Hunting Ban Free Vote In The Commons

[P.K.]

Credente/Ruger - can you answer the basic question - why should we not apply the same moral views to the lives of animals as we do tot he lives of human beings? After all, we are but another type of animal.

 

So what's your answer?

[Evil Goblin]

I do not have a hard and fast answer with which I feel comfortable, PK, which is why I'm asking others for their considered opinions. Starting from first principles i.e. that humans are just another type of animal but, unlike most other species, are cursed with consciences and the holding of views as to what we should and shouldn't do, it seems that for us to treat non-human animals differently from humans requires some justification. I'm looking for such justification.

[P.K.]

We are not just another animal. For a start we are the planet's top predator and being head of the food chain in effect means we are responsible for it. No other animal is. Also we can rationalise which you have to be able to do to have morals. Because in the main they are driven by instinct animals have no use for rationalisation hence the old "fox in a henhouse" cliche. We take only what we need, well, we should anyway.

 

Also history is littered with man's inhumanity to man. So we CAN treat our own kind the same way we treat non-human animals. Which is how humankind is trying to exterminate species Variola without the slightest hesitation or remorse.

 

Basically as top predator we only have to look to ourselves for justification for the way we behave. A privileged few....

[Chinahand]

EG, I think you've got to be very careful assuming that you can create a set of principles with which to rigidly conduct your life. Life is simply too complex to be able to do that - principles will sometimes be helpful, other times not and distinguishing between these two instances is difficult!

 

You can go for the Kierkegaard approach – faith requires that faith remains even in the face of the impossible, and humans have the capacity to simultaneously believe contradictory principles. The contradictions are what makes us vital and essential and provide the moral imperative – we must strive for the impossible!

 

I think there is something in that which is worthy of debate, but hoping for an ideal where humanity and animals live in peaceful harmony is so far removed from the reality of our lives as to be basically useless.

 

EG - you regularly say that having a concsience is a curse - something which I think plays into your religiosity - it is also, I believe, an advantage - and its advantages out weigh the pangs of guilt!

 

We wonder what is for the best and attempt to do it, and at the same time justify what we do to others and ourselves - with all the self serving that involves, but that is the process by which humanity learns - and for all our failures I think we have learnt some useful things.

 

Certainly we use people, animals, plants and ecosystems - killing and exploiting in the process. I do not think it is possible to create any clear lines in that list to say one set of uses is ok and another not.

 

Killing a cow ends an ions long chain of life, but so does eating a carrot. Providing an animal a rich and predator free environment and then painlessly ending its life produces no suffering. I don't think you can simply claim that it is morally better to have never let that animal exist and to have filled its environment with say a peanut plantation.

 

Aspiring for a vegetarian humanity which never exploits an animal is a pipe dream. Given our current reality I think we would be more enriched by learning how to better undertake our husbandry.

 

Modern farming is often cruel and unsustainable - but that is how we are able to afford to feed our 6 billion mouths.

 

Fewer people, better farming, choices - they are fine aspirations, but I am not convinced that sustainably husbanding animals for their meat is automatically morally wrong.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

We are not just another animal. For a start we are the planet's top predator and being head of the food chain in effect means we are responsible for it.

This is and the last sentence all just seems like circular reasoning. We eat meat (Top Predators) = Eating Meat is Ok = Because we are the top predators.

 

No other animal is. Also we can rationalise which you have to be able to do to have morals. Because in the main they are driven by instinct animals have no use for rationalisation hence the old "fox in a henhouse" cliche. We take only what we need, well, we should anyway.

I don't know why you keep returning the fact that animals don't have morals. Are you trying to make comparisons with ourselves, who do not eat meat out of instinct? And we certainly don't eat meat out of need.

 

Also history is littered with man's inhumanity to man. So we CAN treat our own kind the same way we treat non-human animals. Which is how humankind is trying to exterminate species Variola without the slightest hesitation or remorse.

If you believe ALL life is sacred or of the same extremely high value then yes, it would be wrong to eliminate smallpox. But we don't and therefore isn't wrong to wipe out smallpox. But where is the connection to the treatment of animals that we are discussing here?

 

Basically as top predator we only have to look to ourselves for justification for the way we behave. A privileged few....

Again, circular reasoning.

[P.K.]

We are not just another animal. For a start we are the planet's top predator and being head of the food chain in effect means we are responsible for it.

This is and the last sentence all just seems like circular reasoning. We eat meat (Top Predators) = Eating Meat is Ok = Because we are the top predators.

 

It's not circular reasoning. We are designed as omnivores, simple as. Now some folks choose not to eat meat which is fine for them. I choose to eat meat because I like it which is fine for me. Yes we don't actually HAVE to eat meat i.e. we can survive without it but many, like myself, choose to and I'm very relaxed about killing animals for food.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Chinahand - I can see you are having a sole dialogue with Evilgoblin, but I think you are creating straw men when you give mention of living with animals in harmony.

And would point out that the issue with killing animals for meat is not one of determining suffering. But yes, I would agree, where there is suffering it must be stopped.

The particular objection to killing animals IS the utilitarian one, i.e. which is more important and where is more happiness found, allowing an animal to continue to live its life (and feeling happiness) or the short term happiness you enjoy from chewing on its flesh?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It's not circular reasoning. We are designed as omnivores, simple as. Now some folks choose not to eat meat which is fine for them. I choose to eat meat because I like it which is fine for me. Yes we don't actually HAVE to eat meat i.e. we can survive without it but many, like myself, choose to and I'm very relaxed about killing animals for food.

Yeah it is circular and I have explained how. I don't know what you mean by 'designed as omnivores'. I don't think we were designed. Nor is there any sign of being designed as omnivores.

You haven't yet presented an argument that moves past "I eat meat, I like it, so it is ok".

[manxy]

The particular objection to killing animals IS the utilitarian one, i.e. which is more important and where is more happiness found, allowing an animal to continue to live its life (and feeling happiness) or the short term happiness you enjoy from chewing on its flesh?

This raises up a couple of interesting areas.

(a) The personal enjoyment of eating something that tastes good, whether it be from the land or the sea.

and

(b) Knowing that it was killed to be eaten, but is eaten anyway, regardless of how it dies.

 

Before I start, I admit that I eat meat as also fish. I enjoy the different tastes that can be achieved by using various herbs etc, but I also admit that I've blocked out my feelings in the way it has died, so that my personal taste of the food is therefore enjoyed.

 

If one thinks or sees how an animal dies, then this may turn a person off the food and the enjoyment of taste is lost over personal feelings towards the animal.

Moving that up a notch; if one doesn't mind how an animal dies as they're just an animal and possibly doesn't have deep thoughts or feelings, then what if it was a human?

[credente]

The particular objection to killing animals IS the utilitarian one, i.e. which is more important and where is more happiness found, allowing an animal to continue to live its life (and feeling happiness) or the short term happiness you enjoy from chewing on its flesh?

Unsure whether you mean the somewhat crude form of utilitarianism as espoused by Bentham or the much more humane developments of John Dtuart Mill - or even the 'negative utilitarianism' of Karl Popper?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The first two will do.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

This raises up a couple of interesting areas.

(a) The personal enjoyment of eating something that tastes good, whether it be from the land or the sea.

and

(b) Knowing that it was killed to be eaten, but is eaten anyway, regardless of how it dies.

 

Before I start, I admit that I eat meat as also fish. I enjoy the different tastes that can be achieved by using various herbs etc, but I also admit that I've blocked out my feelings in the way it has died, so that my personal taste of the food is therefore enjoyed.

 

If one thinks or sees how an animal dies, then this may turn a person off the food and the enjoyment of taste is lost over personal feelings towards the animal.

Moving that up a notch; if one doesn't mind how an animal dies as they're just an animal and possibly doesn't have deep thoughts or feelings, then what if it was a human?

You are talking about HOW something dies, which is very important, as no animal should suffer in the least just for the sake of satisfying our taste buds for flesh and milk. But WHY the animal must die is what I am talking about.

[P.K.]

Yeah it is circular and I have explained how. I don't know what you mean by 'designed as omnivores'. I don't think we were designed. Nor is there any sign of being designed as omnivores.

You haven't yet presented an argument that moves past "I eat meat, I like it, so it is ok".

 

Your physiology is the key. Like it or not you have omniverous teeth.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Teeth? I presume you want to argue that our canines show that we have evolved to eat meat. Some animals have large canines and don't eat meat. Gorillas don't eat meat. Nevertheless, it is possible that our teeth developed for the need to eat meat. Though it could be quite possible they were used for pulling apart other tough food stuffs.

In term of physiology, however, as mentioned (earlier in this thread that I don't think you read enough) meat is composed of protein that breaks down into amino acids that are not in the best proportion for our dietary needs.

Moreover, from what I have read, our intestines are not best suited for meat eating.

 

But all of this is quite irrelevant. Even if our physiology demonstrated a history of eating, it doesn't demonstrate a need. You haven't addressed my points about why I think we should not eat meat.

[P.K.]

Even if our physiology demonstrated a history of eating, it doesn't demonstrate a need.

 

I have a need to eat meat in that I love BBQ's. That's all the justification I require thanks.