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

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


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.