The Irony of Being Vegetarian For "Moral" Reasons and Dogs

[Cooker]

Humans evolved the ability to model the thoughts of other animals, because this helped us catch, kill, and eat them (and also to some extent avoid predators, but there is no doubt we indeed evolved in order to trap animals). This same ability now causes some of us to empathize so much with animals that they refuse to eat them.

Nature is a place of kill or be killed, so to have objections to killing things is absurd. How in the world can it be immoral to do what we are designed through evolution to do? A lioness isn't immoral when it tears a living antelope to pieces. And no meat eater is immoral. Don't believe we are designed to eat meat? Humans don't create energy through photosynthesis and have genetic defects that prevent us from producing certain ammino acids, we are required to eat other living creatures for energy and in order to obtain these amino acids. Lysine and tryptophan (two amino acids we must have to live but cannot produce) are poorly represented in plants. Sure modern day humans can substitute these amino acids into there diet and be fine, but this still shows that humans must have been eating meat originally or else we wouldn't have been able to survive with this defect.

Now comes the question of interest: Where do we draw the line? I think that humans should strip all ideas of rights and morality from their dealings with animals. There are no rights or morality in nature. Rights and morality are human constructs and only make sense when applied to interactions among humans. The only law in nature is "might is right." Rights and morality are codes that we extend to other humans, because they have allowed our species to be very successful. There is nothing I can do to another animal that would be immoral. I realize this begs the question, "should people that torture animals be punished?" And I say yes, but not because torturing animals is immoral, but because they are engaging in a behavior that is a gross waste of resourses and a typical display of overall mental defects. Therefore, this being a crime will cause someone caught doing this to be under closer scrutiny for most of his life.

On to dogs. I think you torture the dogs as long as the manpower required to torture the dogs is less than that gained by the cure. For example if it takes 3 man hours to torture the dogs and for that gain life for 6 hours for 1 man, then that is acceptable to me. If it would require 10 man hours, then I think it is a terrible waste and shouldn't be done.

[colgin]

Cooker,

Your defense of meat eating is a typically simplistic one. (By the way, I don't mean that to be a personal attack; I just mean that I don't think that most people, including yourself, have seriously thought about all the implications of their behavior vis a is animals and instead rely on fairly simple, and not well-examined, precepts; I used to be that way myself.) Most of the arguments you make have been countered repeatedly by animal rights proponents. Since I am leaving for the labor day weekend I don't have time to anser each of your points now. However, I will provide a link below which does, in fact, respond to most of your assertions.

If you are interested in the topic I highly recommend Gary Francione's Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (which is also apt for anyone contemplating Sklansky's various dog hypos). Here is the Amazon link:

Intro to Animal Rights (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566396921/qid%3D1105040120/ref%3Dsr%5F8%5Fxs%5Fap%5Fi1%5Fxgl/026-4455370-1914021)

If you read that book and still feel the same way so be it. I would be very surpirsed if you did so and still felt your views were unchanged. Please let me know.

In the mean time, here is a FAQ that comes from the appendices to that book. It is not complete but adresses pretty much all of the assertions in your post:

Francione's Animal Rights FAQ (http://wiki.blitzed.org/User:grifferz/Francione's_Animal_rights_FAQ)


All the best.

Colgin

[ QUOTE ]
Don't believe we are designed to eat meat?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I eat meat, so I'm not a vegenazi.

But, your "analysis" misses the mark, in my opinion. I personally DO have moral questions about eating meat (even though I still do) that have nothing to do with whether I am evolved to be a meat-eater or not. Your "it's natural" argument fails to account for (as an example) a McDonald's cattle yard where 100,000 cattle are crammed together head-to-ass in their own [censored] and stuffed with grain all to be slaughtered and fill buns. Or veal houses where calves are born, chained to a dog-house-like hut so they can't walk and toughen their meat up, and spend their short life chained in a box, alone, and presumably miserable. These are but two examples where my issue isn't whether eating meat is natural, its how as an industrialized society we have developed the process. There is little "natural" about it.

[DougShrapnel]

This is a great post. Sklansky's dog posts where very close to convincing me that eating animals is morally wrong. However, instead, I'm left with the several realizations that I'm not quite sure what to do with or where to go with.

One realization is that vegans consider themselves upon a high moral ground. This is certainly not the case since hasn't up to scrutiny. But does it force me to make some considerations for the vegan. Why are they thinking that they hold moral superiority over non vegans? Why are they so proud of their decisions?

It is fitting that Sklansky used a dog in his post to try and prove moral superiority of vegan’s. It's a great tactic to confuse and enigmify the actual question.

If it's not moral supremacy that vegans hold, what is it that could cause the choice? Health consciousness, I think is a valid reason. Normally vegans are healthier than meat eaters; vegetarians are less often healthy than vegans because of cheese. Ok so granted it's healthier, but healthy is not moral.

Rational supremacy? Sure if there is no reason to hurt animals, it is incorrect rationally to do so if there is zero gain. True vegan is a humane choice and vegans are more humane that non vegans. But to confuse morality with humaneness is misguided.

So you got me vegans are healthier, kinder, gentler, and more compassionate, but not more morale.

[HigherAce]

Vegetarians are racist! Thats probably not the best word for it but it will do for now. They dont eat meat because animals are suffering and its not right to kill a living thing blah blah blah. What about plants? They are alive as much as animals. Eating plants only seems kinda prejudice to me. Doing it for heatlh reasons, ya maybe. But to have people crying about saving animals and then go and tear apart another form of life, seems hypocritical to me.

[Cooker]

I think you underestimate the extent of my callousness, but thank you for your overestimation of me.

I believe that much of the reasoning used in the FAQ is erroneous. First, rights and morals are clearly human inventions. The reason that extending rights to slaves makes more sense than extending rights to tigers is that an enslaved human is capable of respecting the rights of others once given the same rights while a tiger is not. If released into a city, the tiger will eat or attack whomever it pleases, a newly freed human likely would not.

I believe that all animals are subject to be human resources if we find a use for them. All animals that have a use for you would gladly use you for it's own purpose (usually as food). All things being equal, we can make them more comfortable.

[Cooker]

I think you missed the main point of my arguement. I do gives reasons that it is clearly natural for us to eat meat, but my major argument is that if it isn't human I am fairly indifferent to it. Morals and rights are human concepts that are applied to humans for the sake of a better society and they change all the time and depend greatly on what society you belong to. If there is a value to extending rights to animals, then we will probably get there, but I believe that not only is there no value, it would be a detriment to extend rights to animals, and therefore, should not be done.

Why do I care what happens to a cow? I am not a cow. No one I know is a cow. No cow is ever going to invent anything useful or cure cancer. The best thing a cow can do to advance humanity is to be eaten. That is all I need to know.

In some sense, this is supposed to be provocative, so I am pressing a bit of a radical position, but I certainly think it is reasonable.

[coheedandcambria]

I think the idea is animals have emotion and obviously suffer and get depressed when mistreated. Plants do not.

[West]

Try thinking about morality as a concept of right and wrong independent of humanity.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing I can do to another animal that would be immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do I care what happens to a cow? I am not a cow. No one I know is a cow. No cow is ever going to invent anything useful or cure cancer. The best thing a cow can do to advance humanity is to be eaten. That is all I need to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say there's another intelligent form of life out there on some other planet somewhere far away. Let's say one day they (call them Cookers) come into contact with humanity. Let's say they share your general view of morality, from their own point of view, and unfortunately for us, they are technologically superior. They enslave humanity, and torture us with impunity - as far as they are concerned, the slightest "benefit" to them is worth any amount of torture to humans.

How do you think you would feel about their "morality", if you were subjected to it yourself? How do you think another intelligent being, not a Human or a Cooker, ought to view it objectively? Can you reconcile an answer with your view towards torturing animals? Objectively?

Something else to think about:

Let's say all of humanity more or less agreed with what you said about torturing animals. Let's also say that there's also a small subset of humanity (call them serial killers) who, additionally, don't really see the point in drawing a moral line between humans and animals. As far as this group is concerned, what do they care about other people? Do they know you? What are you going to do for them? Why should they care more about you than some dog? People are all out for themselves anyway. Why should torturing a human be worse than torturing a dog? At least dogs never done them wrong.

How would you morally debate them?

[Cooker]

I see your point, but my point is that there is no right and wrong outside of a human construction unless there is a God (as I believe Sklansky has already argued here several times), and I don't believe in God. If we give animals rights, then we should hold them to the same standards we are held to in order that we have those rights. Most humans that murder other humans for purely selfish reasons certainly receive a suspension of their normal rights (sometimes terminally). If an animal wants to have all rights due to humans, then it must abide by all normal human laws. I don't relish trying to prosecute lions for antelope murder, nor do I think it is feasible to try and force a wolf to be a vegan. If you are so gung ho on animal rights, then shouldn't all lions be stopped? Aren't tigers and sharks all evil since they all "murder"? You can't have it both ways, either we can kill antelopes, deer, fish, cattle and other animals for food in whatever way we want the same as bears, lions, wolves, etc. do or we can't and they can't and we should try and stop their evil murders.

No I don't like the idea of someone torturing animals, but I am not sure why such distaste should have developed naturally. I think it likely that this act is such a clear cut precursor of violence against humans and general mental defects that we have shunned those who committ it traditionally. I also don't like the idea of a meaningless existence, but you are stuck with what you have not what you want.

I believe I can say with high probability that the day an alien life form steps foot on Earth is the beginning of the end for mankind unless they want to enslave us (unless we are bringing them back as our slaves). I think subjugation is a best case scenario for an alien encounter.

[David Sklansky]

"I see your point, but my point is that there is no right and wrong outside of a human construction unless there is a God (as I believe Sklansky has already argued here several times),"

Sorry, Not Ready. Can't even get credit where credit is due.

[David Sklansky]

"If an animal wants to have all rights due to humans, then it must abide by all normal human laws. I don't relish trying to prosecute lions for antelope murder, nor do I think it is feasible to try and force a wolf to be a vegan. If you are so gung ho on animal rights, then shouldn't all lions be stopped?"

Seems like a good argument. But what about if an animal simply doesn't want to be tortured unless there is much to be gained from it? Most animals DO abide by that law. And a few humans don't. Is a pet poodle's life worth more than an incurably mentally ill person who would hurt people for fun if he was let out of the hospital? You would sure get into a lot more trouble if you murdered him.

[Cooker]

I didn't say you where the one that originally argued it, and you do agree with it. By I will say here that the statement should be changed to " ... as many on this forum have argued including Not Ready and Sklansky..."

[Cooker]

I agree that animals should not be tortured for no gain, because that is a waste of man power and typically a sign of mental defect that should be punished and closely monitored. However, where do you draw the line as what gain justifies torture of animals and what gain does not? I would say any appreciable gain to humanity is acceptable since animals are a different species and we are not bound to treat them as anything other than a resource. The specific case of torturing a poodle to save a violently mentally ill person is clearly a poor use of resources since the mentally ill person's continued existence could harm humanity. In this situation you clearly wouldn't torture or even painlessly kill the dog to save the human.

By the way I also think we go too far to aid the mentally ill. I think the law is totally backwards here. The purpose of prison is to punish and reform. If you cannot be reformed then you are defective and should certainly be terminated or used in some way where you can still be useful to mankind (medical testing perhaps). What about the mentally ill that don't commit crimes? This is a bit of touchy feely area, but since I am bound to carry this line of thought to the bitter end since I have started down the dark path, here goes. If they are capable of menial yet useful work then they should be allowed to do that, if not termination (if the manpower to keep them alive outweighs even the benefit of medical testing on them) or medical testing would probably be most appropriate.

Also, I doubt a poodle doesn't want to be tortured. Certainly a poodle doesn't like torture while it happens, but I doubt a poodle has such a complex thought as want.

I apologize for the rambling of these posts, but I am quite busy right now, and don't have the time to say things concisely nor do I have much time to fully think about these things beyond what I find amusing.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way I also think we go too far to aid the mentally ill. I think the law is totally backwards here. The purpose of prison is to punish and reform. If you cannot be reformed then you are defective and should certainly be terminated or used in some way where you can still be useful to mankind (medical testing perhaps).

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like you have tendencies toward mental illness yourself.

Even if you're just seeking attention you need a certain kind of depravity to post comments like this.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way I also think we go too far to aid the mentally ill. I think the law is totally backwards here. The purpose of prison is to punish and reform. If you cannot be reformed then you are defective and should certainly be terminated or used in some way where you can still be useful to mankind (medical testing perhaps).

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like you have tendencies toward mental illness yourself.

Even if you're just seeking attention you need a certain kind of depravity to post comments like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you are right, but I am in the class that can perform at least menial work (theoretical physics counts as at least menial I hope) and obey the law, so I don't expect to have any trouble.

I am certainly not seeking attention, I could spend my time better if that was my goal.

Hi. I am vegan for moral reasons and would like to respond to your post. I welcome this argument but if this descends into name-calling or any garbage like that then I'm just going to stop. I am aware that there will be some points I haven’t covered, I will respond to them if asked politely. Believe me, this post is long enough without trying to cover EVERY base related to this in it. But here's the view from the other side.

“Humans evolved the ability to model the thoughts of other animals, because this helped us catch, kill, and eat them (and also to some extent avoid predators, but there is no doubt we indeed evolved in order to trap animals). This same ability now causes some of us to empathize so much with animals that they refuse to eat them.”

Humans evolved the ability to map the stars, that doesn’t mean we evolved for space travel. We evolved the ability to create art, that doesn’t mean we evolved solely to paint. We simply evolved, and applied the intelligence gained through that evolution to do lots of stuff. Just because we can do it, doesn’t mean we evolved solely to do it.

"Nature is a place of kill or be killed, so to have objections to killing things is absurd. How in the world can it be immoral to do what we are designed through evolution to do? A lioness isn't immoral when it tears a living antelope to pieces."

Implied by this statement is that since humans live in "society" and not "nature", this makes it free for us to condemn murderers of other humans because we are striving for more than just nature. My question is, is New Orleans a "society" now? What is required for a "society" to exist? Are those concepts (Government? Infrastructure?) present there? I would contend that they aren't, but we still condemn the looting, rioting, rape, and murder happening in NO right now. We are seeing people in this situation react as animals act - doing what they feel they need to survive, consequences be damned.

(Note: I am NOT parlaying the racist notion that the predominately black population of NO that is taking part in what is happening down there now are a lower form of life. I am saying that when taken out of the societal comforts we have now, we react as all animals do. I would say the same thing if the people you see on the news doing the looting were white, Asian, blue, or Trekkies. Also, I realize that most everyone here doesn’t see how murder and rape are necessary for survival. I know I don’t, but Buffalo hasn’t been destroyed by anything other than the absence of industry recently, so I don’t know how I would react. I’m sure many people that say that they wouldn’t dream of doing those things also think that if they were in Germany during WWII, they would have done everything they could to prevent the Holocaust that they saw happening, but we all know that only a very small percentage of Germans did. Aside over.)

Anyway, I agree that you cannot judge animals based on the ethics of humanity, but those ethics have so many holes that we see every day (Is war moral? Is looting because you're hungry immoral? What about if you're taking a shopping cart full of designer shoes?), what is so wrong with taking ethics and extending them to the treatment of animals?

Vegans that are vegan for moral reasons aren't saying that at some point they and humans didn't eat meat out of necessity. Our contention is that given the state of the world now and knowing what we as humans have grown to know that we shouldn't lock animals in cramped battery cages where they are forced to live in filth just to be slaughtered painfully. Treating life that feels pain and the will to live this way should be unconscionable (right word?) in a moral society. Using hormonal treatment on female animals to produce dairy and eggs, slaughtering dozens of mink so ONE person can wear a coat, injecting laboratory animals with makeup and shampoo, these things are all unnecessary given the affluence and technological advancement of our society.

You said “’should people that torture animals be punished?’ And I say yes, but not because torturing animals is immoral, but because they are engaging in a behavior that is a gross waste of resourses” Gross waste of resources: Remember that it takes (from varying reports, including the USDA) 3 or more pounds of resources (water, grain, etc.) to make one pound of meat in a factory farm. Think of the hungry and thirsty people everywhere in the world. Because I cannot right now put my finger on a concrete number/source, I will simply say that many animal tests are inconclusive, another waste of resources. Also, we know animals feel pain and stress (especially mammals, which the vast majority of animal tests are performed on), so even if we get a result how are we sure that that result hasn’t been tainted in some way by the state of the animal tested upon? Also, if these animals are so close to us that we feel their results transfer to humans, how can we be morally sound in testing on them?

“Lysine and tryptophan (two amino acids we must have to live but cannot produce) are poorly represented in plants.” You said “poorly”, not “aren’t”, so they are possible to get, especially at this point in our evolution where we can analyze on a molecular level the composition of everything. Also, I have consulted with three doctors about my vegan diet (my pediatrician when I went vegan at 17, my adult doctor the next year, and another doctor when I moved) and they expressed concern about many a nutrient, but never mentioned these two. I’m not blowing this off off, but I’m not dead yet after three years, and some vegans I have met have been so for 10 or more years and they’re doing just fine (in fact, probably better than me). If one day I have blood work or whatever and it’s said “Yo, you need more lysine brah,” I will figure out what I need to do then.

Finally, on the morality of killing plants: Plants do not possess a survival instinct and they do not have a nervous system designed to respond to stimuli (read: pain). They grow in one spot and are perfectly content, unlike, say, chickens. They don’t do the same basic things humans and other animals do (you all have seen animals [and not just mammals,] breathe, sleep, use eyes to see things) therefore it is not immoral to consume them.

Sorry this was long.

[Cooker]

I will not name call (and I will handle those who call me names graciously). You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.

One point I was trying to make is that our intelligence evolved primarily to help us catch animals. I feel that there can be little debate on this point. All other benefits are probably secondary. Now, it is this same ability that causes some of us to not want to eat animals. I simply find this ironic.

I think you are wrong about NO. Many people there are behaving just as they should. The likely future penalty for stealing food is likely less than the immediate consequence of not eating. In that area, the likely probability of unlawful acts being punished has gone down due to disorder and therefore the rate of these acts should increase if in reality it is mutual agreement and fear of punishment that establishes morality instead of some universal premise of right and wrong. They are not acting in a consequences be damned manner, but responding to the decreased probability that they will be caught and punished. This strengthens my argument that animals should not be extended protections under the law, because they are incapable of acting accordingly since they don't understand consequences at all (although this is not the sole basis of this position).

[ QUOTE ]

Our contention is that given the state of the world now and knowing what we as humans have grown to know that we shouldn't lock animals in cramped battery cages where they are forced to live in filth just to be slaughtered painfully. Treating life that feels pain and the will to live this way should be unconscionable (right word?) in a moral society. Using hormonal treatment on female animals to produce dairy and eggs, slaughtering dozens of mink so ONE person can wear a coat, injecting laboratory animals with makeup and shampoo, these things are all unnecessary given the affluence and technological advancement of our society.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you feel this way then I will probably not convince you otherwise. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with what you suggest is unconscionable treatment of animals. I will tell you specifically why it is right: people like to eat meat, people like mink coats, people like to drink milk, and people like to eat eggs. If there was a much better way to get these things then a company would come along and do it and run the other companies out of business unless they adopt this method. Please, tell me what is wrong with this. What should prevent us from doing this? Just because something is similar to me doesn't mean that I ahve to care one bit about how it feels. I can empathise with a creature and still not treat it as I would like to be treated. I think acting on interhuman empathy is probably useful for humans, I doubt acting on empathy with other species is.

Do you know if a plant likes to be grown in a hothouse out of season? Do you know for sure that plants don't have anything that is similar to pain? Do you know if plants like being grown hydroponically? Do you know if plants like to be grown larger with fertalizer? Or do you not care simply because their expression of pain and stress is different enough to suit you? What if I don't think something feels what is close enough to human pain unless it cries tears as a human would? How close or far away from the human reaction does something have to be before you care? Do you eat clams or oysters?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way I also think we go too far to aid the mentally ill. I think the law is totally backwards here. The purpose of prison is to punish and reform. If you cannot be reformed then you are defective and should certainly be terminated or used in some way where you can still be useful to mankind (medical testing perhaps).

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like you have tendencies toward mental illness yourself.

Even if you're just seeking attention you need a certain kind of depravity to post comments like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? What he's saying makes perfect sense.

"One point I was trying to make is that our intelligence evolved primarily to help us catch animals. I feel that there can be little debate on this point. All other benefits are probably secondary. Now, it is this same ability that causes some of us to not want to eat animals. I simply find this ironic."

I feel this is kind of a chicken or egg point, for example, did intelligence come first or the desire to eat animals? Did intelligence begin when humans first built shelters, or when we first trapped animals? Why did carnivorous animals develop speed and cunning to catch their prey instead of intelligence? Also, who's to say that intelligence isn't continually evolving to the point that soon we will all believe as a few do now, that it is unnecessary to eat animals? (I'm not claiming to be on the next level of human intelligence, I'm simply saying that we'll never know "why" we are more intelligent than our animal brethren.)

I first want to say that I'm not claiming to be perfect. If you (not you Cooker, but a generic reader) want to find hypocrisy in what I'm doing and the point behind it, you probably will. Just in driving today...the tires on my car probably have pig fat in them, I probably killed a few bugs, the noise I created might have frightened the prey an animal was stalking, meaning that indirectly I caused an animal to go hungry. My response to this: I'm not expecting a law against eating meat and wearing fur anytime in my lifetime. Moral vegans are trying to spread the word and create a groundswell for future generations since in our generation animals will probably continue to be killed. In addition, we do what we can to limit the animal suffering and environmental impact of our every day lives. Why? Here's why:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel that there is anything wrong with what you suggest is unconscionable treatment of animals. I will tell you specifically why it is right: people like to eat meat, people like mink coats, people like to drink milk, and people like to eat eggs. If there was a much better way to get these things then a company would come along and do it and run the other companies out of business unless they adopt this method. Please, tell me what is wrong with this. What should prevent us from doing this? Just because something is similar to me doesn't mean that I ahve to care one bit about how it feels. I can empathise with a creature and still not treat it as I would like to be treated. I think acting on interhuman empathy is probably useful for humans, I doubt acting on empathy with other species is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Like you said at the beginning of this paragraph, if this is how you feel, I doubt I can convince you otherwise. So I'm not going to try to. You've seen my case and rejected it. I've seen yours and rejected it. I have friends who have said the same thing to me. My family has. I'm not going to turn on people I care about and move out to the middle of Nowhere, Alaska so that I can live as I see fit. Instead I minimize where I can and discuss the way I feel with my fellow man so that maybe more people will understand.

Incidentally, if I was to ever go Unabomber and live off the land, I would eat meat as I would be doing so in harmony with nature instead of the unnatural ways in which meat is produced and consumed now. Going to Wendy's and unwrapping a junior bacon cheeseburger isn't using our evolved intelligence to trap and consume a wild animal. We don't know what the environmental impact of factory farming will be. Like I said in my post, if we humans have so much interhuman empathy, why don't we all change to plant-based diets which use fewer resources (saving the planet for the future), pollute less (http://www.wixt.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7402953C-E159-4FB9-8845-76570F83DFBB), and would allow us to feed the hungry?

It's not on you to feed everyone, I know. I'm just providing an alternative and a solution.

As for the NO stuff...I think we actually agree, I just probably have a dimmer view of human nature. When consequences are removed, we do as we please...except that interhuman empathy seems to go away (reffering to murders and rapists, NOT people searching for whatever food/clothing/shelter they can). Animals are just below the intelligence line though to develop consequences on their own...although we all know that you can train animals, so they are capable of understanding consequences. However, training your dog positively ("Sit - here's a treat") is different than the wasteful torture in circuses ("Jump through this hoop - or get whipped).

On whether a plant "likes" things...you're asking if it feels pain. Lets look at it this way - if we find out plants CAN feel pain, then I will go back to eating animals (sparingly, when I can find actual free-range meat, or maybe I'd hunt) because then I would know for certain it to be impossible to eat without inflicting pain. But right now we can't find a "brain" in a plant that would be capable of processing signals from "nerves" that we also can't find. Even in their smallest forms animals show the instinct to survive and avoid strife. A spider in a puddle struggles to get out. I also eat mostly home-grown and organic produce from my local co-op. Yes I do eat plants that have been sprayed with fertilizer and pesticides occasionally. (For example, if i buy hummus) I try to limit it - again, I'm not perfect.

Directly answering your question about clams and oysters: this came up on another board I read (not a poker board) that clams are pretty much just animals "by default". I was inclined to agree, and considered buying some non-dairy clam chowder (I've seen it) to welcome myself back to the fold. However I was in Naples, Florida last week. Hurricane Katrina hit Miami, skidded to the south, missing Naples, but stirring up the Gulf something nasty as it grew into the storm we all know and love. The waves were tearing at the beach. I noticed that it was ripping baby clams out of the sand, and instantly, they would react and burrow back into the sand. They couldn't get deep enough to avoid the waves, but I saw that even in its lowest possible form, animal life shows the desire to continue life.

Also cooker and anyone else that shares your opinions, I don't think you're scum or some sort of horrible person for not caring what happens to animals. Like I said, I have friends and family who feel the same way. I think it's unfortunate, and sad sometimes, but it's not going to do any good to be mean-spirited.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say there's another intelligent form of life out there on some other planet somewhere far away. Let's say one day they (call them Cookers) come into contact with humanity. Let's say they share your general view of morality, from their own point of view, and unfortunately for us, they are technologically superior. They enslave humanity, and torture us with impunity - as far as they are concerned, the slightest "benefit" to them is worth any amount of torture to humans.

How do you think you would feel about their "morality", if you were subjected to it yourself? How do you think another intelligent being, not a Human or a Cooker, ought to view it objectively? Can you reconcile an answer with your view towards torturing animals? Objectively?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a fairly elaborate hypo that I use when discussing this issue that involve all powerful aliens. You are on the right track here though. I will try to give my full version when I have time later this weekend.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your point, but my point is that there is no right and wrong outside of a human construction unless there is a God (as I believe Sklansky has already argued here several times), and I don't believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting into very debatable territory here, not with the God stuff but with your notion of rights theory.

Regardless:

[ QUOTE ]
If we give animals rights, then we should hold them to the same standards we are held to in order that we have those rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Francione (and others) pretty much demolish all variations on this claim. [See Chapter 5 of the book I commended above (PM me and I will send you a copy for free).] But in short, there are many humans (e.g., small children and the mentally or otherwise infirm) who are incapable of, and in fact, are not held to moral standards and yet are still accorded (correctly) the benefit of moral rights. Animals are no different. If we accord a baby newborn (let's assume a parentless one to avoid other objections) the basic right to life (which we do) even though it is unable (and may never be able) to reciprocate morally then we should accord the same basic right to a cat or other animal (I use cats because, well, I like them a lot) which also is likely unable to reciprocate.

[Cooker]

The point is that rights are given by humanity, and we are free to chose to what they are given. I have seen no reason to extend them to animals. You may say that you believe there is a reason to extend rights to animals, but I am sure that at the end of the day it will come down to "it just feels like the right thing to do." I don't like seeing animals harmed or uncomfortable any more than the next person, but I can try to detach myself from my own emotions and try to discover what is important about this feeling and what is not. I feel that the important part is not the cruelty to animals, but the abnormality of the human committing the act. However, if the act serves humanity (and I know this is fairly subjective and I don't want to get into that right now) then we should set aside our feelings and let it proceed realizing that the person committing the act in this case is not deviant, but doing what they are told.

[David Sklansky]

"The point is that rights are given by humanity, and we are free to chose to what they are given. I have seen no reason to extend them to animals. You may say that you believe there is a reason to extend rights to animals, but I am sure that at the end of the day it will come down to "it just feels like the right thing to do." I don't like seeing animals harmed or uncomfortable any more than the next person, but I can try to detach myself from my own emotions and try to discover what is important about this feeling and what is not. I feel that the important part is not the cruelty to animals, but the abnormality of the human committing the act. However, if the act serves humanity (and I know this is fairly subjective and I don't want to get into that right now) then we should set aside our feelings and let it proceed realizing that the person committing the act in this case is not deviant, but doing what they are told."

Can you extend that to torturing a homelss person with no relatives, and no talents that you can use, as long as you gain something and won't get caught? Just playing devil's advocate here.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Can you extend that to torturing a homelss person with no relatives, and no talents that you can use, as long as you gain something and won't get caught? Just playing devil's advocate here.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better example, mentioned by Cooker, made clear that we should treat criminals that can't be rehabillitated as nothing more than societal resources. Torture them for information, kill them for science, do what you want because the benefits outweigh the cost. So, in answer to your question, yes; at least in my opinion.