Animal Slavery

[Fromper]

Wish I'd noticed this thread days ago. I would have participated along the way. Now I'm forced to multi-quote the hell out of it. Sorry in advance for the long post.

I do justify animal slavery because of mental capacity.

But then I only really use chickens and fish as slaves personally.

I hate the use of animals in the circus, I avoid eating beef and pork.

When a chicken dies I have less sympathy for it because I doubt the chicken is thinking

oh no I'm about to die and I haven't even completed my bucketlist yet

I doubt the chicken is even thinking anything that a human could relate to in consciousness it has the brain the size of a tip of a thumb.

And I'd just like to add that even though this is the case I still buy free range eggs as opposed to the normal ones because I think even animals with brains the size of thumb nails don't deserve to be treated like battery hens are.

Also I have owned cats and they live much longer safer comfier lives than those cats in the wild.

You've obviously never spent any time with birds. I used to have a pet cockatiel, much smaller than a chicken, with a brain smaller than a pea. He had a distinct personality, responded to his surroundings, recognized specific individuals, etc. He's the one who convinced me to go vegetarian.

Pet animals are a special case. They've been bred so long to BE pets, that to allow them to exist in any other capacity would represent a horrific violation of contract: "YOU will have your evolution controlled by us, WE will cuddle and feed you and take care of you in every way that we can imagine, since we've destroyed the natural viability of your species." You can't take a miniature poodle and set him "free." That would be retarded.

The same goes for large-uddered milk cows: they'd surely be unviable in nature because of the phenotypes we've imposed on them through selective breeding. Or pigs-- I don't think if you turned domesticated pigs loose in nature that they'd be anything but a snack for wolves or other natural predators.

That being said, the forced EXISTENCE of millions of animals in poor living conditions-- food animals whose lives are spent in enclosed spaces and then shortened by slaughter, for example-- is morally wrong in my opinion. One of the arguments for abortion is that it's wrong to bring a child into the world if you already know it is doomed to have a horrible life. I don't see any non-anthropocentric and -arbitrary reason why this same standard of preknowledge of suffering shouldn't mean we should not force the existence of those animals.

Well said. Even the most militant of vegans won't advocate taking pets away from good homes and setting them free in the wild. Those animals exist because of humanity, so we have a responsibility to give them good lives as long as they're here. But we shouldn't be breeding more of them. And really, forced breeding by humans is the reason that the animals we (as a species) "use" exist in such massive quantities.

Animals cannot be slaves, because 'slavery' specifically denotes human beings being held as property by other human beings (I think an earlier reply mentioned this, but I'm not sure and can't be arsed to scroll back and look for it).

If non-human organisms are to be classed as slaves, then we shouldn't stop at animals (either pets or agricultural). Why not plants? Clearly, the potted ficus in our sitting room is bemoaning its state of servile bondage. Clearly, it is just a matter of time until this plant, tired of the situation, makes a break for it.

I was digging in the garden a few days back (more enslaved plants, by the way). While I didn't see any, I'm sure that the soil round my house is positively teeming with protists. I've no doubt that at some point, they're going to organize, throw off the shackles which enslave, them, and rise up and demand their freedom from my oppressive tyranny.

Seriously? Did you flunk middle school biology?

Animals have brains and central nervous systems. They feel fear, pain, and have a desire to live.

Plants don't.

Now for Part II:

We do as we please with animals. Some we kill. Some we imprison and use for our purposes. Some we show favor to. Some we ignore. We do this merely because we can, or we justify it by our greater mental capacity.

How, then, do we justify criticism of God for his treatment of us? Cannot he use the same justifications that we use regarding animals?

That pretty much sums up my agreement with vegan ethics and my reason for being glad the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible doesn't exist all in one short post. Good job.

If biological factors are not sufficient to justify an action as moral, then they're not necessary for this discussion, which regards justifications.

Actually, you haven't gotten to justifications yet. You need to show first that animal suffering and animals generally have moral significance. If they don't, no justification is necessary. That's where the evolutionary argument comes from, from arguments with vegetarians and animal rights advocates who mount an argument from ignorance that a moral division between how we treat animals and how we treat humans cannot be made. My argument shows that it can be made, so the advocate is put in the position of bearing the burden of proving that the lives of animals has moral significance. So far, I haven't seen anyone adequately shoulder that burden. Until they do, the default assumption is that a thing, a rock, a stick, or a chicken, does not have moral significance, and so no justification is needed.

You know, I originally tried to multi-quote a bunch of the posts in the argument about evolution as a consideration in ethics, but got lost in the details. This last post that I'm quoting is really the only one I feel the need to respond to at the end of that whole line.

Again, animals feel fear, pain, and a desire to survive. How can it ever be moral to cause pain to anyone or anything? To kill something that wants to live?

To me, the primary basis for all morality is the golden rule. I don't want to be hurt or killed, so it's immoral to do that to anyone or anything else. I'll admit that I suck at philosophy debates, but I think this is a good enough reason to ignore your entire debate about whether or not evolution should play a part in ethics.