Would you like to be eaten?
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: S. Maizlich on 25 Dec 2005 15:19 Martin Willett wrote: > ant and dec wrote: > >> Martin Willett wrote: >> >>> ant and dec wrote: >>> >>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>> >>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm >>>>>>> posted by the author >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the >>>>>> consumption of meat. >>>>>> >>>>>> A troll. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How do you make that out? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It was wrong. It is a diatribe. Humour is often used as a mollifying >>>> device for mental conflict, perhaps caused by your recognition of >>>> your own hypocrisy. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat >>> anything smarter than a pig, >> >> >> >> How convenient for you, and inconvenient for the pig. Why have you >> drawn this seemingly arbitrary line at pigs? >> >> unless I really have to. Fortunately that rule >> >>> doesn't restrict my diet very much. I have a lot of respect for the >>> intelligence of pigs. >> >> >> >> But not much respect for the pig? > > > If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most > of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die > than not to. No, that's illogical thinking. When you compare two things, the things must exist in order for the comparison to make sense. It is patently absurd to say that existing (no matter what the quality of life) is better than never existing. What does it mean for something to be "better" for some entity? It means that the entity either must perceive itself to be, or objectively seen by others as being, better off THAN IT WAS BEFORE. That is, the entity's welfare must have *improved* from what it was before. But prior to existing, there was no entity, and so there was no welfare of the entity. Thus, we see that is is plainly absurd to talk about existence, per se, making the entity "better off". Existence is what establishes an entity's welfare; it does *not* improve it. This false belief that it is better to exist than never to exist leads to an infamous bit of illogic called the Logic of the Larder, taken from the title of a famous essay on this very topic. It leads someone to conclude that he is doing a domestic animal he kills and eats some kind of "favor" by causing it to exist. But the person who wishes to eat meat cannot justify his meat eating by saying he made the animal better off by having caused it to exist. It is obvious that a person who attempts to engage in this illogic harbors some kind of doubts over the ethical justice of eating meat, and is frantically trying to rationalize his diet by making some aspect of it seem "other-directed". But it's a dead end. > Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, > so don't bother pointing it out. No, the qualifier is irrelevant. It is the *entire* concept that is flawed. > > Death is unavoidable, humane slaughter is not the worst death a pig > could face, very few wild pigs die in hospices surrounded by their > loving families with large quantities of euphoria-inducing pain-killers. And therein lies the *correct* justification for eating meat: there is nothing inherently wrong with killing an animal. Predators do it all the time, and there is no moral dimension to their doing it. As long as one isn't intentionally inflicting needless suffering on animals, no rationale for the basic act of killing them to eat them is needed.
From: Leif Erikson on 25 Dec 2005 15:21 dh@. wrote: > On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> wrote: > > >>"Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote >> >>>ant and dec wrote: >> >>>>But not much respect for the pig? >>> >>>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most >>>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die >>>than not to. >>> >>>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so >>>don't bother pointing it out. >> >>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to >>now, but > > > Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent > or superior to the elimination of domestic animals, No. There is no moral credit to be taken for causing domestic animals to exist. The animals are in no way "better off" for having come into existence. > >>that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not* >>living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is >>called "The Logic of the Larder" > > > Other than YOU/"ARAs", who else calls considering farm animals' lives > The Logic of the Larder? Everyone who thinks about it seriously and correctly. >>and there is one fruitcake here who has >>already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea. > > > It's just something I've been doing because Because you stupidly subscribe to the Illogic of the Larder. > >>http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf >>There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter. >>The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to >>compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence >>may feel that he >>would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of >>existence to argue >>from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the >>non-existent, he talks >>nonsense,
From: Dutch on 25 Dec 2005 15:38 "ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> wrote > Martin Willett wrote: >>>> I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat >>>> anything smarter than a pig, >>> >>> >>> How convenient for you, and inconvenient for the pig. Why have you drawn >>> this seemingly arbitrary line at pigs? > > I'd like you to answer this point. We all draw the line somewhere. Why do you believe that it is all right to destroy animal populations in order to grow vegetables, fruit, grain, cotton..? [..] >> Death is unavoidable, humane slaughter is not the worst death a pig could >> face, very few wild pigs die in hospices surrounded by their loving >> families with large quantities of euphoria-inducing pain-killers. > > This line of thinking is very often pulled apart as being complete BS. by > both camps. I see some have already pointed this out. Why is it complete BS? When animals die in crop fields they are often cruelly dismembered or else are poisoned and die slowly of internal hemorrhaging. Why is that all right and a bolt through the brain is not? [..] > I think you're blurring the realms of hypothesis and reality under the > pretense of a "joke". I think you are blurring human rights and our relationship with the rest of the animal kingdom under the pretense of "morality". [..] > You claim to observe this moral superiority, yet you can't give any > examples? I think it's a figment of your imagination. You are in denial. Every time a veg*n announces that they don't eat meat, wrinkle their nose sanctimoniously at a piece of meat, agonize rudely about some microscopic bit of animal cells in some condiment, refer to statements like "Meat is Murder", or bring up issues like "slaughterhouses" or "factory farming" in discussion, they are implicitly setting themselves up as moral paragons. In fact another way vegans describe themselves is "Ethical Vegetarians". If you are "ethical" then what am I? [..] > If mankind >> was herbivorous we'd never have become intelligent and socially >> cooperative, we'd just be living like gorillas. Like it or not meat was >> a vital part of what has made us human. But of course a was doesn't make >> an ought. > > I agree meat was an important part of out human evolution. You and I are > fortunate to have a choice of what we eat. Perhaps more should think about > their choices, in particular what impact those choices have, rather than > blindly follow customs and practice. The practise of abstaining from all animal products in food is no less blindly following custom than any other choice. Perhaps vegetarians should spend more time look closely at the impact of their own food choices instead of just peering self-righteously at the choices others make.
From: Jeff Caird on 25 Dec 2005 22:48 On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 04:29:05 -0000, Jeff Caird <professor.jc(a)knox.edu> wrote: > >>On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote: >>> How about rishathra? >>> >> >>Is that from Ringworld? >> >>Feffer > > Yes. I wondered if anyone was familiar with that. I just > found out yesterday they were going to make a movie > a few years ago, but it didn't work out for some reason > dammit. Just as well. Did you see what they did with Riverworld? Feffy
From: Martin Willett on 26 Dec 2005 04:47
Dutch wrote: > "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote > >> Dutch wrote: >> >>> "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote >>> >>> >>>> ant and dec wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> But not much respect for the pig? >>>> >>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As >>>> long as most of their life is happy and content it must surely >>>> better to live and die than not to. >>>> >>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put >>>> it there, so don't bother pointing it out. >>> >>> >>> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have >>> said up to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living >>> and dying to *not* living, since never being born, never existing >>> is not a real state. This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and >>> there is one fruitcake here who has already replied to you who >>> makes it his life's work to promote this idea. >>> >>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf There, in >>> brief, is the key to the whole matter. The fallacy lies in the >>> confusion of thought which attempts to compare existence with >>> non-existence. A person who is already in existence may feel that >>> he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the >>> terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to >>> argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks >>> nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, >>> of that of which we can predicate nothing. >>> >>> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely >>> express it, "into the world," we cannot claim from that being any >>> gratitude for our action, or drive a bargain with him, and a very >>> shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded >>> by any such quibble, in which the wish is so obviously father to >>> the thought. Nor, in this connection, is it necessary to enter on >>> the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence >>> there be, we have no reason for assuming that it is less happy >>> than the present existence; and thus equally the argument falls >>> to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed preexistence, >>> or non- existence, with actual individual life as known to us >>> here. All reasoning based on such comparison must necessarily be >>> false, and will lead to grotesque conclusions. >> >> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards >> to conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise >> you or do you work backwards from the practical policy stances you >> are most comfortable with and in the process discover what your >> principles "must have been"? > > > I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite capture > the essence of my argument here. In the current context you said > about livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than not to". > "Not to" implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's where > the fallacy lies. If such a state exists, then in order to call it > inferior to "living and dying" we must know something about it, and I > submit that we don't. If it doesn't exist then the statement cannot > logically be made. As the author above says, we make such statements > with "the terra firma of existence to argue from", and a very > pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can* say something quite > similar to your statement to summarize the morality of breeding > livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for us, and > we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no person can > fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am getting at? It > is the "ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that > contains the valid moral principle here. > From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, I have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I know that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel. It can become cruel if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to reduce the standards of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the banks and supermarket buyers that are determining how cruel farming is. I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just because some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I think drink driving is a terrible thing but I don't see how going teetotal myself and whingeing on about it to anybody who will listen (while making out that I'm not trying to portray myself as morally superior) is the best way to prevent it. If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should be addressed directly and I will have no problem in paying more for food as a consequence. >> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin? > > > I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty would > inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others. > > I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time > since someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address > these issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your > insights. > > > I like the cut of your jib. (In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the origin is nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.) I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better than the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has the same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as a hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or contribute to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that animal is clearly capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have given me explicit permission. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org |