruelty, so actually all of us believe it is necessary to apply morality from our civilisation towards animals. We have more in common than you realise. The difference is whether you only believe it when it's convenient.

We would all agree that if I walk onto a cow paddock, and start beating a cow with a poly-pipe for fun, that would be cruelty and I should be punished, but if you consume animal products this means you're willing to accept this level of cruelty if, for example, it is necessary to beat a cow to get her to walk into the slaughterhouse where she is "supposed" to go. I would agree that the reason behind committing an act should contribute to its relative ethical merit, but from the perspective of the cow, both acts of cruelty are exactly equivalent.

Why accept any level of unnecessary cruelty?

[rexbeccarox]

I think I might have an interesting perspective on this:

Growing up, my dad was a meat and potatoes guy, and my mom fixed dinner accordingly. I detested it, and when I was ten, I asked my mom if I could go veg. She agreed, with the caveat that I had to make sure I was cooking and eating balanced meals.

Ten years, and nine hospital visits due to anaphylaxis (turns out, I'm allergic to nuts) later, I was underweight by about fifteen pounds and decided to have a burger one hungover New Year's day. Within a few weeks of incorporating a little lean meat into my diet, I was healthier and more energetic. Now, I eat a little meat. Mostly chicken and turkey. I like fish, but in raw form most of the time.

Here are my questions: Do you think I was indoctrinated into eating meat as a child? Do you think I'm unethical by eating meat now, considering my diet limitations?

[littleendian]

Here are my questions: Do you think I was indoctrinated into eating meat as a child? Do you think I'm unethical by eating meat now, considering my diet limitations?

Thanks for sharing your perspective! For me you are obviously not acting immorally if you gave veganism your best shot, ate a balanced diet and after a serious attempt it really was detrimental to your health. The wolf is not acting immorally for killing a lamb because it is his only way to survive. The self always trumps the non-self when it comes to that, and that's outside the realm of morals.

The issue that's discussed here really boils down to whether we should even give veganism a serious, commited try, and I think it is our moral responsibility to do so.

---

So we are not talking about vegetarianism/ veganism but about the qualitative line that humans have drawn between themselves and every other animal?

Bullseye, but of course the issue is very, very tightly coupled to our behaviour as consumers. Once you remove the dogmatic line between human and non-human animals that comes from millenia of Christian indoctrination (among other things), I think it is just the logical next step to question our perception of meat and animal products in general.

[Something completely different]

.....

Nur mal so aus privatem Interesse. Was waren deine Beweggründe, die dich zum Veganismus führten?

In meinem Fall war es eine Frau.

[littleendian]

Yep, you're loony.

No, he's merely thinking this through, that's more than you can say about yourself because if you are Anglican then you believe absurdities that you might find absurd if you ever switched on that marvelous device God gave you for thinking.