Animal rights, veganism and PETA

[Shell B]

It took a Civil War to undo that particular outlook.

I'm not ready to load up my musket to fight for chickens.

There could be something on a smaller scale, like laws regulating how much space a chicken must have.

I think the real problem is that meat eaters who would have considered such a thing before are now unwilling to argue (however minimally) for the rights of chickens because they don't want to be lumped in with those PETA assholes. To be honest, every one of them makes me feel like cooking a roast out of spite.

[theVOID]

I have a hard time believing that a factory-farmed chicken leads a better life than a wild turkey or grouse or whatever. Living in a cage with just enough room to open it's wings and turn around is not a good life. Just because it is fed on a regular basis and gets antibiotics doesn't mean it has a better quality of life. A chicken that runs free but dies in the jaws of a coyote or from some brutal disease is leagues ahead of a prisoner chicken is pumped full of nutrients and medicine in a box.

That said, chickens are awful, stupid creatures who are good for nothing but eating. I just think there's a distinction to be made for their "quality of life" in comparison to similar creatures living a free-range or wild existence.

That's why you need to discount battery (factory) farming, it would be the same as saying that a tortured slave has a better quality of life than a surfer who dies from gangreen

I don't think chickens have any consciousness, at least it's heavily suggested by data.

[Minimalist]

Shell....even more to the point, they do not want to see the extra cost showing up in the price they pay.

In any crime...follow the money.

[Shell B]

Yeah, you're probably right about that, Min.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Like I give a shit anyway, but I think I have a pretty good argument for eating meat that trumps all the vegan pussies.

Eating meat is ethical.

1. Excluding battery farming, farmed animals have amongst the highest quality lives of all animals including wild animals.
2. Eating meat increases the demand for farmed animals.
3. A demand for farmed animals increases the supply of animals
4. A higher supply of animals living better lives increases the mean quality of life for animals.
5. An increase in the quality of life for any being(s) is ethical so long as it is not of a greater expense to other beings.
6. Farming animals is ethical, it increases the quality of life for humans and animals.

PETA are unethical.

7. Preventing an ethical action is unethical.
8. PETA prevent ethical actions.
9. PETA are unethical.

*1: Farmed animals die in a painless way after a longer than average life, this is superior to a shorter average life ending through being prey, starvation or disease.

My problems with this are threefold. Firstly, as DvF has pointed out, consciousness is not shared, so the concept of a mean amount of pain is incoherent. Furthermore, it would justify creating a small slave class whose members were hideously tortured, if everyone else were sadistic enough that the mean pleasure of society was increased.

Secondly, most animals in the Western world, certainly to my knowledge, are treated unethically: chickens, even the allegedly free range, are often battery farmed.

Thirdly, this presupposes that there is nothing wrong with even painless killing from a utilitarian point of view. If, however, some animals are capable of planning for the future and fearing their own death (and I'd suggest that some are), is it not wrong to kill them, as their desires are thus thwarted?

---

When the "quality of life" of fucking chickens gets into the discussion things have gone too far!

Why? I'm sure some slave-owners would've said that of black people three hundred years ago.

I don't think chickens have any consciousness, at least it's heavily suggested by data.

What data is this? They can certainly feel pain (well, as certainly as we can know that anyone else does).

[Edwardo Piet]

Suffering requires both bodily pain and sentience. So even if chickens' bodies react AS IF they feel pain, if they are not sentient they don't actually feel it or suffer.

I am not aware of such data myself and I'm not particularly interested in it either. There's so much suffering going on in the world anyway I don't really know where to start.

As soon as I get some money to spend I'd like to give to charity (and I'd also like some money to save so I can give more in future).

And if I wasn't on Lithium (a toxic mood stabilizer) I'd love to give blood.

EDIT: This is my 7600th forum post. Proof I have no life.

This place is my social life, I couldn't go for two months without it.

Although, if I was ever actually banned for real, I'd get over it.

---

Firstly, as DvF has pointed out, consciousness is not shared, so the concept of a mean amount of pain is incoherent.

I'm glad you appreciate that point. It also makes the concept of aggregate pain incoherent for the same reason.

I say that every individual matters, and every individual matters equally by default. But once we are actually born we are not born into equal circumstances and situations and some of us suffer more than others. And I say, focusing on the individuals that suffer most FIRST, makes sense. Once they're out of the way, focus on the individuals that suffer less and less, and then, lastly, focus on perfecting happiness.

The other issue is of course what is possible to do. It's no good striving to help those beyond help. "Ought" implies "can".

I am certainly a Consequentalist but I'm also certainly no longer a Utilitarian.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Suffering requires both bodily pain and sentience. So even if chickens' bodies react AS IF they feel pain, if they are not sentient they don't actually feel it or suffer.

You could say the same of other people. You can never know for sure that they have any inner mental life. But we all agree that they do.
I am not aware of such data myself and I'm not particularly interested in it either. There's so much suffering going on in the world anyway I don't really know where to start.

And if I wasn't on Lithium (a toxic mood stabilizer) I'd love to give blood.

Once I turn 18, I'll probably give blood? Also, are you an organ donor? That way, you can be useful even in death.

EDIT: This is my 7600th forum post. Proof I have no life.

But this forum's much the better for it.

I'm glad you appreciate that point. It also makes the concept of aggregate pain incoherent for the same reason.

Mean pain presupposes aggregate pain, because it suggests that pain units can be added together to find a 'mean'.

I say that every individual matters, and every individual matters equally by default. But once we are actually born we are not born into equal circumstances and situations and some of us suffer more than others. And I say, focusing on the individuals that suffer most FIRST, makes sense. Once they're out of the way, focus on the individuals that suffer less and less, and then, lastly, focus on perfecting happiness.

Negative consequentialism rules, I agree.

The other issue is of course what is possible to do. It's no good striving to help those beyond help. "Ought" implies "can".

Indeed, as Kant said.

[Edwardo Piet]

You could say the same of other people. You can never know for sure that they have any inner mental life.

Very true. I am only aware of my own conciousness: So I only KNOW my own consciousness.

But I don't use deduction to (pragmatically) justify my belief in the consciousness of others. I use induction. Since I'm conscious and I'm, mostly, very like other people and have a brain like other people, and since when my brain is affected my consciousness is affected.... there's inductive reasoning leading me to believe the same is true for others like me.

So, if the data shows that chickens' brains are closer to human sophistication (and so also closer to me) I will be much more likely to believe that they are sentient (like I believe I and other humans are). If the data shows that chicken's brains are not so close to humans, I'll be less likely to believe it.

And yes, I can't know for sure. Which is why it's a risky business and why if I was only 50/50 I'd prefer to assume they had sentience.

I personally haven't seen the data the VOID has, and as I've said: I'm not that bothered. There's so much suffering in this world that I can only do a small part in helping anyway. I will do what I can when I can do it.

Once I turn 18, I'll probably give blood? Also, are you an organ donor? That way, you can be useful even in death.

Good idea. That didn't occur to me, I didn't think of signing up for that already. Others may find it kind of silly of me since I'm only 22 lol. But yeah I'd love to donate all my organs....

But this forum's much the better for it.

Thank you! lol

Mean pain presupposes aggregate pain, because it suggests that pain units can be added together to find a 'mean'.

Yes of course, sorry. By aggregate I was referring to a total aggregate as opposed to a mean one

All forms of utilitarian aggregation (and therefore, all forms of utilitarianism since it uses aggregation) are inaccurate because consciousness is separate

Negative consequentialism rules, I agree.

Indeed, as Kant said.

Well there's a matter I agree with him on ethically. I'm a consequentalist though hehe.

[Minimalist]

Why? I'm sure some slave-owners would've said that of black people three hundred years ago.

No doubt, but I'm not ready to equate the rights of people with chickens.

[Autumnlicious]

Why? I'm sure some slave-owners would've said that of black people three hundred years ago.

You really piss me off, and no doubt countless others, when you compare motherfucking human beings to goddamn chickens.

Reminds me of the time PETA advertised images of the holocaust death camps next to factory farms for chickens.