fractional slacker Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 If this is the best speech you have come across, you need to get out more.I'm only 2 minutes in and I have a problem with this man's argument: "The problem is that humans have victimized animals to such a degree that they aren't even considered victims."That is classic NAA material. Aside from not providing definitions (victim/victimized, degree), this sort of narrative has no philosophical value. Why do I say that? It's just word salad du jour. There is no universal principle involved. . He might as well have said, "The problem is that spiders have victimized insects to such a degree that they aren't even considered victims." Smells a lot like structural violence to me. 1 1
Lars Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 I stopped listening as soon as he said livestock animals are born to be "murdered".
shirgall Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 I'm sorry to be pejorative, but this guy's speech made me want to catch up on GamerGate. 1 1
Gavitor Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 He should tell those mean lions to stop "victimizing" those poor gazelle... 1 1
Wuzzums Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 I'm still confused why I should not eat eggs and dairy products. I mean, if the argument is that I should not eat those things because it's cruel (through animals being kept in battery cages and whatnot) then I won't eat those things. But what if the animals are being kept in a natural habitat, i.e. a barnyard/farm cause they are domesticated animals? Whom am I hurting by eating an unfertilized egg left on the ground by some chicken that runs around freely all day looking for worms? The classic vegan response to this is "because it's disgusting" which is not an answer at all. Which makes me wonder, if it's an actual movement or one of those plethora of movements designed only to give its adherents a higher moral ground from where to freely judge people. First they attack me cause I'm white through white hate movement, then they attack me cause I'm a male through the feminist movement, then they attack me cause I'm straight through the transgender movement, then they attack me cause I'm human through the animal rights or vegan movement, then they attack me for breathing through the environmentalist movement, then they attack me for just existing and minding my own business through the social justice movement. The hell do these people want from me? 9
FreedomPhilosophy Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 If you are interested in a thorough philosophical discussion of animals and ethics, I suggest the works of Scott D Wilson. http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/ Also Pluhar's 'Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals' is worthy of attention. I'm still confused why I should not eat eggs and dairy products. I mean, if the argument is that I should not eat those things because it's cruel (through animals being kept in battery cages and whatnot) then I won't eat those things. But what if the animals are being kept in a natural habitat, Taking unfertilized eggs doesn't seem to be morally problematic, anymore than say finding a dead beast and making use of it as meat. It is the context within which these actions occur that raises ethical concerns.Domestication would be seen by many vegans as exploitative because it views other beings as a means to an end. Such behaviour still reduces a subject to an object. Cruelty is also involved in raising chickens and dairy animals because the females are more productive, males are exterminated. So extermination is still an inherent part of these systems.I also think that there are ethical concerns when one is encouraging others to exterminate animals as these activities are harmful to the psyche of those who do the killing.
Tyler Durden Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 If this is the best speech you have come across, you need to get out more.I'm only 2 minutes in and I have a problem with this man's argument: "The problem is that humans have victimized animals to such a degree that they aren't even considered victims."That is classic NAA material. Aside from not providing definitions (victim/victimized, degree), this sort of narrative has no philosophical value. Why do I say that? It's just word salad du jour. There is no universal principle involved. . He might as well have said, "The problem is that spiders have victimized insects to such a degree that they aren't even considered victims." Smells a lot like structural violence to me. Without going into the specifics of what this guy said, I have a question about the last sentence in your post. Don't you think that when over a billion animals are killed in slaughterhouses each week that actually is structural violence? I stopped listening as soon as he said livestock animals are born to be "murdered". When somebody slits the throat of another human being and lets him or her bleed to death we call it murder, but when someone does the exact same thing to an animal we don't use that word. I get it. But why is it that when someone uses that word with regards to animals, instead of kill, you immediately stop listening? I'm not trying to provoke you btw, it's a genuine question. He should tell those mean lions to stop "victimizing" those poor gazelle... The amount of animals killed by lions doesn't even come close to the amount of animals killed by humans. I'm still confused why I should not eat eggs and dairy products. I mean, if the argument is that I should not eat those things because it's cruel (through animals being kept in battery cages and whatnot) then I won't eat those things. But what if the animals are being kept in a natural habitat, i.e. a barnyard/farm cause they are domesticated animals? Whom am I hurting by eating an unfertilized egg left on the ground by some chicken that runs around freely all day looking for worms? The classic vegan response to this is "because it's disgusting" which is not an answer at all. Which makes me wonder, if it's an actual movement or one of those plethora of movements designed only to give its adherents a higher moral ground from where to freely judge people. First they attack me cause I'm white through white hate movement, then they attack me cause I'm a male through the feminist movement, then they attack me cause I'm straight through the transgender movement, then they attack me cause I'm human through the animal rights or vegan movement, then they attack me for breathing through the environmentalist movement, then they attack me for just existing and minding my own business through the social justice movement. The hell do these people want from me? This post would have been so much better if you had left out the second paragraph. But you raise some good questions in the first, so let me answer those. Eggs: When the chicks come out of the eggs the males are separated from the females and the male chicks are killed immediately. The female chickens have been bred to lay over 300 eggs a year (instead of 10-15 a year) and after a year of laying eggs they are so exhausted that they're no longer useful to the industry, so they're killed at about a fifth of their natural lifespan. Dairy: Cows in the dairy industry are kept perpetually pregnant, they give birth once a year and all of their young are taken from them at birth. The males are transferred to the veil industry, the females are either selected to take their mom's place or they're transferred to the veil industry as well. After cows have given milk for 4 years they become less productive, so they're killed at about a quarter of their natural lifespan. There's a lot more to say about it, but these are the main reasons why I don't eat eggs or dairy products. 1 1
McBeer Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 What about the immorality of murdering plants? Maybe if Disney made more movies about talking plants instead of animals then there would be more empathy for the feelings of vegetables. 2 1
Lars Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 When somebody slits the throat of another human being and lets him or her bleed to death we call it murder, but when someone does the exact same thing to an animal we don't use that word. I get it. But why is it that when someone uses that word with regards to animals, instead of kill, you immediately stop listening? I'm not trying to provoke you btw, it's a genuine question. His attempts at managing the audience's response right from the beginning was already irritating, plus I've heard it all before anyway.Animal abuse is a direct result of child abuse, yet these activists apparently couldn't care less about the suffering of their own species, or at least have their priorities messed up. Either way, excessive meat production (economically inefficient) requires large subsidies to be profitable... there's an embarrassingly simple solution, but it may affect the immediate food supply a little. 3
prolix Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 Sounds like he is doing slam poetry... "The problem is not with me and what I just said." And I am done with this video...
dsayers Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 If you are interested in a thorough philosophical discussion of animals and ethics What about the immorality of murdering plants? The capacity for reason is a requisite for self-ownership, which is a requisite for being a moral actor. Ethics/morality does not apply to plants or non-human animals. Tyler Durden made a fantastic case for why we as consumers should work to reduce the demand for such practices and he did it without resorting to dishonesty/manipulation (while making that case). Lars makes such fantastic points, I wish I could upvote it more than once. To resonate, large portions of the meat/poultry/dairy industry is propped up by money that's stolen from you and used to artificially inflate those markets by subsidizing the costs. IIRC, it takes 7 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of meat. That's incredibly inefficient AND not as good for you. I admit this is a utilitarian argument, but in the realm of human-animal interaction, there is no moral argument to be made.
nathanm Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 Well shit, now I have to get a new needle for my douchbage meter. Dang thing sheared clean off. 2 1
Psychophant Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 The capacity for reason is a requisite for self-ownership, which is a requisite for being a moral actor. Ethics/morality does not apply to plants or non-human animals. Tyler Durden made a fantastic case for why we as consumers should work to reduce the demand for such practices and he did it without resorting to dishonesty/manipulation (while making that case). Lars makes such fantastic points, I wish I could upvote it more than once. To resonate, large portions of the meat/poultry/dairy industry is propped up by money that's stolen from you and used to artificially inflate those markets by subsidizing the costs. IIRC, it takes 7 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of meat. That's incredibly inefficient AND not as good for you. I admit this is a utilitarian argument, but in the realm of human-animal interaction, there is no moral argument to be made. Yeah bro and the funny thing is goverments prop up an overproduction of meat, milk and egg by subisdizing its overhead disposal in the EUDSSR. Ponds of milk butter etc. The demand for inexpensive meat is there: According to the law of diminishing marginal benefit, these numbers should be stable then. It is easy, even if something was dirt cheap, the benefit per unit would decline with every piece until you would start to puke. Fatty 1st piece: Cheesecake, yummy. Fatty 2nd piece: Cheesecake, yummy. Fatty 3rd piece: Cheesecake! I am starting to be fed up. Fatty 4th piece: It is cheap is hell but I am starting to feel bad. Fatty 5th piece: *puke* Although the demand is inflated, it indicates what is possible under the current price level. Given that it is ineffective due to subsidies for production and disposal the incentive for more effectivity could keept the prices down or the hidden costs. 1
MagnumPI Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 If meat were replaced with plant material in just say, the diets of people in the US, how much more agricultural land would be needed? Is that something that can be calculated? 1
Jot Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 If meat were replaced with plant material in just say, the diets of people in the US, how much more agricultural land would be needed? Is that something that can be calculated? Yeah, by the way he talks you could have predicted that he is not a safe person to sit around.
Tyler Durden Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 If meat were replaced with plant material in just say, the diets of people in the US, how much more agricultural land would be needed? Is that something that can be calculated? It's the other way around, we would need less land, a lot less. The reason for that is that animals need a lot of food in order to produce relatively little meat. The meat industry is actually food production in reverse. 10 pounds of plant food get turned into 4 pounds of chicken meat, or 2 pounds of pork, or 1 pound of beef. Worldwide about a third of all the land is used for food "production". Of that land 19% is used as agricultural land to produce plant food for us, 11% is used as agricultural land to produce plant food for animals, and 70% is pasture land for animals. The 19% that is used to produce plant food for us provides us with 83% of our energy and 67% of our protein. The 81% that is used to produce meat, eggs and dairy products provides us with only 17% of our energy and 33% of our protein. So if everyone in the world stopped eating meat overnight we wouldn't need any more agricultural land than we already have. We would have more food and more available land. 1 1
B1-66ER Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 He certainly makes a compelling case. However in my infinitely falsifiable opinion, I do enjoy the taste of flesh, specifically flesh of the sea. I am a seafood fanatic, and no matter how much he'd liked to compare me to an SS death camp guard, I will continue to feast on the flesh of aquatic life, simply because it tastes good.(Not to mention the myriad of other positive benefits of a seafood diet) I can honestly say i'll never enjoy a glass of milk again though...I'll stick to the soy alternative.
MagnumPI Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 It's the other way around, we would need less land, a lot less. The reason for that is that animals need a lot of food in order to produce relatively little meat. The meat industry is actually food production in reverse. 10 pounds of plant food get turned into 4 pounds of chicken meat, or 2 pounds of pork, or 1 pound of beef. Worldwide about a third of all the land is used for food "production". Of that land 19% is used as agricultural land to produce plant food for us, 11% is used as agricultural land to produce plant food for animals, and 70% is pasture land for animals. The 19% that is used to produce plant food for us provides us with 83% of our energy and 67% of our protein. The 81% that is used to produce meat, eggs and dairy products provides us with only 17% of our energy and 33% of our protein. So if everyone in the world stopped eating meat overnight we wouldn't need any more agricultural land than we already have. We would have more food and more available land. Really? I'm pretty sure actual vegetable crops are harder to grow than grass or corn. Especially with any hope of maintaining soil nutrition and harvest quality. And I don't think you can grow many oranges in Kansas... 1
Triangle Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 First they attack me cause I'm white through white hate movement, then they attack me cause I'm a male through the feminist movement, then they attack me cause I'm straight through the transgender movement, then they attack me cause I'm human through the animal rights or vegan movement, then they attack me for breathing through the environmentalist movement, then they attack me for just existing and minding my own business through the social justice movement. The hell do these people want from me? Braaaaaaaaiiinssss..... Think of the similarities between them and zombies: they don't think, they are dangerous to your health, they damage your brain, they try to make other people like them, they make lots of noise, and they're everywhere. And they like kittens.
Gavitor Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 The amount of animals killed by lions doesn't even come close to the amount of animals killed by humans. If we are to discuss the morality of eating animals the number eaten is hardly relevant. If the animals were raised and killed in a humane manner IE without suffering (which is better than the way they'd die if eaten by your typical carnivore) would it still be immoral to eat them? If so why?
Tyler Durden Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Really? I'm pretty sure actual vegetable crops are harder to grow than grass or corn. Especially with any hope of maintaining soil nutrition and harvest quality. And I don't think you can grow many oranges in Kansas... Right now we use 19% of the land to grow crops directly for us and that provides us with 83% of our energy. Are you saying that neither the other 11% agricultural land nor the 70% pasture land is suitable to grow quality crops for the remaining 17% of our energy? If we are to discuss the morality of eating animals the number eaten is hardly relevant. If the animals were raised and killed in a humane manner IE without suffering (which is better than the way they'd die if eaten by your typical carnivore) would it still be immoral to eat them? If so why? The only killing that I consider humane is when an animal is sick or injured and about to die anyway and you take them out of their misery. Not when an animal is completely healthy and full of life. The immoral part is taking away a life when there is no necessity to do so.
OGMizen Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 Well there are some seriously stupid comments on here 'I didnt like the way he talked' - 'What about the immorality of murdering plants' - 'Well now I have to get a new needle for my douchebag meter' Seriously..? I thought I might get some good discussion going from here (given that you all claim to be open minded and reasonable people etc.) but Im just getting the same old shit I see everywhere else in society when anyone dares to open their mouths about the suffering of animals.You might actually like Gary if you werent so quick to fire knee-jerk ad homs at him and if you werent so dedicated to disagreeing with him right off the bat. The fact so many people are saying 'I couldnt handle more than X amount of minutes of him' says a lot. He does present a lot of information that is irrefutable. His moral arguements arent the most philosophically strict, but so what? HES NOT A PHILOSOPHER. I was hoping a few people might actually be open to reason and evidence (regardless of how crudely it is put forward) but apparently not. I guess hes not up to some of the FDR listeners' 'perfect' standards.For anyone actually interested in learning more about this guy (and his arguments) Here are a couple more videos: This one is him being interviewed by a very civil Israeli show host (unlike the one in the video where he 'loses it') about his lectures in Israel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-giq2zjFmYAnd this one which I think FDR listeners (who can put away their own emotional biases) will enjoy.. He goes into his own family stuff and his 'DeFOO'. 1
prolix Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Well there are some seriously stupid comments on here 'I didnt like the way he talked' - 'What about the immorality of murdering plants' - 'Well now I have to get a new needle for my douchebag meter' Seriously..? I thought I might get some good discussion going from here (given that you all claim to be open minded and reasonable people etc.) but Im just getting the same old shit I see everywhere else in society when anyone dares to open their mouths about the suffering of animals.You might actually like Gary if you werent so quick to fire knee-jerk ad homs at him and if you werent so dedicated to disagreeing with him right off the bat. The fact so many people are saying 'I couldnt handle more than X amount of minutes of him' says a lot. He does present a lot of information that is irrefutable. His moral arguements arent the most philosophically strict, but so what? HES NOT A PHILOSOPHER. I was hoping a few people might actually be open to reason and evidence (regardless of how crudely it is put forward) but apparently not. I guess hes not up to some of the FDR listeners' 'perfect' standards.For anyone actually interested in learning more about this guy (and his arguments) Here are a couple more videos: This one is him being interviewed by a very civil Israeli show host (unlike the one in the video where he 'loses it') about his lectures in Israel. And this one which I think FDR listeners (who can put away their own emotional biases) will enjoy.. He goes into his own family stuff and his 'DeFOO'. Sorry dude-guy, but he makes very weak arguments and peppers it with blatantly false information. He is doing a disservice to his cause taking this approach...
MagnumPI Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Right now we use 19% of the land to grow crops directly for us and that provides us with 83% of our energy. Are you saying that neither the other 11% agricultural land nor the 70% pasture land is suitable to grow quality crops for the remaining 17% of our energy? I don't know where you got your numbers, for starters. So, don't think I even accept them. Second, how do you know that pasture land is suitable for agriculture? Agriculture, of course, that kills bacteria, animals, bugs, plants, and destroys soil. Then of course, mass agricultural practices cause events like "dust bowls" and rely on weather patterns and droughts not happening.(see Kern County) http://www.udel.edu/chem/C465/senior/fall00/Meat/environment.html Ninety-two percent of U.S. grazing land is too high, too rough, too dry or too wet to grow cultivated crops I haven't vetted this, but I'm not yet ready to make argument one way or another. So, grain of salt. Still gathering.I'm not going to take a baseless number as a substitute for empiricism, however.
shirgall Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 This guy continually devalues the meaning of words like victim, murder, slavery, oppression, innocent, rape, family, atrocity, etc. Animals do not exhibit conscious, moral thought. They are morally neutral. Just because he uses charged language doesn't make his statements arguments, it makes him an alarmist. Alarmists like this speaker are making extraordinary claims, and one should be particularly skeptical of everything he says, especially the anthropomorphizing of animals and their relationships. "If you are against veganism then you are against compassion." Sorry, this guy *is* selling something, even if he claims to not profit from it. 3
OGMizen Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 Animals do not exhibit conscious, moral thought. They are morally neutral. This 'animals are not moral agents' stuff seems to be the default position for everyone on these boards. So lets examine it a little further. Besides genetics and intelligence, there is no biological difference between humans and animals. Pigs have the relative intelligence of a 6-7 year old human. Genes supersede biology in terms of ethics. This is why racism and sexism are ethically invalid. So the genetic factor makes no difference.The reason it is ethically invalid to abuse, or kill and eat children and yet ethically valid to kill and eat animals, according to this line of reasoning, is that children will grow up and develop into moral agents later in life. Hypothetical: A doctor tells a parent, that their child has a rare disease which will 100% guaranteed result in death before the age of 6.According to the 'moral agent' argument, it would be ethically valid to kill and eat the child. Are you arguing that it would be ethically valid to kill and eat a child? Or have I misunderstood the argument? You see, any argument you try to make from this position, to refute the justification for killing and eating the child, must also apply to the animal. As for the use of charged language automatically making him an alarmist. Does that make Stef an alarmist too? He uses 'charged language' all the time. 2 2
Wuzzums Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Well there are some seriously stupid comments on here 'I didnt like the way he talked' - 'What about the immorality of murdering plants' - 'Well now I have to get a new needle for my douchebag meter' Seriously..? I thought I might get some good discussion going from here (given that you all claim to be open minded and reasonable people etc.) but Im just getting the same old shit I see everywhere else in society when anyone dares to open their mouths about the suffering of animals.You might actually like Gary if you werent so quick to fire knee-jerk ad homs at him and if you werent so dedicated to disagreeing with him right off the bat. The fact so many people are saying 'I couldnt handle more than X amount of minutes of him' says a lot. He does present a lot of information that is irrefutable. His moral arguements arent the most philosophically strict, but so what? HES NOT A PHILOSOPHER. I was hoping a few people might actually be open to reason and evidence (regardless of how crudely it is put forward) but apparently not. I guess hes not up to some of the FDR listeners' 'perfect' standards. My issue is that there's no principle. If we extend morality to animals this would make predators (lions and such) as morally evil. But there's no choice involved for them considering they'll die if they don't kill, and thus it negates the fact that predators can be moral. So if predators are outside the moral realm, it cannot be immoral to kill and eat them. But predators need to kill too. So by eating predators we're basically eating that which the predators eats. So if the prey still dies (a quite gruesome death), what did we achieve? Wouldn't eating the prey ourselves without killing the predators lead to less death on a whole? Pigs have the relative intelligence of a 6-7 year old human. No they don't. I'm not even going to argue this point. The rest of your argument is fallacious because your premise is false. 2
OGMizen Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 My mistake.. Pigs have the intelligence of a 3 year old: http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/4522/Pigs-are-considered-to-be-smarter-than-3-year-old-human-childrenSo replace the number 6 with the number 3 and refute my argument. If we extend morality to animals this would make predators (lions and such) as morally evil. But there's no choice involved for them considering they'll die if they don't kill, and thus it negates the fact that predators can be moral. So if predators are outside the moral realm, it cannot be immoral to kill and eat them. But predators need to kill too. So by eating predators we're basically eating that which the predators eats. So if the prey still dies (a quite gruesome death), what did we achieve? Wouldn't eating the prey ourselves without killing the predators lead to less death on a whole? No, because lions dont have a choice, and therefore ethics dont apply, whereas humans do have a choice.. The lion argument is false. People always bring animal vs animal into the argument to avoid the humans vs animals problem. Vegans have never said and will never say that its wrong for a lion to kill another animal. Take your second argument to its logical conclusion.. surely if people just ate the plants that the prey animal eats, we could have NO (human caused) animal death at all.. 1 1
dsayers Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Besides genetics and intelligence, there is no biological difference between humans and animals. The capacity for reason. The ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to ideals, calculate consequences... 4
OGMizen Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 All come under the umbrella of intelligence.
prolix Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 My mistake.. Pigs have the intelligence of a 3 year old: http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/4522/Pigs-are-considered-to-be-smarter-than-3-year-old-human-children So what other mistakes did you possibly make? Well, here is one; OMGFacts.com didn't link the sources. You get "That page does not exist!" when you try to source the claims made at, what appears to be, an info-tainment site. Also here is another casual google result... http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/pigheaded-smart-swine/ Candace Croney is an Associate Professor of Animal Sciences at Purdue University and once taught pigs to play video games. (More on that later.) She says she understands the urge to compare animals to humans when it comes to smarts, but that the “boring science definition” of intelligence is this: “Cognition is about all the processes that animals have available to them, that allow them to get information, store information, recall it and use it so that they can adapt to the environment that they find themselves in or not.” Beyond that, comparing pigs to dogs (or children) is like comparing, well, apples to oranges. Animals develop specializations according to their surroundings and trying to draw cross-species comparisons is not very meaningful. “An octopus is evolved to live in one environment, bats in another environment, pigs in another environment,” says Michael Mendel, a professor of animal behavior and welfare at the University of Bristol. “So trying to compare them directly is quite difficult.”
Wuzzums Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 My mistake.. Pigs have the intelligence of a 3 year old: http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/4522/Pigs-are-considered-to-be-smarter-than-3-year-old-human-childrenSo replace the number 6 with the number 3 and refute my argument. Nope, still demonstrably false. 3 year olds can do math, can empathize with all creatures, understand property rights, understand abstract concepts, can read and write, and so on. No, because lions dont have a choice, and therefore ethics dont apply, whereas humans do have a choice.. The lion argument is false. People always bring animal vs animal into the argument to avoid the humans vs animals problem. Vegans have never said and will never say that its wrong for a lion to kill another animal. Take your second argument to its logical conclusion.. surely if people just ate the plants that the prey animal eats, we could have NO (human caused) animal death at all.. I repeat, there's no principle involved, apart from the utilitarian one. Humans do have a choice regarding what they eat. So do other omnivores. So my question is, is it evil to kill a killer? Because if it is I can safely kill and eat chimps for example... or chickens. Because choice is necessary but not sufficient in regards to moral authority, you'll probably say that chimps, or chickens, don't know what they're doing. This puts them aside from any moral category, thus any attempt to compare them to humans in this regard is wrong on principle. The more animals are aware of what they are doing, the more they fall into the purview of morality I think, even though they will never reach human level. Personally I cannot feel the same amount of empathy toward a chicken than I do towards a bovine. This is why I avoid all mammal meat but still eat chicken. This is my reasoning behind my actions, but I'm willing to hear why it is wrong.
OGMizen Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 Cant answer all of the comment right now (bit busy will be bk soon) but I can say one thing Personally I cannot feel the same amount of empathy toward a chicken than I do towards a bovine. This is why I avoid all mammal meat but still eat chicken. This is my reasoning behind my actions, but I'm willing to hear why it is wrong. Thats not really 'reasoning' though is it? its just prejudice. Its 'speciesism' as its more commonly referred to. there is no principle or reason you are just going with what you feel. Not saying its the end of the world just.. its kind of silly. (btw chicken is much worse for your health than cow)
Wuzzums Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Thats not really 'reasoning' though is it? its just prejudice. Its 'speciesism' as its more commonly referred to. there is no principle or reason you are just going with what you feel. Not saying its the end of the world just.. its kind of silly. (btw chicken is much worse for your health than cow) I know. That's what I'm saying about Gary's speech also, he's going on emotion also. Nothing wrong with that, but emotion is not an argument.
Recommended Posts