Religions which condone the killing of animals are immoral

Well first off, I think there is a huge difference between eating a disabled human being and eating a tuna fish sandwich, but that’s just my “morality.”
On the same note, I don’t think bringing in respect to differing races of the same species as a relative argument to impose that eating that same tuna fish sandwich is immoral, but again that is just my morality … however absurd someone wants to imply that is.

If someone wants to imply that they have some personal moral correlation for all animals with a nervous system, then that is all fine and dandy … for them; but it doesn’t phase me at all. I still think the approach that we should not eat entities based upon their nervous system is a whim of fancy due to egotism of our own consciousness.

Again, I don’t think correlation between our species (racism and eating disabled people) is an adequate argument of comparison between different species and eating habits. I really think it is just a step away from claiming that the is a moral obligation to not eat plants due to level of sensory adjustment plant life has or perhaps plants capacity to produce oxygen. Again, this morality is based on a whim of fancy using poor analogies that are irrelevant in my opinion. Eating a disabled person and a tunafish sandwich is not even close to being in the same ballpark.

While I agree that we may be bound to a morality in a subjective sense, I am certainly not bound to any type of morality that sees eating a tuna fish sandwich and disabled people as one in the same or racism from one human species to another being just as pertinent as [pick any “ism” you like] towards animals with nervous systems.

Apples and oranges in my opinion although I prefer the meat and potatoes.

To take this even further, it is my personal moral code to not kill anything “alive” unless I am going to eat it. I don’t kill any flies, spiders, or any insects; but rather trap them while they are alive and set them free outside. This is, however, a personal moral code.

Shame on me for eating a tunafish sandwich, but shame on you if you have ever “murdered” any insects out of disgust for the species.

Enigma

firstly, no i dont kill insects

Secondly, youi haven’t offered a response to my argument, you have just denied it. You say the analogy with racism is illegitimate, but again you don’t give any good argument why this is the case. Let us review my example. A severely disabled person may in every way measurable less aware, sentient, able to feel pain, communicate etc. If you still want to say that he deserves better treatment than, say, an orangatan, you have to argue why this is, in the light of the fact that he is inferior in every single way. To merely reply ‘because he’s human’ is to beg the question, and is the same reply of ‘because he’s black’ that the racist would give. Please, show me where the argument is deficient, give me one quality that all humans have, which no non-humans have.

To argue that something is ‘my personal code’ does not exempt you from criticism. The argument attempts to demonstrate inconsistencies in moral dealings, be they subjective or not. It boils down to this: if you think racism is wrong and speciesism isn’t, then either you have to demonstrate why exactly the analogy is in fact a disanalogy, or you have to accept that your moral code is inconsistent and contradictory.

I beg to differ. I did offer a response to your argument and rejected your argument. You and I are bound by an entirely different moral code. Just because you feel it is wrong to eat animals based upon a level of sentience which you base on a central nervous system, then that certainly doesn’t mean I have to adhere to that as well. Some Muslims believe we souldn’t eat pork because they are filthy animals, so does that me you and I have to adopt this same moral code and ignore our own? Not at all. I’m still going to eat pork because for my reasons and you still are not going to eat pork because you think a pig is at the same level as a handicapped person.

I’m certainly not claiming you have to succumb to my morality and eat meat. If you don’t want to for whatever reasons you have, then no big deal from my end. But if you want to classify me as some immoral being because I eat a tuna fish sandwich, then I can’t help to think you are being a bit extreme. Do I really have to rationalize eating another animal? I don’t think I have to. And you comparing tuna fish sandwiches to minorities, handicapped people, or orangantans doesn’t deter me one bit. Your morality doesn’t mean squat to me because I think there is a point in which we have to say “screw compassion” in order to survive. You have compassion for conscious animals? Good for you. I hope you don’t one day have the same compassion for plants. You are not going to live long.

To avoid this problem I specifically kept the question distinct from ‘what if you are on a desert island and you have to eat animals to survive’ question. We do not have to eat animals to survive. For the most part eating animals is extremely bad for us. Furthermore, the eating of animals contributes to famine due to the inefficiency of energy conversion. (See Marshall’s point)

This said, I am still unsure why you thing it is rational and coherent to draw a line between human and non-human animals, such that human animals are deservent of moral consideration. You said

This is a misunderstanding of my argument. My argument doesn’t rest on this. Instead it rests on the fact, independent of any physiological considerations, that severely disabled people are inferior in every measurable capacity to many animals. Given this, why would it be wrong for me to experiment on them or to kill them but not to experiment on a kill an animal?

You also say:

Again, I ask you why I am being extreme. I have given you arguments, none of which you have given me a good response to.

and

We move onto a bigger question here. Another presupposition of my argument was that it is preferable to be rational, and not to have inconsistencies in one’s belief system. You could just reject this an hold that it is quite acceptable to be irrational. If not, then offer me some reasons why it is acceptable to eat animals but not humans of inferior capabilities.

and

This is related to my last point. If it doesn’t deter you because you have a strong, rational response, then that’s fine. If it doesn’t deter you because your entire life you have been conditioned to believe that it is ok to kill and eat animals, and that conditioning is a much stronger force than reason then I believe that is a different matter.

I await your response

Ok, your argument is that we do not have to eat other animals to survive. You know, you are right. What you seem to not notice is that we CAN eat animals to survive as well. Did you not notice that?
Your argument also extends that we have to have compassion for animals because they have a nervous system and this is the point of disagreement. Again, you present an analogy that animals I eat is just like a disabled person based ENTIRELY upon a level of inferiority. And it isn’t just that. It is an ENTIRELY different species and not only that, but we have a long history of meat eating history. Again, that is why we have canine teeth.
Your argument is one completely out of compassion for animals. As I mentioned before, I hope that your compassion doesn’t extend to plant life because you will not live long.

Enigma. I know that Benjamin Franklin cut open a fish and upon seeing a fish inside, thought to himself, “they kill each other, why should i refrain from killing animals.” and to that, my original argument 1.[Man does not need to kill to survive] applies.

Assuming what you related from Benjamin Franklin, That is:

While it is true that both animals and plants are living beings. Plants have not been conclusively shown to feel pain. and even if they did feel pain it would still make more sense to eat plants than animals as otherwise one would feed the animals ten times as many plants.

Enigma went on to state in response to Tim:

For me, the issue is not consciousness, as such. It is the fact that animals feel pain, care for their young (like us), get distressed when their mommy is knocked in the head with a poleaxe (like us). And when you further consider that it is an idiotic use of the earth’s valuable resources and not necessary for nutrition… Well, you get the point.

I don’t even kill insects, unless they’re poisonous or have a sting. I don’t want anyone in the house dying.

Enigma stated:

How is eating a brainless human different from eating chicken of the sea? You rejected the ‘sanctity of consciousness’ argument with comments similiar to:

Aren’t you retaining some unwarranted sanctity in your current argument? Or have i misunderstood your position?

Enigma stated:

I don’t think it stems so much from the fact that animals have a nervous system as it does from the fact that we have consciousness and can imagine the pain of other species. And that animals can feel pain, and in some circumstances, imagine future pain, etc. Just because we are separated from the consequences of that pain and from seeing that pain on a daily basis does not mean it is not there. Animals have become no more than meat factories in some countries, where pigs are forced to reproduce at up to three times the normal birth rate and young calves are deliberately kept anemic in severly confined quarters due simply to such a minute variable
as the color of the flesh upon butchering. Where chickens only see the light about 2 hours a day, and are again confined individually in small quarters only to lose any sense of social structure due to the absence of the pecking order.

But man does need to kill something to survive. You argue that killing a plant is different from killing an animal, in this I agree. However, the analogy presented to me is that killing an animal is like killing a human being, in this I think it is absurd.

Again, all of this compassion for other species is what this about. At some point we have to say screw compassion, deprive something of life in order to enhance our own.

If we were not meant to eat animals, then how can we survive off of eating animals? Why do we have these canine teetch in which other predators have? Because we were designed to chew cud?

The argument presented is that we do not have to eat animals to survive, but in the process it is totally forgotten that we can eat animals to survive.

If people want to incite that a fish and a human being are exactly the same thing due to some extreme compassion, then be my guest. I however am not buying it. There is nothing inherently “wrong” about me consuming a fish or any other animal consuming a fish. I think it is interesting how easily we can compare ourselves with animals for one agenda, then turn around and refute ourselves against animals for another.
Neither one is going to sway me from eating meat. Enjoy your salad.

Enigma

I feel like we are going round in circles. You still have not given me a proper answer to most my questions

Yes it is an entirely different species, but you have not given me an argument as to why that means we should treat them differently. Again you are just begging the question. My argument is simply why, if a human and non-human animal have identical characteristics, one is deservent of every right and the other is deservent of none? You have to realise ‘because one is human’ is not an answer. It is no different than the racist’s ‘because he is black’. Now you said you reject the analogy, but again you havent given me an argument why.

Furthermore, given you accept Darwinian theory, the boundary between species is not what it once was

Now you’ve been talking a lot about how we are ‘meant’ to eat meat. You still haven’t given me a response as to why it would be considered immoral to do all of the other actions found in nature which one could argue we are ‘meant’ to do.

Maybe we can get at this whole issue another way around. Why is it wrong for me to kick a disabled person in the head? Why is it wrong for me to kill and eat a disabled person because I like the taste of their flesh?

We are definitely going in circles. You want to impose the grand theory of meat morality based on this theory that all species need to be treated equal … except plants. Well my grand theory of meat morality is based on a theory that all species need to be treated equal … except plants and animals such as fish, beef, pork, … I don’t really care about those species just like you really don’t care much for plants when the dinner bell rings.

You haven’t given me a convincing argument on why they need to be treated like human beings. What’s next? Should we abolish slavery on all animals? Allow them to vote? Run for senate?

A fish is a fish. It is not a human being … disabled or black. Do I really need to make such a distinction?

I think “proper” in the context you use it is for me to “agree” with you and you certainly haven’t convinced me that a fish is the same as a human being. You want to believe that a fish is on the same level as humans? Knock yourself out. I’m still going to indulge in my sushi dinner with no guilt.

Maybe someday your egalitarian state will come into play and man and fish (and barnyard animals) will live harmoniously as one destroying plant life for their own benefit … until someone comes along crying morality for plants. How “immoral” to deprive those plants of life for our own benefit. Or perhaps the “immorality” of water microbe destruction/microcide needs to cease due to the sanctity of microbes? How “immoral” of us to destroy microbes for our own purpose.

Isn’t subjective morality fun?

Enigma

You have really misunderstood my entire argument.

My argument was for an equal consideration of interests. Animals do not have the interest to vote, therefore they should not be extended that right, just as men shouldn’t be extended the right to an abortion,

I still feel you haven’t completely responded to my argument, though that might be due to my poor presentation of it. To avoid misunderstanding, I write my argument below in premise, premise conclusion form:

1. Our concept of equality (eg amongst sexes or races) stems not from a consideration of the factual properties agents possess, but of a consideration of their interests.
2. Animals have interests
3. Therefore our principle of equality should be extended to animals.

I’m pretty sure the argument is valid. Could you tell me which premise you would reject?

Now at a guess I’d assume you’d reject the first one, as the second one seems self evident. If you do reject the first one, I have a subsiduary argument starting from what I presume your objection to be:

1. Our concept of equality stems from a consideration of factual properties of agents.
2. In certain problem cases (eg of severely disabled people) animals possess a higher degree of sentience, a higher ability to feel pain and are superior with regard to all measurable factual properties.
3. Therefore, in these cases animals deserve preferential treatment to severely disabled humans.

Now I am not saying that in these cases animals do deserve preferential treatment, am I merely arguing that if you reject the first premise of the first argument, this is the conclusion one must accept.

I assume you do not want to accept either of my conclusions. I would be most appreciative then if you could tell me exactly which premises you reject, or whether you believe my arguments to be invalid. Hopefully then we can make some progress and stop going around in circles

I have told you many times which parts I reject. I don’t care how disabled a person is, they are still a person. I don’t care how smart a fish is, they are still a fish. You want to merge the two and seperate the two (inconsistently) in order to squeeze in your agenda: don’t eat meat. It’s simple.

You claim that it is “immoral” to eat meat even though we have been eating meat for ages, have anatomy just like other predators, can digest meat without problems and survive off of meat, are inherently inclined to eat meat, …

Yet the burden of proof is on “ME” to justify why I eat meat? That’s absurd in my opinion.

You, as well, reject my point. You claim that we should treat animals exactly like human beings, but again you are inconsistent. We certainly cannot treat human beings like animals right? It is ok for me to sympathize with an animal because we are “one,” but it is certainly not ok for me to eat another species of animal (just like other animals do) because I am a human. You want to empower animals because we have handicapped people. I don’t care how handicapped a person is it does not change their species. You seem to apply that a handicap can turn a person into another species. I disagree.

A pig is a different species from I. A radish is a different species from I. I’m going to eat both. Maybe even together. Why? Because I can. Do I have to eat the pig? No, I can just eat the radish. Do I have to eat the radish? No, I can just eat the pig. But in my opinion no one needs to justify why we eat what we do as long as it doesn’t bring harm to ourselves or our species. Does it bring harm to a pig or a radish? Of course, but you have to be selfish at some point to eat. Your selfishness is just more selective than mine and your analogies do not hold water due to a seperation of species in which you try to merge, but cannot. A fish is still a fish … not a disabled person. Entirely different species. If you want to put animals on the same plane as mankind, then that invites us to be on the same level as animals in which it is justifiable to eat lower species. You cannot have your cake and eat it to (no pun intended). We cannot just lift animals to our status on a whim and then raise ourselves FROM animals just as easily. We have a lot in common with animals, but don’t forget that predatory inclinations are still something we share and not just a nervous system.

Enigma

A
Ive already answered most of your points regarding the status of vegetables, instict vs morality etc, so I will not say anything more. Instead, I shall make a couple of points about logic.

A valid argument is one in which if one accepts the premises, one must accept the conclusion. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

I am quite sure both my arguments are valid (if anyone disagrees, please say). Therefore if you want to reject my conclusions, you must reject one of my premises.

This implies that you reject the conclusion of my first argument. However, this is illegitimate. You can only reject the conclusion of a valid argument by rejecting one of the premises, and you have never given me any argument as to why you reject the premises, you merely keep asserting that you reject the conclusion. All I want is an argument from you against any of my premises.

B
ok that said I shall try once more to explain my argument in the light of

I did not argue that we should treat animals like human beings. I did not say that being handicapped changed a person’s species.

On the first point, I argued that animals are different, but on the principle of equal consideration of interests (which you still haven’t offered an argument against) one is obligated to consider the interests of animals. As animals have different interests than humans, they will be treated differently. When it comes to pain and suffering however, their interests are the same, thus we have the same obligation not to cause them pain or to kill them as we do to humans.

On the second point I argued that in certain cases disabled people are inferior by all measurable qualities to animals. This was part of my subsiduary argument, that if you reject the principle of the equal consideration of interests, and want to judge moral desert on factual properties, in certain cases you’d have to grant more rights and moral consideration to animals than certain humans.

If you do reply please address the points in section A. Unless you tell me specifically which premises of my arguments you reject, we will keep going round in circles and progress no further to the truth. If you continue to reject the conclusion of a valid argument because you don’t agree with it, but offer no argument for the rejection of any premises, there is nothing more I can say.

This is pointless. No matter what I present does it matter as long as I don’t AGREE with you?

Your are applying a moral principle that I am not bound to.

Do you not understand this? Let me repeat it one more time:
You are applying a moral principle that I am not bound to.

A Muslim does not eat pork because they consider them filthy animals, so is your (Singer’s) “principle of equal consideration of interests.” This is a moral principle EVERYONE is bound to according to you.

Here, I’ll introduce a moral principle called “principle of eating meat of lower species.” There. Now you are free “morally” to eat meat.

Abracadabra and enjoy your T-bone.

oh dear.

I did not just make up this principle. It was arrived at by a consideration of equality amongst humans, a consideration of the basis upon which equality amongst humans is grounded. I then argued that the only principle which would guarentee equality amongst humans must be extended to animals

Please argue why my principle is incorrect. Then present me the principle which you apply to humans which entails that they all be treated equally.

I have tried to spell my argument out as clearly as possible, so you could argue exactly why you reject a certain premise, or why my argument wasn’t valid. Instead, even louder than before, you just reject my conclusion without justification.

Unless you start offering more argument and less assertion, this will be my last post. You should re-read all my posts carefully. Then you should explain to me by what moral principle you hold it wrong to kill and torture other humans, and argue why that principle should not be extended to animals

I admit that this debate has opened my eyes to animal egalitarianism. Never really paid it much attention before. Perhaps the reason for my refutations are due to a reluctance to change my diet.

I think you do bring up some good points though. People do not associate the horrors related to slaughterhouses in order to eat and are repulsed when it is mentioned.

I’ll probably still eat meat, but at least you got me thinking.

Excuse my skepticism.

Enigma

Your scepticism is excused, I am glad I got you thinking

I apologise if any of my posts seemed aggressive or sarcastic, no aggression or sarcasm was meant, I was merely frustrated at times (as I’m sure you were!) when we seemed to be going in circles

take care

   I disagree with premise one. Rather, I think that we extend equality to others based on a combonation of factual properties and interests.          
   Consider racism. Blacks were at one time considered what was it, 3/5ths of a human? That was a jsutification of their oppresion. Now, while the assertion was incorrect, it's still an example of 'equality based on factual properties'.  Now that blacks have (at least in theory) all the rights and opportunities of everybody else in the US, do we still consider them 3/5th of a person? Of course not! We would find that abhorrent- because factual properties are in fact a consideration when extending rights.
   You could argue that animals are now being maligned as black people were, but the fact remains, our history of extending equality to people is  [i]very[/i] much about considering factual properties, whether those properties are race, religion, national citizenship, or whatever. 
   Maybe you could modify P1 to say 

P1’: Our concept of equality ought to be based purely on a consideration of interests, and not factual properties.

while conceeding that such is often not the case, but then you’d have to construct another argument to show that, of course.

I choose to respond to your posts Enigma. You didn’t specifically mention who you were replying to.

Yes, at this point man does need to ‘kill’ something to survive. He can’t just eat greens which regenerate their leaves. I am not saying that killing an animal is exactly equal to killing a human being. Humans have a potential life that animals can never hope to envision.

Meat is not enhancing our life when you consider human life as a whole. Eating grain-produced beef may actually deprive people in poorer nations of that grain, water, and other natural resources.

We can get all of the protein our body requires from non-meat sources. We do not have to eat meat to survive. Our canine teeth (which are considerably less elongated than many other primates) may be designed to eat meat but that in no way entails what their future use will be. Is this close to the genetic fallacy?

I have never stated that humans are equivalent to a fish, although i have been accused of being a sucker One can however understand the pain of an animal that has just had it’s throat cut and dies (if it’s lucky), or dies later when it has been thrown into a vat of boiling water. One can also commiserate with a cow who has had it’s calf torn away from it shortly after birth, the cow keeps on producing milk in small quarters, the calf goes on to produce veal. We are an animal, particularly when it comes to other animals, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

I just have my reservations about imposed morality. This whole animal/human egalitarian ideal is something I have explored just not to the point of my eating habits. It does raise interesting arguments.

Personally, I am opposed to keeping animals as pets. This whole notion of depriving animals from their natural habitat for money kind of bugs me and whenever I see someone with a pet I think of slave morality.
I’m sure that seems kind of silly being that I just went into a discourse on why it is acceptable to herd and slaughter meat.

Perhaps since I love eating meat (especially steak) and do not have any pets, then it is easy for me to justify such morality. I do understand the point implied and I accept it as such. I may not practice it although I can recognize it at this point and time.

I can understand that. When i take my dog out using one of those retractable leashes, i think to myself, “This animal rarely gets outside, and that is my fault”. I also don’t like using the leash, but to not do so would mean an increased likelihood of him getting hit by a car. Interestingly, i continue to buy my 2 small dogs treats made from dead cow parts. I’ve never felt like i had the right to impose my morality on another sentient being (unless as in the case of the leash, where it’s for the protection of their life).