Let Them Eat Meat??? How the Ethical Argument Fails

[YoImmaEatDatBanana]

letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and

Hello everyone, I must admit that I have a hard time with Rhys Southan's arguments against veganism, especially this one.^
The basic premise is that veganism is an arbitrary line in the moral sand, and if taken to its logical conclusion, we must either watch for every ant we step on or commit suicide (In order to prevent as much suffering as possible). For example, whats the difference between meat and movie theaters? Both are founded upon either killing, harming, or displacing animals only so that we humans can take pleasure in an unnecessary entertainment. The same could be said for roads, mining, and many aspects of modern life. It is almost like how vegans tell vegetarians they anrn't doing enough while vegans still kill animals to some extent while it could be avoided.

Another point in the article is how vegans try to justify the arbitrary line by flipping back and forth between rights and suffering reduction. I want to see what everyone here thinks of these arguments and if there is an ethical obligation to (practice and promote) veganism or tentative veganism.

If we conclude that veganism is an arbitrary line, then would that mean we should except hunting and other forms of "humane" meat etc?

One way I could think of salvaging veganism from this would be to create a "sentience hierarchy" where we don't equate fly suffering with cow suffering. I believe that most of us probably feel this way to begin with but wouldn't human suffering be worse than cow suffering? Thanks for your thoughts and insights.

[brimstoneSalad]

One way I could think of salvaging veganism from this would be to create a "sentience hierarchy" where we don't equate fly suffering with cow suffering. I believe that most of us probably feel this way to begin with but wouldn't human suffering be worse than cow suffering? Thanks for your thoughts and insights.

This is pretty much the norm. Only crazy vegans think all beings have equal moral value.

Flies are not fish are not mice are not cows are not pigs are not humans.

Rights based advocacy is basically irrational, particularly if we're talking about deontology. You should see the thread on deontology here, you may find it interesting and enlightening.

The basic premise is that veganism is an arbitrary line in the moral sand,

Veganism is one of many things we can and should do to make the world a better place.

and if taken to its logical conclusion, we must either watch for every ant we step on or commit suicide (In order to prevent as much suffering as possible).

That's not the logical conclusion. This is:

http://www.peta.org/living/food/making- ... ucts-food/
Live a good example, and encourage others to reduce too by not being a lunatic.

Nobody is perfect, but it's the 99.9% that really matters.

If we conclude that veganism is an arbitrary line, then would that mean we should except hunting and other forms of "humane" meat etc?

If there were humane meat. Rope grown oysters are probably fine. Hunting isn't, it's just the lesser of evils. "Free range" is a joke. Some of these things have an ethics halo around them, when indeed they are quite terrible. We shouldn't support things for just being slightly less bad. Instead, we should encourage people to reduce, since that's just more effective*.
Remember also, the more "humanely" meat is produced, the more environmentally damaging it often is.

* Encouraging reduction as a viable option may be more widely and easily accepted than strict veganism, at least in the short term, since reduction in meat consumption accounts for a far larger reduction in meat consumption than the elimination by the small number of vegans, and likely even leads to more people going vegan -- both as a step along the way, and reducing the perception of fundamentalism.

[YoImmaEatDatBanana]

Ill check it out.
I'm curious as to how much we should consider insects, slugs, etc.
Could one argue that a "conscious" omnivore who doesn't drive and produce any trash reduces suffering more than an vegan family of ten who all drive hummers and drink disposable water bottles?
Are these the wrong questions to be asking?

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm curious as to how much we should consider insects, slugs, etc.

These animals are sentient, but only slightly so. As such, they have less moral value than other animals which are more sentient.

Could one argue that a "conscious" omnivore who doesn't drive and produce any trash reduces suffering more than an vegan family of ten who all drive hummers and drink disposable water bottles?

You shouldn't compare one person to ten people. Look at impact per capita.

It is possible for very wasteful vegans to be more destructive than a very modest omnivore.
It's not easy or common, however.

That said, this only makes those wasteful habits of the wasteful vegans wrong. Eating meat is still wrong for the omnivore; it doesn't become OK because there are other bad things we can do too.

On that token, a vegan could be a pedophile or something, and cause suffering in other ways beyond material waste and consumer spending. Vegan vs. Meat is not the only moral issue in the world, it's just the biggest one.

[YoImmaEatDatBanana]

Makes sense.
Since vegans and nonvegans screw over insects all the time (pesticides, driving, building, etc) than would it be fine for people to eat insects? If we say no than we are currently hypocrites since we do unnecessary things that kill them.
What does the sentience hierarchy look like? Is it somewhat relative to brain size.
Humans> large mammals> larger birds/reptiles> smaller animals> insects and similar small organisms
Would something like this be accurate?

[Kyron]

Since vegans and nonvegans screw over insects all the time (pesticides, driving, building, etc) than would it be fine for people to eat insects? If we say no than we are currently hypocrites since we do unnecessary things that kill them.

The reason to say "no" to eating insects is because you're making a reason to kill them... You don't kill insects on purpose. An accident is an accident. When you can, take that spider outside instead of squishing it. If someone consciously kills a spider.. Yeah, it's a little sad and unnecessary. But as brimstoneSalad said, it is a much lesser evil than killing more sentient animals.
The point is, just don't cause any suffering if you can realistically help it. Cutting out meat/dairy/eggs is a good place to start.

[brimstoneSalad]

Makes sense.
Since vegans and nonvegans screw over insects all the time (pesticides, driving, building, etc) than would it be fine for people to eat insects?

It is less wrong to eat insects than more sentient beings. It's also more environmentally friendly.

However, there is a difference between breeding MORE insects to kill and eat, and killing the insects that are already there which are troubling you.

E.g. I will kill mosquitoes in large numbers, because they are pests and dangerous disease vectors.

However, I would not go out of my way to establish a mosquito farm to raise more of them just to kill them without good reason.


If you or somebody else wants to raise and kill insects to eat, I would consider that a little wrong, but not anywhere nearly as wrong as conventional chordate agriculture.

If we say no than we are currently hypocrites since we do unnecessary things that kill them.

Why do you think that we do unnecessary things that kill them?
I don't raise and kill more insects for enjoyment. Their death is purely incidental.

We protect our food sources, and we accidentally kill them by moving around (although if I see one, I will step over it, and not on it).

What does the sentience hierarchy look like? Is it somewhat relative to brain size.

Roughly. It's more proportional to intelligence, though, which is only very crudely proportional to brain size.

Not all brains are equally efficient, and some contain dedicated regions for other tasks we wouldn't consider as useful to sentience, such as motor control, or simply more complex sense perception (which is where brain to body mass ratio may come in; although it should be considered more along the lines of brain to surface area if we're looking at reductions for touch sensation.

Avian brains generally seem to be more efficient than mammal brains, so, the weight of a bird's brain should be multiplied by some factor to take that into account.

Octopus brains function very differently from chordate brains, so we can't necessarily compare them on weight grounds since their neurons are different; they may be much more intelligent (something we can compare more effectively).

Here's an article with a few random facts: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-10-B ... 3944.shtml
Take that with a grain of salt, though. Elephants, for example, are much more intelligent than that implies. There are many variables, and the most useful mechanisms are direct testing.

[Lightningman_42]

One way I could think of salvaging veganism from this would be to create a "sentience hierarchy" where we don't equate fly suffering with cow suffering. I believe that most of us probably feel this way to begin with but wouldn't human suffering be worse than cow suffering? Thanks for your thoughts and insights.

This is pretty much the norm. Only crazy vegans think all beings have equal moral value.

Yeah, like Gary Francione. He makes idiotic comments like this all the time. Why do some vegan advocates feel the need to say that all sentient life forms have equal moral value? The concept of veganism as Donald Watson defined it did not even include this "equal-value-concept". Furthermore this concept which Francione and other deontological vegans are pushing is not even necessary for advocating veganism. As long as animals have some moral worth, and we don't have interests stronger than their's, then we can rationally advocate not hurting or killing them.

For example: if I say that a pig is more sentient than a fish and therefore has greater moral worth, I can still advocate that the fish has enough moral worth not to be killed and eaten (if it values its own life more than a human values the taste of its flesh).

...but wouldn't human suffering be worse than cow suffering?

Yes. I think so. Maybe, but this doesn't weaken the persuasive argument that we ought to avoid confining, raping, mutilating, and killing cows. If cows are less sentient than humans, then they might value their lives less than we value ours, but not less than we value the enjoyment of eating cow flesh. So if our only reason to harm them is our enjoyment of their flesh, then their interests still trump ours (even if their lives have lesser value than ours).

[brimstoneSalad]

As long as animals have some moral worth, and we don't have interests stronger than their's, then we can rationally advocate not hurting or killing them.

If a rapist has a stronger interest in raping somebody than the victim has in not being raped, then is it a moral prerogative for the rapist to rape, and the victim to not resist?

Let's say, a woman would less like to die than to be raped, but some psychopath would rather die than not be allowed to rape people, because to him raping is what gives his life meaning, and it's the highest high he can obtain. As evidenced by the extreme measures and effort he puts into raping, it is not just that he fails to enjoy life and doesn't care about living.

Is this psychopathic rapist thus a noble warrior for good, by raping women and providing himself so much pleasure, that it increases the pleasure in the world?
Should we all help this rapist to rape more women, because by whatever perversion of his psychology, he receives such inconceivable pleasure from it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

if it values its own life more than a human values the taste of its flesh

No, not "if".

If it were, you would also have to say it's wrong to rape women only if they value not being raped more than you value raping them.
You can not morally advocate harm to others based on the immense pleasure it will provide you. That's self interest, not morality.

Indulging in this kind of optional hedonistic pleasure is a choice. You can choose to enjoy something else. There's nothing resembling a justification to it.

[Lightningman_42]

As long as animals have some moral worth, and we don't have interests stronger than their's, then we can rationally advocate not hurting or killing them.

If a rapist has a stronger interest in raping somebody than the victim has in not being raped, then is it a moral prerogative for the rapist to rape, and the victim to not resist?

No, not "if". A rapist cannot have a stronger interest in raping someone than the victim has in not being raped. I don't consider some interests to be more important than others merely based upon how much pleasure they would bring. A rapist's interest is a matter of hedonistic pleasure; he can live an enjoyable life without raping, and his detriment if he doesn't get what he wants is not comparable to the detriment of the victim. The victimizer might get enjoyment out of the crime, but for the victim it results in physical injuries, and prolonged, severe psychological trauma (not to mention misery that this causes to friends and loved ones). If you take into account all of the far-reaching consequences of both scenarios (victim is raped vs. not raped) it's clear whose interests are more important. Stronger interests are more important than lesser interests, but which interests are more important cannot be determined merely based upon pleasure and enjoyment.

Let's say, a woman would less like to die than to be raped, but some psychopath would rather die than not be allowed to rape people, because to him raping is what gives his life meaning, and it's the highest high he can obtain. As evidenced by the extreme measures and effort he puts into raping, it is not just that he fails to enjoy life and doesn't care about living.

Clearly he is failing to live.

Is this psychopathic rapist thus a noble warrior for good, by raping women and providing himself so much pleasure, that it increases the pleasure in the world?
Should we all help this rapist to rape more women, because by whatever perversion of his psychology, he receives such inconceivable pleasure from it?

Of course not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

We've discussed the utility monster before, and I agree with you. I should be clear that I don't consider pleasure to be the only factor to take into account when determining whose interests are more important in any kind of conflict.

if it values its own life more than a human values the taste of its flesh

No, not "if".

If it were, you would also have to say it's wrong to rape women only if they value not being raped more than you value raping them.
You can not morally advocate harm to others based on the immense pleasure it will provide you. That's self interest, not morality.

Indulging in this kind of optional hedonistic pleasure is a choice. You can choose to enjoy something else. There's nothing resembling a justification to it.

I agree with you here. I wouldn't consider a human's interest in eating an animal to be more important than an animal's interest in continuing to live merely on how much pleasure the human gets.

if it values its own life more than a human values the taste of its flesh

Actually looking back at this I disagree too; I should have said,
"...if it values its own life more than a human values eating the animal"

Like you said, eating animals is a hedonistic pleasure that the human being can easily replace (by going vegan), and so a human cannot rationally say that he/she values eating an animal more than the animal values its life, if the human has suitable alternatives.

Now if a human is starving to death and only has access to an animal to eat (an unlikely hypothetical scenario), then it would be more rational to say that the human values eating the animal more than the animal values its own life.