Would you like to be eaten?
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: Martin Willett on 26 Dec 2005 11:45 Dave wrote: > Martin Willett wrote: > >>Dave 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 strikes me you simply haven't got an answer >>>>to the points I made. >>>> >>>>I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely one >>>>of them. What was incorrect? >>>> >>>>Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to be >>>>eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance? Do you think I *couldn't* >>>>find evidence of such an argument being deployed if I could be arsed to >>>>do so? >>> >>> >>>You probably could but "I don't eat meat in case it causes me to be >>>eaten >>>by an alien" is a misrepresentation of the argument. >> >>I would say it was an instructive re-interpretation of the argument that >>shows how truly fatuous the idea is. Veg*ns will often use the "how >>would you like it if somebody ate you?" line of reasoning (well, they >>think it's reasoning) without going on to flesh out the ramifications of >>the argument. It is an argument by ellipses. You float the idea half >>finished, let it trail in the air, and hope the other person will flesh >>it out in a way that convinces them that you had a point. >> >>Sorry about all the flesh in that paragraph, I can be such a meathead at >>times. >> >>So what does the argument actually mean? It is clearly not a recipe to >>avoid being eaten by aliens as I have shown. > > > Yes. You have shown that the argument is not a recipe for avoiding > something it was never intended to avoid in the first place. Well done. > :-) > Does this mean nobody will ever use the "what would you think if something tried to eat you?" line again? I doubt it somehow. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org
From: Leif Erikson on 26 Dec 2005 12:52 Martin Willett wrote: > 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. No, the ultimate responsibility for the conditions animals are raised in lies squarely with the consumer. If consumers demanded - and were willing to pay the extra cost for - free range chickens and grass fed beef and pork from hogs raised in velvet-lined stalls, that's what would be produced. Most consumers, at least in America, just want the food to be cheap and reasonably healthful (Americans don't particularly care about flavor); they are oblivious to the conditions in which the animals are raised and transported and slaughtered, because they just don't care. It is indeed possible to raise animals that have a good life, at least good as we conceive of it for them, but that *still* doesn't mean that it's better for animals raised humanely to have existed rather than never existing. There is NO moral meaning, to the animal, from "getting to exist". > > 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. So you permit yourself to eat human infants, as well as adults who have suffered major head trauma or who suffer from severe mental illness?
From: Leif Erikson on 26 Dec 2005 13:14 Martin Willett 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"? Your question doesn't seem a reasonable response to the excerpt from The Logic of the Larder that Dutch posted. > > Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin? How about you?
From: Martin Willett on 26 Dec 2005 15:01 S. Maizlich wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>> <snips> >> >> 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. Thanks. I can digest that steak pie in peace now. It doesn't matter if the animal lives or doesn't, and if it lives it will die no matter whether it was caused to live or just happened to live. What matters is whether it lives or dies in avoidable suffering. As long as human animal husbandry does not impose more stress or suffering on an animal than it would be expected to experience in a life unaffected by humanity then we have done nothing to be ashamed of. I am quite confident that good animal husbandry can and often does meet that test. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org
From: S. Maizlich on 26 Dec 2005 15:34
Martin Willett wrote: > S. Maizlich wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>>>> > <snips> > >>> >>> 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. > > > Thanks. I can digest that steak pie in peace now. > > It doesn't matter if the animal lives or doesn't, Right. But it's especially important to understand that rationalizing one's meat consumption on the basis that "at least" the animal got to live is a nasty sophistry. Not only that, it's needless: no such rationalization is necessary. To me, the biggest problem with such rationalization and sophistry is it's attempting to play the "vegans'" game on their terms, and as their entire ethical motivation for playing the game in the first place is morally disgusting, it puts one in an ethical swamp where one needn't have gone in the first place. The Logic of the Larder when advanced by meat eaters as a rationale for their meat eating always has an unserious quality to it; as if those who advance it really are just trying to pull a rhetorical trick, a fast one, on their "vegan" opponents. > and if it lives it > will die no matter whether it was caused to live or just happened to > live. What matters is whether it lives or dies in avoidable suffering. > As long as human animal husbandry does not impose more stress or > suffering on an animal than it would be expected to experience in a life > unaffected by humanity then we have done nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not even sure this last is a requirement, simply because the animals we raise domestically for our consumption never *would* exist unaffected by humanity. All that's needed is good-faith effort to keep the amount of suffering low, and always to be seeking ways to reduce it further. > I am quite confident that good animal husbandry can and often does > meet that test. Of course it does. |