manxy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 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. Certainly in the past, an animal was a necessity, where you cold obtain milk or eggs and when times got hard, the animal was killed for it's meat and it's hide wool or fur made into clothing or protection of one sort of another.I saw this site regards the slaughter of animals which explains a little further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Manxy, I read the linked site with interest. I did sense that it was coming from a campaigning perspective, though, rather than just a scholarly one. I find Dr Temple Grandin's site informative, and objective She is one of the acknowledged world authorities on stock handling and slaughter, and well worth reading for those that want to be informed on this subject. http://www.grandin.com/humane/rec.slaughter.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 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. I would agree that most other animals behave purely as their nature causes, without any concept of "shoulds" "and should nots'" But we have consciences, which sets us apart from most other animals. We do have concepts of what we should and shouldn't do, irrespective of whether we can do it or not. 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. We certainly can find plenty of cases of Man's inhumanity to Man but most people seem to think that we should treat other humans in a humane fashion. Should we not extend the same to other animals, which are our kin? I don't have any problems about doing away with the likes of smallpox - I doubt that it can have any experience of suffering in the way animals can. Basically as top predator we only have to look to ourselves for justification for the way we behave. A privileged few.... This is just the totally amoral argument that "we do it because we can". I would find that a very difficult argument to sustain on moral grounds - it also seems to demean humans, supposedly the most advanced of animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 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! I agree that it is probably impossible to create a set of principles which can be rigidly applied - what is appropriate in some given circumstances may involve going against at least the general thrust of a principle. I believe, however, that we should be able to create a set of general principles which we can normally apply to life situations, even if "doing the right thing" sometimes involves breaking those general rules. 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. Certainly the lion will never lie down with the lamb but I'm not sure that the idea of "peaceful harmony" is useful in this debate. Where other animals live in harmony with each other it;s generally because they all benefit from each other's presence in some way or at least do not have any causes of conflict. They behave in accordance with their natures whereas we humans (and it seems other apes) have not only the capacity but also a tendency to rise above our pure animal natures. We are therefore seeking to find a way of behaving which accords with our higher natures. 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! I don't think that you need to be of any religious bent to see conscience as a curse (humanists/atheists hold moral views, not just the religious) - it is our consciences with ideas of right and wrong, should and shouldn't, which are the cause of (probably) most of our troubles and agonising whilst at the same time they are one of humanity's distinctive characteristics. I don't doubt that our ideas of right and wrong sometimes confer advantages on us, most especially in getting along with each other in societies. Perhaps "Original Sin" is the development of consciences for which we are punished by our ability to feel guilty! 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. Most animals use and exploit each other and we are no different. It is the ways and methods in which we do these things which are in question. I think we should be able to develop general guidelines as to which uses we should not put animals to and which methods are unacceptable. 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. I agree with you here, China, although I don't think LDV will! 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. Calling LDV to the thread! Modern farming is often cruel and unsustainable - but that is how we are able to afford to feed our 6 billion mouths. But does it need to be cruel and unsustainable? I don't believe it needs to be so, even to feed our billions of mouths. I am not convinced that sustainably husbanding animals for their meat is automatically morally wrong. Neither am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Evilgoblin - In respect to points you have marked for me to address, I consider that I have explained my position well. I run over things AGAIN, but I would rather have my posts re-read first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Yes, LDV, I know you have explained your views very clearly and I can respect them. My comment to Chinahand was just a bit of very mild trolling in case you were in an argumentative mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 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. I would agree that most other animals behave purely as their nature causes, without any concept of "shoulds" "and should nots'" But we have consciences, which sets us apart from most other animals. We do have concepts of what we should and shouldn't do, irrespective of whether we can do it or not. We have instincts as well. We react to them usually without any concept of "shoulds" "and should nots" simply because there isn't usually enough time. And our instincts are very different from animals in one quite genetically crucial area which really does set us apart. A female wolf will protect her cubs from attack. A male wolf will protect both female and cubs from attack. This is surprisingly rare but makes genetic sense to those taking part. Our nearest relative is the chimpanzee with over 99% of our dna. Chimps will invade other chimp territory, a sort of simian lebensraum if you like, and take over the area and the females. They do this by a group attacking and killing the other males - but singularly. Because all the other males of the group being attacked will simply flee. There is not a single recorded account of those being attacked going to the aid of the unfortunate victim and defending themselves as a group. Now we are not so clever. Groups of males, typically soldiers in combat which is where it is most readily demonstrated, will stand together, fight together and likely die together. Unlike chimps if a comrade is in trouble the others will instinctively rush to try and save them without a single thought for themselves. Now genetically this is stupid. If you sacrifice yourself for a comrade you are excluding yourself from the gene pool and giving a better chance to the others of passing on their dna! It's not down to training or conditioning either, as George Cross winners well know. The big, big, big surprise in all this is as we humans display this kind of behaviour how is it we haven't managed with our own genetic stupidity to simply eradicate traits like courage, sacrifice, altruism and so forth from our gene pool? I'm not aware that anyone knows the answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I really don't know how your post links in with what has been discussed. But what makes you think that these traits shown in chimpanzees and humans are not so clever? I think of good reasons why such behaviours have a use. Have you ever read Peter Kropotkin's book 'Mutual Aid'? What makes you think that they are wholly genetic in their causes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.