Is There Any Philosophical Basis for Stefan's 'Non-Sadistic-Principle'?

[Kevin Jay]

Hey guys, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgO89b3ZoiE&feature=c4-overview&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3wAt 32:15 Stefan introduced a new principle, the 'Non-Sadistic-Principle', which says 'torturing animals is bad because it is unnecessary suffering'. But I am confused as to what the philosophical grounding is for this, as it is not covered in Stefan's 'UPB' and to me sounds like utilitarian thinking since it is concerned with minimizing suffering as opposed to honouring the Non-Aggression-Principle. If animals do not have self ownership can't we torture them as we wish (assuming we own them, not someone else.) Anything else would be to claim positive obligations (which as we know from UPB, cannot exist) or suggest the animal had self-ownership, which would mean that full veganism would presumably be imperative, and holding pets being kidnapping. If anyone can help me out with this I'd appreciate it. Can anyone explain to me the proof of this NSP?K

[Philosphorous]

It's a cop out. I was on the other side of that conversation. It seems that it okay to kill and displace animals so long as one does not torture them--whatever torture means. This shows the true underlying face of capitalism: it favors humans only. Nature is one big filling station that humans are free to exploit so long as they don't "torture" it.

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

No, I think I can rationalize it. Here we go:

 

So, I think we all know Stefan's analogy of it being impossible to rape somebody who is okay with the idea of rape. In other words, such a person has essentially already given consent, and no matter how I might feel about forcibly having sex with people, it could not possibly be immoral (or, again, possible at all) to "rape" such a person if they have demonstrated that they have no problem with it (I'm obviously paraphrasing - please feel free to correct me if I didn't get the analogy), no matter what emotional response such an act might draw. 

 

Let's try to adjust this analogy to animals. Animals have no problem with killing. A bull moose will fight, often to the death, another bull moose in order to win a mate, lions have no problem hunting their prey, and wolves kill for leadership. This is totally natural and we accept all of these things as being "okay" to the animals themselves. We can rationally infer, then, that our natural instinct to kill and eat animals cannot be immoral - it is an aspect of our survival, and though we COULD eat vegan, it is by no means any more moral, just perhaps preferable. We have no moral obligation not to kill in beneficial ways the animals who practice natural, beneficial killing, even if we individually can choose not to. As for their survival instinct, the trait by which they avoid pain and death, well, I don't think these are "desires," I think they're just instincts with nothing inherently moral or immoral about them. So, to summarize this point: There is nothing morally wrong with pursuing our instinctual desire to eat meat. 

 

Torturing animals is another story. Many animals that we eat are sentient, which means they have the ability to feel pain, act aggressively, nurture young, etc. To cause them unnecessary pain serves no purpose, and I'm not even going to expand on what Stefan said about psychopathy. Instead, I'll rely again on the assumption that you cannot rape a person who has consented to your forcible sexual advances, but it's possible to steal from them if they haven't expressed acceptance in favor of the idea of theft. See, I've never heard of a sadistic ant. Ants are capable of what we perceive as ruthless killing, but it's merely efficient, not sadistic. I've never heard of pigs or cows killing each other, or any other species, for fun. I'm not sure that "torture" is even a concept outside of irrational human justification. So we can rationally infer that a dog in no way deserves to be beaten. There's no reason to take my time killing a pig for food. We shouldn't test hair or beauty products on animals if there's any reason to suspect that a product is dangerous (though we can and SHOULD test potentially human-life-saving medications and treatments on animals - human lives are worth the suffering of animals, thereby making it necessary unless somebody has a better idea... And I can expand further upon the idea of rational animal experimentation if anybody sees a problem with it or would like me to clarify). Animals have done nothing to indicate that they are in any way okay with inflicting irrational "punishments" or experiments on them. Therefore, it is not just a violation of some "non-sadism principle" (it doesn't exist as anything other than an extension of the NAP), unnecessary cruelty to animals is a violation of the NAP. 

 

I hope that's all clear. One more addendum: I am, in fact, a human being and I do, in fact, put the survival, nay, the prosperity of my species ahead of the lives of other species, just as animals do. I hope I don't sound too heartless towards livestock animals, though I'm sure that my compassion means nothing to them.

[LanceD]

Nature isn't separate from us, we are a part of it. As a part of nature we eat animals and/or plants, same as every other creature in nature. However us eating animals shouldn't turn in to us treating them like shit and torturing them.

 

Doesn't seem like that is all that hard to understand. I would go so far as to say your misunderstanding and need for clarification is intentional and used simply as a vehicle to push your anti capitalist beliefs. So try being more honest in your next post please.

[Mike Fleming]

This reminds me of the time I went to see a bull fight in Spain.  That is torture in my opinion.  For anyone who doesn't know they continually wound the bull until it is on death's door without killing it.  Only at the very end do they put it out of it's misery. 

 

To kill an animal as fast as possible in order to obtain the food from it is not the same thing.  That doesn't mean I condone all the practices in the meat industry, but I think killing animals for food, and torturing animals are 2 different things. 

[Kevin Jay]

@AnarchoBenchwarmerWhoa, you said "So we can rationally infer that a dog in no way deserves to be beaten. There's no reason to take my time killing a pig for food." but I don't see how you derived that simply from your not seeing that animals torture others in nature. If animals don't own themselves then they don't have property rights over their bodies, right? So in what way is it immoral to torture them?

Nature isn't separate from us, we are a part of it. As a part of nature we eat animals and/or plants, same as every other creature in nature. However us eating animals shouldn't turn in to us treating them like shit and torturing them.Doesn't seem like that is all that hard to understand. I would go so far as to say your misunderstanding and need for clarification is intentional and used simply as a vehicle to push your anti capitalist beliefs. So try being more honest in your next post please.

Ok but you didn't answer my question, rather questioned my motives. You said 'we're part of nature', are you claiming that animals DO have self-ownership? Because that has huge consequences. If they have no property right in their bodies, why is torturing them or treating them like shit wrong? It isn't breaking the NAP. And reasoning from their suffering to it being wrong action would be consequentialist or utilitarian thinking, which Stefan has said is totally wrong and immoral. I am genuinely interested in the purported justification for this principle. I'm asking you why is it that 'us eating animals shouldn't turn in to treating them like shit and torturing them' as you claim, WITHIN the confines of Stefan's normative moral theory of the NAP and natural property rights, considering animals are not self-owners?

This reminds me of the time I went to see a bull fight in Spain.  That is torture in my opinion.  For anyone who doesn't know they continually wound the bull until it is on death's door without killing it.  Only at the very end do they put it out of it's misery. 

 

To kill an animal as fast as possible in order to obtain the food from it is not the same thing.  That doesn't mean I condone all the practices in the meat industry, but I think killing animals for food, and torturing animals are 2 different things. 

I hear you Mike but if the bull does not own itself then it has no moral property rights in its body so force is not being initiated against it. So how is the action being taken against it wrong morally? You'd have to use utilitarian reasoning (minimize suffering, maximise happiness) which Stefan has condemned as false and immoral.

[LanceD]

Why do you expect me to argue Stef's position? I'm not Stefan and I wouldn't even attempt to respond for him.

 

As far as this talk about animals having self ownership, I still believe you have a motive. It does not appear that you are simply discussing but are attempting to lead the conversation to a particular place so you can reaffirm your already made conclusions.

 

Despite it all I will state my view on the topic. Animals aren't people, they are all sorts of different species and I am firmly on the side of people. So the same principles that guide how I treat other people are not the same as those I use to guide how I treat animals. Animals are not protected by NAP simply because they are animals. The second one of them can understand and practice NAP themselves ill reconsider this position. However until then I will continue to keep dogs are family pets, chickens for their eggs and eat whatever neat pleases me. All with the understanding that sadistic treatment of animals is wrong because they are living things after all and any human being with a healthy sense of empathy should know this without need of some "principle".

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

@AnarchoBenchwarmerWhoa, you said "So we can rationally infer that a dog in no way deserves to be beaten. There's no reason to take my time killing a pig for food." but I don't see how you derived that simply from your not seeing that animals torture others in nature. If animals don't own themselves then they don't have property rights over their bodies, right? So in what way is it immoral to torture them?

 

Happy to clarify, Kevin. I never said that animals don't own themselves. Let me put it this way, expanding while I'm at it on some of what I understand to be Stefan's argument (though I also do not presume to speak for him): Are we agreed that it is impossible to rape a person who has no problem with being forced into sex? Would it be morally wrong to rape such a person? No, it would not be wrong, but the person still owns his/her own body. It is from this point that the rest of my rationale lies. Animals do kill, both within and outside of their own species. The sentient animal may have self-awareness (I think) but practices rational killing for survival. We may infer, as I said, that they must not have any problem with that, or else why would they do it? Therefore we are not immoral in killing animals for food. Since animals don't practice or have any concept of torture, there is no rationalization for torturing them. We can't say, "Well, they torture, so they must not have a problem with it" because of that fact. Neither can we simply ask them if they have a problem with it. We can only make rational guesses based on their own actions.

 

So that's the bulk of my argument, but I should also point something else out while I'm at it. If we were to practice the NAP towards animals based on the concept of self-ownership alone and never, ever kill them for any reason, then we also have to look at rational human killings. It is not a violation of the NAP to kill another human in self-defense, nor is it a violation to kill another human in defense of another non-aggressor. From that logic, I could appoint myself the guardian of a wild herd of elk and shoot any wolf that comes near for attempting to kill these elk, because it is immoral to kill, no matter the species. So those wolves will die either way. See the problem? How can we claim that it is wrong for us to kill animals for sustenance (ignoring the fact that we have evolved as omnivores) and not hold other animals to the same standard? 

 

Here's another thing I thought of just now: there are many, many people in undeveloped or underdeveloped countries who have no other choice but to kill animals for sustenance and survival. Is that immoral? I submit here that it is not. Are we in the developed world immoral for killing animals to eat? How can we be? How can we be held to a different standard than others within our own species? As we can deduce from philosophical science, what is immoral for one cannot be moral for somebody else. That is the way the politicians think, but it is not justified in any rational way. 

 

I hope that explains it, but more than anything else, I hope that you did not come here attempting to justify some action of your own. I don't know you, and I'm trying really hard not to jump to any conclusions, but I need to say anyway that IF there is anybody out there who thinks that it's okay to torture animals for any reason, then I hope those people read this post and come to the conclusion that they need to seek help. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

There are certain things that are universal. Both humans and non-humans have the capacity for suffering. We can violate a human in the immoral sense by making it suffer and it would violate universality. We could not justify it. Similarly we could violate animals by making them suffer. However we cannot violate an animals agency in the way we can a human's. For example a vet could perform an invasive exam on a dog (assuming it's not causing pain) but it would be impossible to get consent from the dog and some coercion would be necessary. It would likely be annoyed. But if you did that on a human it would be rape. That's because the human has an extra property that can be violated.

When it comes to the properties that humans and animals share then I see no reason why sadism towards an animal is not objectively immoral. It cannot be justified rationally much like the rape of a human cannot be justified. 

[Mike Fleming]

 

I hear you Mike but if the bull does not own itself then it has no moral property rights in its body so force is not being initiated against it. So how is the action being taken against it wrong morally? You'd have to use utilitarian reasoning (minimize suffering, maximise happiness) which Stefan has condemned as false and immoral.

 

It's interesting Kevin, because I have been a meat-eater my entire life and never thought twice about it, never felt like I had to justify it for most of that time.

 

I still am but I don't feel that comfortable with it any more and have been considering giving it up for a while (a few years) now.  It's a hard habit to drop though and I wouldn't feel happy condemning others for eating meat regardless of whether I was still doing it or not.  The feeling of being not entirely comfortable with meat-eating has coincided with my transition to libertarian and anarchist thought so I think there is something there in non-aggression compelling me in that direction.

 

OTOH, I don't know whether animals should be on the same level as humans or not.  I would say that humans cannot be owned by other humans, but animals can certainly be owned by humans.  As pets at least.   Does that mean it is OK to kill them for food?  I don't know tbh.  I do hope, and think, at some point in the future it will become unnecessary when we eventually develop synthetic meat and things like that.

 

A thought I had on sadism....  I think sadism can only be practised on willing partners.  Animals cannot give consent because they cannot communicate with us.  

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

Let's try to adjust this analogy to animals. Animals have no problem with killing. A bull moose will fight, often to the death, another bull moose in order to win a mate, lions have no problem hunting their prey, and wolves kill for leadership. This is totally natural and we accept all of these things as being "okay" to the animals themselves. We can rationally infer, then, that our natural instinct to kill and eat animals cannot be immoral - it is an aspect of our survival, and though we COULD eat vegan, it is by no means any more moral, just perhaps preferable. We have no moral obligation not to kill in beneficial ways the animals who practice natural, beneficial killing, even if we individually can choose not to. As for their survival instinct, the trait by which they avoid pain and death, well, I don't think these are "desires," I think they're just instincts with nothing inherently moral or immoral about them. So, to summarize this point: There is nothing morally wrong with pursuing our instinctual desire to eat meat. 

 

Please show me any credible scientific evidence that meat eating is anything other than a cultural anachronism for humans. How does one explain that there are many vegetarians who have no drive to consume meat? Why would humans have an instinct to consume something our biology is not adapted to and that is harmful?So far as I am aware the only instinct that humans have for a food is for breast milk. All the other eating habits we acquire are typically the result of copying our uninformed and irrational peers.If it is okay for lions to kill lions then why not humans to kill humans? 

OTOH, I don't know whether animals should be on the same level as humans or not.  I would say that humans cannot be owned by other humans, but animals can certainly be owned by humans.  As pets at least.   Does that mean it is OK to kill them for food?  I don't know tbh.  I do hope, and think, at some point in the future it will become unnecessary when we eventually develop synthetic meat and things like that.

 

Haven't humans owned other humans as slaves for many centuries, if not millennia?

[Mike Fleming]

 

Haven't humans owned other humans as slaves for many centuries, if not millennia?

 

Yes, which was wrong and acknowledged as wrong by most people today.  I'm saying animals are different because humans can own animals.  I think most people wouldn't claim there is anything wrong with humans owning animals but there is something wrong with humans owning humans.  Making animals and humans at least somewhat different.

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

Please show me any credible scientific evidence that meat eating is anything other than a cultural anachronism for humans. How does one explain that there are many vegetarians who have no drive to consume meat? Why would humans have an instinct to consume something our biology is not adapted to and that is harmful?So far as I am aware the only instinct that humans have for a food is for breast milk. All the other eating habits we acquire are typically the result of copying our uninformed and irrational peers.If it is okay for lions to kill lions then why not humans to kill humans?

 

If there's a problem or a hole in my above reasoning, I would prefer that somebody point it out instead of getting into the semantics. But, since the premise of my argument has been challenged, I suppose an answer is necessary.

 

This is a good place to start: http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm. There's plenty more where that came from and I'm sure that I could spend hours researching (and if you still aren't convinced, I suppose I could dedicate four years to a baccalaureate degree in biology), but if you're going to just ignore your cuspids and incisors, then I don't see how I could show you anything to change your mind. The facts are supposed to speak for themselves, but you seem to not care that early humans and other primates hunted game when vegetation was scarce. Seems like an evolutionary survival trait to me, but whatever. Look, I spend far too much time getting my research ignored by theists to make myself an expert on human diets. You can't change the fact that there have always been omnivorous humans, and all I can do is point that out. 

 

That's not to say that our evolutionary traits are behavioral necessities, just taxonomic options. Humans will always have the choice to not eat meat, even though their bodies can handle it. It's true human diets consisting of mostly meat are generally not as healthy as minimal-to-no meat consumption, but the unhealthiness of an energy source does not make it an invalid energy source.

 

Did I say it was okay for lions to kill lions? I don't remember saying that, nor can I find it anywhere in my previous posts. Hmm. I do, however, seem to remember saying that lions apparently think it's okay to kill lions because they do kill each other. So... yeah, I guess as soon as they realize that it's not okay, I'll stop eating animals due to the immorality of it. In the meantime, I'll take your question directly. Why isn't it okay for humans to kill humans if it's okay for lions to kill lions? Well, first of all, it is okay for humans to kill humans in self-defense. I think you meant "Why isn't it okay for humans to violate the NAP if it's okay for lions blah blah blah?"

 

And the answer to that question lies with me telling you that it's immoral to kill me. I don't kill, nor do I steal or trespass, rape or enslave. As my fellow rational, moral human being, you should be able to realize that killing me serves no productive purpose, so you won't. But say I am a rival business competitor that you wish to see dead in order to gain some sort of economic advantage. You must realize that the second you take action to kill me, you have decided that the NAP does not apply to you and therefore you are perfectly okay with taking the risk that I might kill you in defense of myself or others. So there are perfectly logical situations in which it IS okay for humans to kill humans. I'll reiterate: Killing me is or becomes moral to you, and the chance of your own death becomes an inherent part of that morality. Killing you is immoral to me until you take that first action, at which time I can justify my action using your inherent consent. 

 

I hope I've cleared things up!

[FreedomPhilosophy]

...

I hope I've cleared things up!

You have not cleared anything up or dealt in any compelling way with my questions.You have cited as a source a vegetarian web site, not a credible scientific source. You previously and again make claims to biological knowledge that you are not qualified to make - a lack of qualification that you admit.I have the benefit of having researched biology for over 17 years. Your observations about human dental anatomy are wrong and misleading. Humans have none of the biological traits of predators.

 

"Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption."

Dr. Christina Warinner

Our dental anatomy is that of fruit eating species unadapted to flesh consumption. Chimps in contrast have dental anatomy adapted to flesh consumption, sources available on my channel.The argument that our ancestors did something and we should therefore do it is an ad antiquitatum fallacy.The evidence that consuming animal products is harmful is substantial and continually growing.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

And the answer to that question lies with me telling you that it's immoral to kill me. I don't kill, nor do I steal or trespass, rape or enslave. As my fellow rational, moral human being, you should be able to realize that killing me serves no productive purpose, so you won't. 

Humans certainly can and do kill for biological imperatives, much as other species do and also with cultural imperatives in mind. I fail to see how any of these observations on humans or other animals inform us about morality. History is pretty much a story of people killing each other for some gain or other, imaginary or fictitious. And again I don't see that such behaviour informs my moral choices.Inflicting harms on others causes harm to the psyche of such actors and this observation applies equally to those who harm animals. This is further evidence that humans are not predatory by nature. 

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

You have not cleared anything up or dealt in any compelling way with my questions.

 

You have cited as a source a vegetarian web site, not a credible scientific source. You previously and again make claims to biological knowledge that you are not qualified to make - a lack of qualification that you admit.

 

I have the benefit of having researched biology for over 17 years. Your observations about human dental anatomy are wrong and misleading. Humans have none of the biological traits of predators.

 

For one thing, I wasn't referencing that site as a, "Look! Here's all the evidence you'll ever need!" deal. I do think that it effectively showed that there is a great amount of debate on the issue of human omnivorous tendencies, and that's even within the vegetarian/vegan community. We should both consider that it may be the case that you have spent a great deal of time leading yourself to your conclusions based on your ethics, and the same may be true of me. 

 

Of course you are right about one thing - I am by no means an expert (never claimed to be!) and I should neither claim expertise nor should I imply that everything I say is factual, especially if I have not done the research. I sincerely apologize if anybody thought either of those things based on what I said or how I said it. 

 

However, it's still true that anybody can make a logical case for the human omnivore by simply saying that we are, in fact, capable of doing so and living long, healthy lives while we're at it. IF it were as bad as you say (obviously, a meat-heavy or meat-dependent diet isn't as healthy as a vegan diet, but a vegan diet is not always sustainable for many due in part to low availability of certain vitamins and proteins) or IF humans were not deriving any nutrients from meat at all, then I would wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. 

 

For another thing, I also never said that humans were predators, and your insistence on attacking the weakest possible point (straw-man fallacy) is frankly starting to get repetitive. Obviously, our teeth and many other traits should not be compared to wolves, lions, or even other primates in order to determine our evolutionary diet; rather, we should be comparing ourselves to other scavengers and omnivores. That said, "none of the biological traits of predators" is stretching it a little, don't you think? Are our eyes not forward facing in the front of our skulls? Are our brains not well-developed? Speaking of brains, many argue that humans have no natural weapons, but I beg to differ - our naturally-evolved brains are far more dangerous than any tiger. I would be glad to go so far as to infer or suppose (don't worry, I'll try not to say anything else that might be interpreted as if I believe it is unequivocal fact in your presence) that homo sapiens and our close relatives' use of tools and fire is only natural, given that our brains evolved to allow us to figure it out. And, of course, as soon as we did, we were able to hunt for larger and larger prey; though, I should point out that even without tools, we were still likely eating carrion, crustaceans, or any other animal that we could catch.

 

"Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption."

The argument that our ancestors did something and we should therefore do it is an ad antiquitatum fallacy.

 

The evidence that consuming animal products is harmful is substantial and continually growing.

 

I do love TED talks, and that speaker was pretty good. But, uh, I don't see what it accomplished. She didn't make any sort of case for natural solely vegan/vegetarian diets - in fact she straight up admitted that early humans ate meat, just not in similar quantities. She was debunking the ridiculous paleo-diets. Even I could have told you that those diets are not based on factual history. There's that one quote (coming from an archaeological scientist, not a biologist) that supports the case directly and maybe another few things that she says that might support it. I noticed, however, that after she said the part that you quoted, she went on to list human traits that were specifically unique to non-carnivores. That seems to imply that what she meant to say was that none of our adaptations exist solely to eat meat. Her statements around the 5-minute mark appear to support my inference, and if it is the case that that's what she meant, then I agree.

 

Then you bring up the appeal to tradition fallacy or, argumentum ad antiquitatem, which I feel that I need to address. In many cases, this fallacy is used by irrational individuals to assert that, if something has always been done, then that makes it "right" or "okay." This is not always the case, hence this tactic's label as a fallacy. However, it is truly important to note that I'm not arguing from tradition; the entire basis of my argument is that eating meat is not inherently immoral and for reasons other than nature. There are two premises that I've discussed above, but I'm happy to repeat for your convenience. 

 

1) Any given human action is one of two things: it is immoral for everybody (killing, raping, theft, and any extension of those things), or else it is not inherently immoral (drinking, drugs, premarital sex, etc.). Try it at home! If you can come up with an exception to this rule, please feel free to inform the board.

 

2) It is not immoral for a human to kill an animal for sustenance. This argument is supported by the fact that you cannot rape somebody who does not have a problem with rape (this was detailed further - see my previous comments or Stefan's videos on morality). If you have a problem with this premise, please attack it directly! Show me evidence that animals can function beyond their instincts and have a moral objection to murdering, not simply being murdered. Or reveal some holes in my rationale with some fact that I perhaps haven't thought about! That would be great. Please no more of this straw-man crap, I'm sickeningly reminded of my LDS family.

 

Humans certainly can and do kill for biological imperatives, much as other species do and also with cultural imperatives in mind. I fail to see how any of these observations on humans or other animals inform us about morality. History is pretty much a story of people killing each other for some gain or other, imaginary or fictitious. And again I don't see that such behaviour informs my moral choices.

 

Inflicting harms on others causes harm to the psyche of such actors and this observation applies equally to those who harm animals. This is further evidence that humans are not predatory by nature.

 

Meanwhile, I just love that you point out a fallacy you suspect me of using in one post, and then use it yourself in the very next post. Yeah, humans have killed throughout our history. I'm saying (and I'm certainly neither alone nor the first to say this) that each and every person who has ever initiated violence against another, non-consenting human was acting immorally or in other words, initiating violence has never been moral, even though humans have always done it. Now your "moral" choices are narrowed to simply avoiding violence by adhering to the Non-Aggression Principle. Anything else that you might consider immoral could perhaps be merely not preferable, and for that argument, I refer you to Stefan's book, Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics. I have made the case in earlier posts that the practice of eating meat in civilized society is, at the very worst, not preferable to a strict vegan lifestyle, but also that eating meat has never been immoral.

 

Thanks, I hope you learned something from my post, as I have from yours.

[Kevin Jay]

Happy to clarify, Kevin. I never said that animals don't own themselves. Let me put it this way, expanding while I'm at it on some of what I understand to be Stefan's argument (though I also do not presume to speak for him): Are we agreed that it is impossible to rape a person who has no problem with being forced into sex? Would it be morally wrong to rape such a person? No, it would not be wrong, but the person still owns his/her own body. It is from this point that the rest of my rationale lies. Animals do kill, both within and outside of their own species. The sentient animal may have self-awareness (I think) but practices rational killing for survival. We may infer, as I said, that they must not have any problem with that, or else why would they do it? Therefore we are not immoral in killing animals for food. Since animals don't practice or have any concept of torture, there is no rationalization for torturing them. We can't say, "Well, they torture, so they must not have a problem with it" because of that fact. Neither can we simply ask them if they have a problem with it. We can only make rational guesses based on their own actions.

 

So that's the bulk of my argument, but I should also point something else out while I'm at it. If we were to practice the NAP towards animals based on the concept of self-ownership alone and never, ever kill them for any reason, then we also have to look at rational human killings. It is not a violation of the NAP to kill another human in self-defense, nor is it a violation to kill another human in defense of another non-aggressor. From that logic, I could appoint myself the guardian of a wild herd of elk and shoot any wolf that comes near for attempting to kill these elk, because it is immoral to kill, no matter the species. So those wolves will die either way. See the problem? How can we claim that it is wrong for us to kill animals for sustenance (ignoring the fact that we have evolved as omnivores) and not hold other animals to the same standard? 

 

Here's another thing I thought of just now: there are many, many people in undeveloped or underdeveloped countries who have no other choice but to kill animals for sustenance and survival. Is that immoral? I submit here that it is not. Are we in the developed world immoral for killing animals to eat? How can we be? How can we be held to a different standard than others within our own species? As we can deduce from philosophical science, what is immoral for one cannot be moral for somebody else. That is the way the politicians think, but it is not justified in any rational way. 

 

I hope that explains it, but more than anything else, I hope that you did not come here attempting to justify some action of your own. I don't know you, and I'm trying really hard not to jump to any conclusions, but I need to say anyway that IF there is anybody out there who thinks that it's okay to torture animals for any reason, then I hope those people read this post and come to the conclusion that they need to seek help. 

Ok well your point near the end doesn't work because let's assume it were permissible for the poor people to kill animals since it was their only choice for survival then it would not follow that it were permissible for rich people given that they had other options. You would not be holding two groups to different standards, rather to the same standard.  In any case, I don't see why the aspect of survival should matter - that is consequentialist reasoning. It is not permissible to initiate force against some human for survival, since initiating force is immoral, so it similarly would not be permisslble to initiating force against some animal (assuming they owned themselves), since initiating force is immoral. To be consistent surely you'd say that by initiating force the tribe acted immorally. On your point 'animals kill each other so we can kill them' there are a lot of issues.1. Animals may be morally significant beings yet not moral agents. Hence, they don't have the cognitive functions necessary to make moral decisions, nevertheless they are morally significant and it may be wrong to harm them since it causes unneccesary suffering. (This would be a utilitarian argument.)2. Your argument is that the animals are voluntarily murdered. But what contract have they signed that illustrates their consent?3. You would have to presumably ensure that every animal you ate had previously killed other animals for non-survival based eating. This is not possible, particularly given the nature of modern farming, and the fact that some animals are vegetarian.4. Even IF animals were initiating force against each other and acting immorally, it would not make it morally permissible for us to initiate force against them.5. Similarly this argument would not work - Hitler killed people, thus Germans think killing is OK, therefore I can kill Germans morally permissibly. Same with animals, just because some Germans kill people doesn't mean ALL do.6. Your argument with the elk doesn't seem to work. E.g. are these two scenarios morally identical - 1. you kill an intruder who is attempting to kidnap your children. 2. you go to the same person's house (he's done nothing to anyone) and kill and eat him. Clearly in the second case you are initiating force and in the first you are not. Same with the wolf and the elk. That's the key here, the non-aggression-principle.

[PatrickC]

But I am confused as to what the philosophical grounding is for this, as it is not covered in Stefan's 'UPB' and to me sounds like utilitarian thinking since it is concerned with minimizing suffering as opposed to honouring the Non-Aggression-Principle. If animals do not have self ownership can't we torture them as we wish (assuming we own them, not someone else.) Anything else would be to claim positive obligations (which as we know from UPB, cannot exist)

 

This is because he is not making a UPB claim. This would be why he calls it the NSP. In UPB terms it would come under aesthetical choice or APA. But of course there exists a whole range of behaviours within APA that we could potentially be at odds with personally. Animal cruelty being one of them. Whether he means eating meat or keeping pets, I'd have to watch later on of course, but I'm pretty sure he's not suggesting that.

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

Ok well your point near the end doesn't work because let's assume it were permissible for the poor people to kill animals since it was their only choice for survival then it would not follow that it were permissible for rich people given that they had other options. You would not be holding two groups to different standards, rather to the same standard.  In any case, I don't see why the aspect of survival should matter - that is consequentialist reasoning. It is not permissible to initiate force against some human for survival, since initiating force is immoral, so it similarly would not be permisslble to initiating force against some animal (assuming they owned themselves), since initiating force is immoral. To be consistent surely you'd say that by initiating force the tribe acted immorally. On your point 'animals kill each other so we can kill them' there are a lot of issues.1. Animals may be morally significant beings yet not moral agents. Hence, they don't have the cognitive functions necessary to make moral decisions, nevertheless they are morally significant and it may be wrong to harm them since it causes unneccesary suffering. (This would be a utilitarian argument.)2. Your argument is that the animals are voluntarily murdered. But what contract have they signed that illustrates their consent?3. You would have to presumably ensure that every animal you ate had previously killed other animals for non-survival based eating. This is not possible, particularly given the nature of modern farming, and the fact that some animals are vegetarian.4. Even IF animals were initiating force against each other and acting immorally, it would not make it morally permissible for us to initiate force against them.5. Similarly this argument would not work - Hitler killed people, thus Germans think killing is OK, therefore I can kill Germans morally permissibly. Same with animals, just because some Germans kill people doesn't mean ALL do.6. Your argument with the elk doesn't seem to work. E.g. are these two scenarios morally identical - 1. you kill an intruder who is attempting to kidnap your children. 2. you go to the same person's house (he's done nothing to anyone) and kill and eat him. Clearly in the second case you are initiating force and in the first you are not. Same with the wolf and the elk. That's the key here, the non-aggression-principle.

 

Do rich people have some sort of brain function that prevents them from eating animals to survive? Perhaps their intestines are formed differently because of all that money, and therefore they should be held to a higher moral standard. No, that's not the way morality works. It's either immoral for everybody or it's not inherently immoral. Just because a poor person has no money doesn't mean that person has the moral option to steal in order to survive. If you're going to dismiss the importance of individual survival as "consequentialist", however, you might as well debate that humans don't have the right to move into territory claimed by animals. If killing and eating animals is immoral, then the same can be said of stealing their land from them. Quick question though, how exactly would a human initiate force against another human for survival? If my life is in danger and purposefully killing another human is the only way to survive, that is, in all circumstances, called self-defense. Or, not immoral, in other words. So I suppose I am being consistent when I say that killing for survival does not violate the NAP.

 

Alright, let's go down the line:

 

1) I think you'll have to prove two things for your first point to make sense: That animals are morally significant and that their suffering is "unnecessary." Since suffering is impossible to eliminate, so you'll have to define what qualifies as necessary and unnecessary. I suppose I wouldn't mind a clarification of your definition of the term "moral agent" while you're at it.

 

2) Voluntarily murdered? As in, they line up of their own accord for the slaughter? Of course they don't, I've never argued that. Don't put words in my mouth. I believe my argument is that the consent of sentient beings can be assumed based on the actions of the general population. Similarly, I could hardly blame an advanced alien race for assuming the same about humans (at least until we all get behind the NAP), but that doesn't mean I would volunteer to be their food. I recommend a book called Ender's Game (not the movie) for a good summary of why I wouldn't hold aliens morally accountable for my death, assuming communication could not be established.

 

3) See Point 2 above. Generalized assumptions are not necessarily incorrect just because they're generalized.

 

4) Not if we could prove their sapience (which we can't, yet at least). Again, we're free to assume that, on a moral level, a species has no objection to being killed for food. However, if and when the time comes that our food can reason with us, that's when the NAP kicks in.

 

5) Uh, we can reason with individual humans, including the German populace circa 1939. We can't reason with any animal (as far as I know). This point is irrelevant.

 

6) I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The NAP allows for the defense of innocent, non-aggressing agents. If the elk are non-aggressing, then there is no violation involved with defending the elk from their wolf aggressors. The point was to imply a question: If you're going to hold humans accountable for killing animals, then is there any reason not to hold animals accountable as well? I may be incorrect, but it seems to me that you can't group animals in with human rights if you don't also burden them with responsibility to respect those rights. Indeed, would you not then also have to task animals to defend those rights as well?

 

I've thought of something else in the meantime, which I'd like to run past everybody here. It's not vital to my argument, but it does support the assertion that eliminating human suffering is indeed more valuable than eliminating animal suffering. Humans are the only species on Earth that has the capacity for any given individual to have direct influence on the overall direction regarding the survival of most (if not all) other species. Individuals, or we as a species, could go so far as to end the world if we wanted or we could bring back other species from the brink of extinction. No other creature has that kind of agency.

 

Given that fact, would it not be essential to keep as many humans alive as possible, even at the cost of sacrificing individual animals for sustenance? If any one person or group of specific persons could cure cancer, invent A.I., build an interstellar colony ship, develop a method for breeding sapient pigs, or stabilize the Earth's climate, wouldn't it be more beneficial for every creature on Earth if we as humans took the responsibility to take care of our own species first (now, obviously, this end alone wouldn't justify eating animals if eating animals was inherently immoral, but I believe that I've made a pretty good case against that so this is all just frosting)?

[Kevin Jay]

Do rich people have some sort of brain function that prevents them from eating animals to survive? Perhaps their intestines are formed differently because of all that money, and therefore they should be held to a higher moral standard. No, that's not the way morality works. It's either immoral for everybody or it's not inherently immoral. Just because a poor person has no money doesn't mean that person has the moral option to steal in order to survive. If you're going to dismiss the importance of individual survival as "consequentialist", however, you might as well debate that humans don't have the right to move into territory claimed by animals. If killing and eating animals is immoral, then the same can be said of stealing their land from them. Quick question though, how exactly would a human initiate force against another human for survival? If my life is in danger and purposefully killing another human is the only way to survive, that is, in all circumstances, called self-defense. Or, not immoral, in other words. So I suppose I am being consistent when I say that killing for survival does not violate the NAP.

 

Alright, let's go down the line:

 

1) I think you'll have to prove two things for your first point to make sense: That animals are morally significant and that their suffering is "unnecessary." Since suffering is impossible to eliminate, so you'll have to define what qualifies as necessary and unnecessary. I suppose I wouldn't mind a clarification of your definition of the term "moral agent" while you're at it.

 

2) Voluntarily murdered? As in, they line up of their own accord for the slaughter? Of course they don't, I've never argued that. Don't put words in my mouth. I believe my argument is that the consent of sentient beings can be assumed based on the actions of the general population. Similarly, I could hardly blame an advanced alien race for assuming the same about humans (at least until we all get behind the NAP), but that doesn't mean I would volunteer to be their food. I recommend a book called Ender's Game (not the movie) for a good summary of why I wouldn't hold aliens morally accountable for my death, assuming communication could not be established.

 

3) See Point 2 above. Generalized assumptions are not necessarily incorrect just because they're generalized.

 

4) Not if we could prove their sapience (which we can't, yet at least). Again, we're free to assume that, on a moral level, a species has no objection to being killed for food. However, if and when the time comes that our food can reason with us, that's when the NAP kicks in.

 

5) Uh, we can reason with individual humans, including the German populace circa 1939. We can't reason with any animal (as far as I know). This point is irrelevant.

 

6) I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The NAP allows for the defense of innocent, non-aggressing agents. If the elk are non-aggressing, then there is no violation involved with defending the elk from their wolf aggressors. The point was to imply a question: If you're going to hold humans accountable for killing animals, then is there any reason not to hold animals accountable as well? I may be incorrect, but it seems to me that you can't group animals in with human rights if you don't also burden them with responsibility to respect those rights. Indeed, would you not then also have to task animals to defend those rights as well?

 

I've thought of something else in the meantime, which I'd like to run past everybody here. It's not vital to my argument, but it does support the assertion that eliminating human suffering is indeed more valuable than eliminating animal suffering. Humans are the only species on Earth that has the capacity for any given individual to have direct influence on the overall direction regarding the survival of most (if not all) other species. Individuals, or we as a species, could go so far as to end the world if we wanted or we could bring back other species from the brink of extinction. No other creature has that kind of agency.

 

Given that fact, would it not be essential to keep as many humans alive as possible, even at the cost of sacrificing individual animals for sustenance? If any one person or group of specific persons could cure cancer, invent A.I., build an interstellar colony ship, develop a method for breeding sapient pigs, or stabilize the Earth's climate, wouldn't it be more beneficial for every creature on Earth if we as humans took the responsibility to take care of our own species first (now, obviously, this end alone wouldn't justify eating animals if eating animals was inherently immoral, but I believe that I've made a pretty good case against that so this is all just frosting)?

"If my life is in danger and purposefully killing another human is the only way to survive, that is, in all circumstances, called self-defense. Or, not immoral, in other words. So I suppose I am being consistent when I say that killing for survival does not violate the NAP."

 

WHAT?!?! That is not self defense! If the only way to stay alive is by murdering some third party who has committed no aggression against me, then murdering him would of course breach his property right in his own body and so be initiating force! How could you think anything else?

 

Erm, I am holding both the rich and the poor to the same moral standard...the principle you suggest claims that killing animals is justified when it is essential for survival to avoid imminent death. You appear to have a flawed conception of what 'universaling' principles entails. E.g. you can universalise the principle 'respect your mother and father' yet it specifies specific classes, which according to you makes it non-universalisable. The rich and poor are being treated according to identical standards, that killing animals to eat them is justified when not doing so would result in serious danger. When you can go down the supermaket and buy courgettes this clearly isn't permissible. 

 

1. Asking me to define 'moral agent', this is just so basic that I can't be bothered to act as your philosophy 101 tutor, especially when you were so passive aggressive and sarcastic in your response. 

 

2. Actually you do think they are being voluntarily murdered, as you say, their consent is assumed.

 

At the end you make a consequentialist argument regarding the importance of keeping humans alive. This seems to make no sense when you are trying to defend Stefan's theory which is anti-consequentialist. 

 

"I may be incorrect, but it seems to me that you can't group animals in with human rights if you don't also burden them with responsibility to respect those rights."

 

No, see my point regarding moral agency vs. morally significant being. Google these terms if you are interested. 

 

Anyway, the point is, you haven't shown how given the NAP and lack of their self-ownership, torturing animals etc. is wrong. It is only wrong based on consequentialist considerations, thus Stefan's theory is unable to explain why torturing animals for fun is wrong which discredits Stefan's theory.

 

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

"If my life is in danger and purposefully killing another human is the only way to survive, that is, in all circumstances, called self-defense. Or, not immoral, in other words. So I suppose I am being consistent when I say that killing for survival does not violate the NAP."

 

WHAT?!?! That is not self defense! If the only way to stay alive is by murdering some third party who has committed no aggression against me, then murdering him would of course breach his property right in his own body and so be initiating force! How could you think anything else?

 

Erm, I am holding both the rich and the poor to the same moral standard...the principle you suggest claims that killing animals is justified when it is essential for survival to avoid imminent death. You appear to have a flawed conception of what 'universaling' principles entails. E.g. you can universalise the principle 'respect your mother and father' yet it specifies specific classes, which according to you makes it non-universalisable. The rich and poor are being treated according to identical standards, that killing animals to eat them is justified when not doing so would result in serious danger. When you can go down the supermaket and buy courgettes this clearly isn't permissible. 

 

1. Asking me to define 'moral agent', this is just so basic that I can't be bothered to act as your philosophy 101 tutor, especially when you were so passive aggressive and sarcastic in your response. 

 

2. Actually you do think they are being voluntarily murdered, as you say, their consent is assumed.

 

At the end you make a consequentialist argument regarding the importance of keeping humans alive. This seems to make no sense when you are trying to defend Stefan's theory which is anti-consequentialist. 

 

"I may be incorrect, but it seems to me that you can't group animals in with human rights if you don't also burden them with responsibility to respect those rights."

 

No, see my point regarding moral agency vs. morally significant being. Google these terms if you are interested. 

 

Anyway, the point is, you haven't shown how given the NAP and lack of their self-ownership, torturing animals etc. is wrong. It is only wrong based on consequentialist considerations, thus Stefan's theory is unable to explain why torturing animals for fun is wrong which discredits Stefan's theory.

 

 

Look, as much as I love these debates, I would prefer to debate/discuss these issues with somebody who will actually read, comprehend, formulate logical conclusions, and then engage when necessary. You can try again if you like, but I'm not going to bother responding to anything you've written here. You've added nothing to the conversation, you've only reiterated your previous points, which I think I did a good job debunking. 

[PatrickC]

Anyway, the point is, you haven't shown how given the NAP and lack of their self-ownership, torturing animals etc. is wrong. It is only wrong based on consequentialist considerations, thus Stefan's theory is unable to explain why torturing animals for fun is wrong which discredits Stefan's theory.

 

Stefan was expressing a preference. His use of the expression NSP in the video, was merely a play on words. However he takes his preference seriously enough to find torturing animals unacceptable. Which I think most people with empathy can agree with.

 

You are conflating Stefan's words into more than what they are. There is no theory here, merely a rational and reasonable preference. Anyone that tortured animals would not be a friend of mine.

[steve_]

I'm still unsure why people think self-ownership applies to humans but not animals.

 

I'm still unsure why people think it's cool by the NAP for me to do anything I please with those incapable of understanding language and thus the NAP.

 

It genuinely seems like a massive cop-out to me to either to keep self-ownership practical for real-world application (even though it might not be) or because bacon.

 

 

Why can only things covered by the NAP be considered immoral? Anything else for some reason is, by some, not called "immoral" but a mere aesthetic preference... and I'm really not sure why.

[Pepin]

I'm still unsure why people think self-ownership applies to humans but not animals.

 

I'm still unsure why people think it's cool by the NAP for me to do anything I please with those incapable of understanding language and thus...

 

I'm sorry, but you're not addressing the arguments that the people are making to support their claim that the NAP only applies to humans and instead framing it in the sense that "why do they think X?", as if X is arbitrary and is just an opinion. It is like asking "why do communists think that capitalism is immoral?" and not addressing any of the hundreds of arguments that communists make that lead to the conclusion that capitalism is immoral. If there is a flaw with the opposing argument, don't talk about how the conclusion is unintelligible, but rather focus on the reason and evidence.

[PatrickC]

It genuinely seems like a massive cop-out to me to either to keep self-ownership practical for real-world application (even though it might not be) or because bacon.

 

I have a genuine interest in this topic myself. But seriously, making ridiculous assumptions like 'bacon', as if people only eat the stuff for superfluous reasons is what thoroughly puts me off discussing it on this board sometimes.

[steve_]

I'm sorry, but you're not addressing the arguments that the people are making to support their claim that the NAP only applies to humans and instead framing it in the sense that "why do they think X?", as if X is arbitrary and is just an opinion. It is like asking "why do communists think that capitalism is immoral?" and not addressing any of the hundreds of arguments that communists make that lead to the conclusion that capitalism is immoral. If there is a flaw with the opposing argument, don't talk about how the conclusion is unintelligible, but rather focus on the reason and evidence.

 

I replied to all the arguments I was given in the 'Meat consumption vs Libertarianism' thread.

 

I have a genuine interest in this topic myself. But seriously, making ridiculous assumptions like 'bacon', as if people only eat the stuff for superfluous reasons is what thoroughly puts me off discussing it on this board sometimes.

 

Well, by 'bacon' I mean that they'd prefer to mould their morality around their current lifestyle, which I'd bet my house includes eating meat. I don't think that's a ridiculous assumption.

[PatrickC]

Well, by 'bacon' I mean that they'd prefer to mould their morality around their current lifestyle, which I'd bet my house includes eating meat. I don't think that's a ridiculous assumption.

 

No more less or more than those that don't eat meat either. Except that wasn't the question in this thread.

[Pepin]

The main question to ask and to answer is whether it is morally permissible to use force against someone who abuses an animal. Essentially, can you kill someone who tortures and animal? A further question to really provide grounding is "would you yourself pull the trigger". 

 

I really have a difficult time answering the question because I really love animals and hate seeing harm come to them. I'd prefer to live in a society where there was no animal abuse. When I was younger I had a friend who upon seeing an amazing caterpillar picked it up and smashed it against the ground. After seeing this I quickly left the area with tears in my eyes and cried when I got home. But would I pull the trigger on my friend? I'd have to say no.

 

Perhaps this is reflection of knowing many hunters and having caught a few fish myself in the past. Perhaps this is the result of growing up in a culture where this sort of stuff is permissible. Perhaps it is because I prefer people over animals. I mean if my friend is getting mauled by a moose: I'd shoot the moose, but if the moose is about to get shot by my friend: I wouldn't shoot my friend. Perhaps this is some kind of biological effect where stopping others from killing animals is not really programmed into our DNA because it wouldn't have been evolutionary advantageous. I don't really know, but I do know that someone with the opposite position is unable to use force against me for my inaction. In a large way the question doesn't affect me because I don't abuse animals and there is no positive obligation to stop others from abusing animals.

 

Where it gets really tough is in asking myself if I'd shoot someone who had shot somebody else for abusing an animal. Let's say my best friend Steve shoots and kills a bear, and Joe sees this and shoots Steve. In the case that killing animals is a violation of the NAP and ignoring the comic book portrayal of the principles, it would be immoral for me to take any form of retribution against Steve. If I were to shoot and kill Joe, I'd be charged with murder, whereas I don't, Steve's actions are completely in the right and he is not changed with anything. Though this isn't an argument, I am quite uncomfortable with this result, which doesn't effect the validity of anything, but it is important to point out I have a large struggle in accepting this consequence.

 

I hope this is useful. I didn't really take the philosophical approach of making an argument, but I do think that this gives some indication of the emotional and personal component. If you are arguing the position that animal abuse is a violation of the NAP, then a great way to convince me is to make the proposition of shooting my friend who is about to shoot the moose feel right, to have me feel the same or at least similar feeling as if Steve was going to shoot person.

 

Of course you can get into "the situation is already tainted because you are friends with someone who you already know commits immoral  acts of violence against animals", but I feel like the basic idea is still intact.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

For one thing, I wasn't referencing that site as a, "Look! Here's all the evidence you'll ever need!" deal. I do think that it effectively showed that there is a great amount of debate on the issue of human omnivorous tendencies, and that's even within the vegetarian/vegan community. We should both consider that it may be the case that you have spent a great deal of time leading yourself to your conclusions based on your ethics, and the same may be true of me. 

 

 

My conclusions are based on a comprehensive study of a great deal of different data in different fields of biological science, I reject your allegations of ethically driven bias. A scientific theory must account for all the known facts, not just the ones that suit the desired conclusion and the article you mentioned did not account for many facts, and even what it covered were misleading generalizations.

 

The reasons why there is so much debate about this issue is because people who believe that humans are omnivores refuse to submit themselves to scientific rigor, in exactly the same way that creation theorists refuse to. It is you who are projecting your ethical bias into the debate and upon I.The claim that humans are "omnivores" because they behave in some way similarly is absurd and unscientific. How many people to you know that can and will capture, tear apart and consume another mammal with their bare hands like a chimpanzee or dog can? The use of tools to capture and process animal foods is evidence that we lack the adaptations required of meat eaters including omnivores, the same can be said for cooking.Humans that have attempted to consume uncooked animal matter come to some pretty unpleasant ends. http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/chincho/parasites.html

 

Regarding as to whether humans can consume and digest animal products, it is a worthless observation, because cows and sheep can do so.As to whether humans can live an equally long and healthy life consuming animal productions the data is generally negative.

 

 

[Kevin Jay]

The main question to ask and to answer is whether it is morally permissible to use force against someone who abuses an animal. Essentially, can you kill someone who tortures and animal? A further question to really provide grounding is "would you yourself pull the trigger". 

 

I really have a difficult time answering the question because I really love animals and hate seeing harm come to them. I'd prefer to live in a society where there was no animal abuse. When I was younger I had a friend who upon seeing an amazing caterpillar picked it up and smashed it against the ground. After seeing this I quickly left the area with tears in my eyes and cried when I got home. But would I pull the trigger on my friend? I'd have to say no.

 

Perhaps this is reflection of knowing many hunters and having caught a few fish myself in the past. Perhaps this is the result of growing up in a culture where this sort of stuff is permissible. Perhaps it is because I prefer people over animals. I mean if my friend is getting mauled by a moose: I'd shoot the moose, but if the moose is about to get shot by my friend: I wouldn't shoot my friend. Perhaps this is some kind of biological effect where stopping others from killing animals is not really programmed into our DNA because it wouldn't have been evolutionary advantageous. I don't really know, but I do know that someone with the opposite position is unable to use force against me for my inaction. In a large way the question doesn't affect me because I don't abuse animals and there is no positive obligation to stop others from abusing animals.

 

Where it gets really tough is in asking myself if I'd shoot someone who had shot somebody else for abusing an animal. Let's say my best friend Steve shoots and kills a bear, and Joe sees this and shoots Steve. In the case that killing animals is a violation of the NAP and ignoring the comic book portrayal of the principles, it would be immoral for me to take any form of retribution against Steve. If I were to shoot and kill Joe, I'd be charged with murder, whereas I don't, Steve's actions are completely in the right and he is not changed with anything. Though this isn't an argument, I am quite uncomfortable with this result, which doesn't effect the validity of anything, but it is important to point out I have a large struggle in accepting this consequence.

 

I hope this is useful. I didn't really take the philosophical approach of making an argument, but I do think that this gives some indication of the emotional and personal component. If you are arguing the position that animal abuse is a violation of the NAP, then a great way to convince me is to make the proposition of shooting my friend who is about to shoot the moose feel right. Of course you can get into "the situation is already tainted because you are friends with someone who you already know commits immoral  acts of violence against animals", but I feel like the basic idea is still intact.

I think this response demonstrated how Stefan's theory has big problems making sense of why it is wrong to torture animals. You were unable to appeal to Stefan's moral principles, instead saying things like 'this is my emotional/personal perspective' which is clearly appealing to sentiments and subjectivity that Stefan would not accept and view as silly fallacious reasoning.

[Pepin]

I think this response demonstrated how Stefan's theory has big problems making sense of why it is wrong to torture animals. You were unable to appeal to Stefan's moral principles, instead saying things like 'this is my emotional/personal perspective' which is clearly appealing to sentiments and subjectivity that Stefan would not accept and view as silly fallacious reasoning.

 

My post has nothing to do with Stefan nor is it related to UPB. I'm not even making an argument. I'm attempting to put myself into an application of the theory to see how it feels and trying to make sense of the feelings. If I and other people are hung up on the issue of animals rights because of emotional reasons and most of us are simply coming up with rationalizations to fit our conclusion, then it is vital for animal rights proponents to understand that our arguments are not at the root cause of the belief, and that instead the focus should be on addressing the irrational emotional content. To a large degree this is already being done with all of those videos about slaughterhouses, dogfights, poaching, and more; it engages primarily the emotions as means of bypassing the rationalizations.

 

I also think it is important for those who claim that animal abuse is a violation of the NAP apply the theory to various situations and scenarios in their head and to see how it feels. Paragraph four of my post gives a good example to use, though put it'd make more sense to put yourself in Joe's shoes and to ask if you'd shoot Steve. Even if you wouldn't, it has no bearing on the validity of animals rights, but it would be something to think about.

 

In case you're wondering why I am insistent on shooting and murder, it is partly to be dramatic, but more because the threat of murder is always the underlying threat in regard to the application of force. Though I don't feel like it would be as much of a issue with animals because simply getting the person away from animals would suffice. But ultimately the point is still true.

 

Hope that helps to clarify my intentions.

[PatrickC]

My post has nothing to do with Stefan nor is it related to UPB. I'm not even making an argument. I'm attempting to put myself into an application of the theory to see how it feels and trying to make sense of the feelings.

 

Yes, it's an empathic response, not a moral theory.

[Kevin Jay]

My post has nothing to do with Stefan nor is it related to UPB. I'm not even making an argument. I'm attempting to put myself into an application of the theory to see how it feels and trying to make sense of the feelings. If I and other people are hung up on the issue of animals rights because of emotional reasons and most of us are simply coming up with rationalizations to fit our conclusion, then it is vital for animal rights proponents to understand that our arguments are not at the root cause of the belief, and that instead the focus should be on addressing the irrational emotional content. To a large degree this is already being done with all of those videos about slaughterhouses, dogfights, poaching, and more; it engages primarily the emotions as means of bypassing the rationalizations.

 

I also think it is important for those who claim that animal abuse is a violation of the NAP apply the theory to various situations and scenarios in their head and to see how it feels. Paragraph four of my post gives a good example to use, though put it'd make more sense to put yourself in Joe's shoes and to ask if you'd shoot Steve. Even if you wouldn't, it has no bearing on the validity of animals rights, but it would be something to think about.

 

In case you're wondering why I am insistent on shooting and murder, it is partly to be dramatic, but more because the threat of murder is always the underlying threat in regard to the application of force. Though I don't feel like it would be as much of a issue with animals because simply getting the person away from animals would suffice. But ultimately the point is still true.

 

Hope that helps to clarify my intentions.

Right, so according to Stefan's moral theory, it is morally permissible to torture animals, rape them, etc. since they do not have self ownership. Nonetheless, some people might not like doing that or find it distasteful, in the same way that they might not like cheese potato chips, or be disgusted by them. But there's nothing objective about that taste. I think we agree!

Look, as much as I love these debates, I would prefer to debate/discuss these issues with somebody who will actually read, comprehend, formulate logical conclusions, and then engage when necessary. You can try again if you like, but I'm not going to bother responding to anything you've written here. You've added nothing to the conversation, you've only reiterated your previous points, which I think I did a good job debunking. 

This feels like a cop-out. I made clear points in my last statement that you could respond to, e.g. your claim that by saying 'killing animals to save your life if not doing so would mean immediate death is morally permissible' would mean applying different standards to the rich and poor was false - in fact the standards applied are identical.

[cynicist]

Hey guys, 

At 32:15 Stefan introduced a new principle, the 'Non-Sadistic-Principle', which says 'torturing animals is bad because it is unnecessary suffering'. But I am confused as to what the philosophical grounding is for this, as it is not covered in Stefan's 'UPB' and to me sounds like utilitarian thinking since it is concerned with minimizing suffering as opposed to honouring the Non-Aggression-Principle. If animals do not have self ownership can't we torture them as we wish (assuming we own them, not someone else.) Anything else would be to claim positive obligations (which as we know from UPB, cannot exist) or suggest the animal had self-ownership, which would mean that full veganism would presumably be imperative, and holding pets being kidnapping. If anyone can help me out with this I'd appreciate it. Can anyone explain to me the proof of this NSP?K

 

Well if animals can't understand self-ownership how could they exercise it? I do think there is a kind of NSP that applies to how intelligent beings interact with those of lesser intelligence. Consider a human being that is mentally retarded; They are assigned less responsibility for their actions and we expect them to be treated with more care partly because they have less ability to care for themselves. Many people would look at someone who teased a human being with this condition as despicable, more than if the same teasing were done to the average human being since a regular human being is not as helpless. I think those of us with empathy can see the connection between that and animals with even lower intelligence and less ability to defend themselves from us. 

 

Just because it isn't an issue of morality doesn't mean it's acceptable behavior. We look down on those who abuse creatures of lesser intelligence as repulsive. I think it's possible to enumerate a principle around the relationship between intelligence, helplessness, responsibility, and abuse but I need to give it more thought. Thanks for bringing up the interesting topic.

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

This feels like a cop-out. I made clear points in my last statement that you could respond to, e.g. your claim that by saying 'killing animals to save your life if not doing so would mean immediate death is morally permissible' would mean applying different standards to the rich and poor was false - in fact the standards applied are identical.

 

I'm sorry it feels that way, but, while I appreciate your input, I don't feel very confident that you made an attempt to understand my argument. I try very hard to address each concern that you have as thoroughly as possible and I end up disappointed by what looks like blatant disrespect for my efforts every time you post. I don't mind being wrong if I'm wrong, but I like to have my points addressed concisely and logically. Philosophy is a science - if one can refute my argument using rational points OR by pointing out where my logic fails, then I think that's a great thing and no less than my argument deserves. So like I said, please feel free to read through my argument and try again, and I'll be happy to continue the debate.

 

My conclusions are based on a comprehensive study of a great deal of different data in different fields of biological science, I reject your allegations of ethically driven bias. A scientific theory must account for all the known facts, not just the ones that suit the desired conclusion and the article you mentioned did not account for many facts, and even what it covered were misleading generalizations.

 

The reasons why there is so much debate about this issue is because people who believe that humans are omnivores refuse to submit themselves to scientific rigor, in exactly the same way that creation theorists refuse to. It is you who are projecting your ethical bias into the debate and upon I.The claim that humans are "omnivores" because they behave in some way similarly is absurd and unscientific. How many people to you know that can and will capture, tear apart and consume another mammal with their bare hands like a chimpanzee or dog can? The use of tools to capture and process animal foods is evidence that we lack the adaptations required of meat eaters including omnivores, the same can be said for cooking.Humans that have attempted to consume uncooked animal matter come to some pretty unpleasant ends. http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/chincho/parasites.html

 

Regarding as to whether humans can consume and digest animal products, it is a worthless observation, because cows and sheep can do so.As to whether humans can live an equally long and healthy life consuming animal productions the data is generally negative.

 

That's great, I can't wait to see your supporting research and the inevitable scientific consensus! ...Even though there still appears to be plenty of evidence that we wouldn't even be the species we are without generous amounts of meat consumption such as here, here, and this excerpt. Until and unless I see your irrefutable research, it seems that I'm forced to believe that homo sapiens are evolutionary omnivores. It seems that "all of the known facts" better support the omnivore argument.

 

Ooh, I would not so lightly compare this kind of science to creation "science." There is a pretty clear difference in the evidence provided, and there is no consensus as there is against creationism. In fact, nothing that you've cited has given any positive support for a strictly herbivore diet. As I'm sure you know, a strictly vegetarian/vegan diet does not provide all necessary nutrients that humans need to live as long as we do currently. Vegans today have access to B12 vitamins (among others) that would not be found in third-world or pre-industrial societies. Just because you claim that many (the majority, most likely, though that wouldn't necessarily make them right) scientists are not subjecting themselves to scientific rigor, doesn't make it so.

 

Additionally, I submit your claim that I don't know any humans who can or would catch and eat raw animals to be absolutely, beyond any doubt, ridiculous. The only reason that I don't eat raw crab that I catch from the coast is because I have access to easier options. The only reason that I don't collect and eat grubs raw is because it is not necessary to my current survival (et cetera for any animals). But I would bet my life that, put in that kind of situation, I would do it without hesitation. And your claim that the use of tools is not an evolutionary adaptation on it's own doesn't stand up when you account for our evolutionary history. We absolutely developed the ability to use tools to more easily eat meat, and we certainly ate what we could catch before such adaptations. 

 

As for unfortunate consequences for meat-eaters? That article makes clear the average life-span of humans to be 25, well after the age of maturity and subsequent passing along of genes. I also wonder just how long the life-span would be if humans in those areas stuck strictly to local vegetation.

 

Cows and sheep don't need to for survival, since their bodies are far more adapted to eating vegetation than those of humans. So I'd still say that my observation is far from worthless. Also... Did I say that human omnivores live equally long and healthy lives? No, I don't believe I did. But conscious and rational choices regarding how much and what kinds of meat surely can and have led to acceptable longevity among whatever modern society I can point to.

 

Even if you're right, it still doesn't solve the issue of morality which Pepin (and, I'd like to believe, I) has effectively put forward, but I don't think that that's an issue that most vegan/vegetarians will fully consider, as morality has little to do with historical or current health benefits.