Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[James2014]

Are you suggesting that animals deserve the SAME rights as humans?

No, there are many rights would make sense for an animal to have, e.g. the right to vote!

I tend to take a utilitarian approach, and we should have rights that support utilitarian ideas. To that end animals should have the right to be free from human cruelty.

---

When animals become vegan, I will become vegan. Until I see animals (especially carnivorous ones) reciprocate the same ideals to humans that you as a vegan espouse towards animals, I will continue to eat meat. The whole vegan philosophy appears to be that animals have the same rights as humans do and that we should afford them those rights. However if we were not the civilized society that we are, animals would just fuck us up on the daily. Here is the defining difference between humans and animals. I might not agree with veganism, but I understand the principles behind it. Animals will never understand what veganism is. Some might live a "vegan" lifestyle, but they have no conscious idea or reason as to why they do so, other than they just don't eat meat. You may value your life as equal to that of an animal, but an animal will never value your life as equal to its own.

So essentially you are using nature to justify your ethics?

[Jacob(smooth)]

[quote='Jacob(smooth)' pid='586640' dateline='1390151369']
Are you suggesting that animals deserve the SAME rights as humans?

No, there are many rights would make sense for an animal to have, e.g. the right to vote!

I tend to take a utilitarian approach, and we should have rights that support utilitarian ideas. To that end animals should have the right to be free from human cruelty.

So if there are carnivorous animals in captivity, what would you feed them on?

[Anomalocaris]

So essentially you are using nature to justify your ethics?

No, he is flicking off your self important assertion that he should embrace your morality, and asserting indirectly that his position do not require any moral justification.

[James2014]

Irrelevant.

Only those consideration for whom could, broadly speaking, plausibly result in tangible future benefit for humanity deserves consideration. Whether they are sentient or capable of reason is a mere crude rule of thumb for those who like to pretend to be moral but doesn't care to take the necessary trouble, and is quite immaterial in any more diligent analysis.

Any system of ethics which steps beyond those bounds - morality can not be justified by anything other than broad but tangible good of those holding the morality - will act to eventually defeat the reason why it might be advisable to be ethical in the first place. They nominally attempt to make the world a moral place but in reality act to gradually weeding out from the world those who would have cared to embrace that system of morality.

what does future benefit mean? I think most people would consider this to mean the reduction of suffering. Animals suffer, therefore they are also worth our consideration.

[Anomalocaris]

Most people who eat meat or would like to eat meat if given the option evidently do not.

Reduced suffering of nonhumans do not directly and tangibly benefit humanity. It only benefit those few who are so self important as to elevate their own queasiness to a level above the material benefit of humanity using the canard of "ethics".

[James2014]

No, he is flicking off your justification for you position, and asserting indirectly that his position to not require any justification.

Nope, the ability of animals to reason and hold values to be able to change their behaviour is irrelevant to my argument. Animal behaviour is amoral, humans however have a choices. All animals have to do to be worthy of our ethical consideration is to be able suffer.

He uses nature to justify his argument. its nonsense.

---

Most people who eat meat or would like to eat meat if given the option evidently do not.

Reduced suffering of nonhumans do not directly and tangibly benefit humanity. It only benefit those few who are so self important as to elevate their own queasiness to a level above the material benefit of humanity using the canard of "ethics".

No. it benefits the animals, as they can also suffer. If suffering has value, then it makes no sense to say that only human suffering matters, as both human and animal suffering are fundamentally of the same type.

[Anomalocaris]

No, he is flicking off your justification for you position, and asserting indirectly that his position to not require any justification.

Nope, the ability of animals to reason and hold values to be able to change their behaviour is irrelevant to my argument. Animal behaviour is amoral, humans however have a choices. All animals have to do to be worthy of our ethical consideration is to be able suffer.

He uses nature to justify his argument. its nonsense.

Baseless assertion.

Ultimately, the any value relevant to morality is the value to the welfare of the holder of morality. For humanity as the holder of morality welfare I would define as enhanced long term chances of survival.

No matter how much an animal suffers it is unworthy of my ethical consideration unless granting it ethical consideration tangibly strengthens humanity's long term chances of survival.

Humans have choice. But in this case every one we can make other than the only one he animals have to make is an unwarranted and ultimately self-defeating indulgence.

[James2014]

No, there are many rights would make sense for an animal to have, e.g. the right to vote!

I tend to take a utilitarian approach, and we should have rights that support utilitarian ideas. To that end animals should have the right to be free from human cruelty.

So if there are carnivorous animals in captivity, what would you feed them on?

I don't think we should keep carnivores in captivity.

---

No matter how much an animal suffers it is unworthy of my ethical consideration unless granting it ethical consideration tangibly strengthens humanity's long term chances of survival.

And why does our "long term chances of survival" matter. Because we are conscious feel beings, just like animals.

[Anomalocaris]

So if there are carnivorous animals in captivity, what would you feed them on?

I don't think we should keep carnivores in captivity.

---

No matter how much an animal suffers it is unworthy of my ethical consideration unless granting it ethical consideration tangibly strengthens humanity's long term chances of survival.

And why does our "long term chances of survival" matter. Because we are conscious feel beings, just like animals.

No, because I am we. I need to have absolutely no moral justification to rank our long term survival infinitely above any kind of welfare for anything else whatsoever.

Any system of morality which does not stop short of trying to ensnare this foundational reason d'être of any mode of behavior, including a tendency towards morality, is again ultimately self defeating.

It would be a virus that kills the host when the survival of the host is the necessary condition for furtherance of its own purported goals.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I don't think we should keep carnivores in captivity.

Not even if they would be endangered in the wild? Ok, fair nuff.

Try this one. I saw a puma savaging a baby, I would attempt to stop it. I suspect you would too. How, if we have similar rights, would you prevent carnivores from eating cute fluffy herbivores in the wild?

Put it another way. A gator finds its way into a city where it starts eating people. Is it ethical to kill it, or transplant it to the swamps where it will eat equally right'd animals?

---

[quote='jg2014' pid='586676' dateline='1390153077']


It would be a virus that kills the host.

Good point.

How about bacteria? Do they have rights? I mean they can't reason but we're not basing the rights on the ability to reason are we.