The ethics if factory farming

[Anomalocaris]

Seems a little dubious, "I'm going to take good care of you right up to the point I slaughter you for food".

Why? Meat from nourished and unstressed cattles are said to taste better. With some species of seafood it can be demonstrated that prolonged stress increases ammonia content of the flesh and spoils the taste.

[bennyboy]

I'd argue this is a somewhat false analogy. A cow is not a person, their needs are different. A cow does not have the cognitive ability of a person, nor does it have the physical needs of a human. So it is perfectly acceptable to treat a cow differently than a person.

All of these same things, I guarantee, have been said in defense of black slavery. However, re: cognitive ability, what's the cutoff line? There are lots of people I know for sure I'm an order of magnitude smarter than-- am I free to dispatch them on this basis? How about a nuclear physicist-- can he kill me? Who gets to decide which cognitive abilites merit protection, and which do not?

As for physical needs-- every "need" is conditional. On the condition that someone is going to live a reasonably good life, one needs not to be harmed, and not to have that life unnecessarily shortened. I don't see how cows are different from humans in this regard.

[Anomalocaris]

So is it ethical to cause an increase in animal suffering and to treat animals like a commodity if it increases the well-being of some humans?

Is it ethical to cause an increase in black suffering and to treat negroes like a commodity if it increases the well-being of good church-going white folk? Why not-- we all know they don't have a soul anyway, so what's the harm in letting them work for their keep?

I'd argue that inflicting great suffering in order to eliminate relatively minor suffering represents a greater evil, and is therefore unethical. The average American will manage somehow to survive without that 5th Big Mac of the day.

I think ethics has nothing to do with reducing suffering of nonhumans. Ethics exists purely as a generalizable heuristic for increasing the probability of well being of those who have the capacity to implement such heuristics.

When any system of ethics begin to take on a life of its own and start to burden itself with goals not strictly related to its reason for being, it increase the chance it would gradually fail to deliver on its own basic justification, and thus would be replaced.

[bennyboy]

Maybe. However, one aspect of well-being is that of a sense of peace. Many, but maybe not most, people are disturbed by the idea of causing unnecessary suffering, in humans or animals, particularly when it is brought about as a byproduct of excess and waste. There was once a time when many, but maybe not most, people considered Africans morally incapable and therefore outside the sphere of ethical treatment.

[James2014]

Humans are omnivorous. Our bodies are designed to eat meat.

Designed? You studied anthropology and you come out with this? Your lecturers would be ashamed. The history of humanity is littered with small minded and cruel individuals who obstinately justify their actions based on the superiority of their little group, for no other reason than it happens to be their little group they value more. Well done for joining the ranks of the racists, sexists, homophobes and xenophobes. I am sure they all justify their actions based on nature and cognitive differences too.

You and your beliefs will be looked on with embassment and shame. It is hard to challenge whatever is the prevalent prejudice of people's time, but if you do you can look to the future and claim a sense of pride that you were a part of helping to bring injustice to an end. There is no greater meaning in life than that. Go vegan.

[Natachan]

Our bodies are set up to digest meat. If you object to the term "designed" fine, but our anatomy is set up for an omnivorous diet. No different from a bear, or a chimp, or racoons. Why then is it wrong for us to eat what is best for us?

[bennyboy]

Our bodies are set up to digest meat. If you object to the term "designed" fine, but our anatomy is set up for an omnivorous diet. No different from a bear, or a chimp, or racoons. Why then is it wrong for us to eat what is best for us?

Because the most important feature of our humanity is to use understanding and a vision of a better world to transcend our animal nature. We understand what suffering is, and that animals suffer. A better world would be one in which can can arrange nutritious, delicious food without involving ourselves in the unnecessary suffering of others. Refusing to minimize the suffering of others in order to maximize your own pleasure is selfish, and very arguably immoral.

I'm pretty sure you didn't spend 1000 calories stalking, killing, and preparing your Big Mac. I'm pretty sure your family won't die if you don't drag a big deer into the house a couple times a year. The naturalism argument fails because we don't live naturally in any aspect of our lives-- except when we want a fallback moral argument.

[Natachan]

True, I could survive off of shellfish. I could not survive off a vegan diet, since my family has a history of diabetes and complex carbs are off the table and I have a fish allergy. I could conceivably live on a vegetarian diet if I supplemented it with dairy.

The best option would be synthetic meat, real meat that is grown on a protein scaffold using stem cells. This would remove the need to kill animals and give the nutrition from meat. However until this becomes a viable option economically I think the question of killing animals for meat is an ethical question that is valid.

As for the deer issue, those things are vermin. They have exceeded their carrying capacity and are eating other animals out of their habitats. In some areas they have grown so plentiful that they are starting to starve. Why not a kill a couple and eat them?

[The Grand Nudger]

They also taste fantastic as jerky, teriyaki style. Fuckin rats with racks..lol.

[bennyboy]

True, I could survive off of shellfish. I could not survive off a vegan diet, since my family has a history of diabetes and complex carbs are off the table and I have a fish allergy. I could conceivably live on a vegetarian diet if I supplemented it with dairy.

The best option would be synthetic meat, real meat that is grown on a protein scaffold using stem cells. This would remove the need to kill animals and give the nutrition from meat. However until this becomes a viable option economically I think the question of killing animals for meat is an ethical question that is valid.

As for the deer issue, those things are vermin. They have exceeded their carrying capacity and are eating other animals out of their habitats. In some areas they have grown so plentiful that they are starting to starve. Why not a kill a couple and eat them?

Even as a vegetarian, I agree. I'd much rather have people hunt deer than keep animals in captivity knee-deep in shit.