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

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
YoImmaEatDatBanana
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:28 am
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by YoImmaEatDatBanana »

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.
Exactly because the human's desire to live would be greater than the animal's desire to live. This of course, as we've established, is not justified when other nutrition providing foods are present.
If anyone hasn't read the initial article I provided, I would highly suggest it.

It kind of sounds like you guys are talking about desirism. Have you heard of it?

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2982
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by brimstoneSalad »

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:A rapist cannot have a stronger interest in raping someone than the victim has in not being raped.
That simply is not true at face value.
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:I don't consider some interests to be more important than others merely based upon how much pleasure they would bring.
Nor do I.
Sometimes people are interested in doing something that will bring them no pleasure at all, such as a worthy goal that will even cost them their lives. They won't be around to experience the pleasure, and yet they valued that action highly enough to do it in spite of great cost.
That's an interest.

Interests may also be guided by hedonistic pleasure. But that's only one aspect.
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:A rapist's interest is a matter of hedonistic pleasure;
It is, yes.
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote: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.
Not this particular rapist. He's really closed minded, and he has formulated such a psychology that he only enjoys raping, and he would rather die than not rape. Not raping would emotionally destroy him and cause him to commit suicide.

You mean, he could change his habits, and learn to enjoy something else instead?
If so:
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote: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).
Or she, like the rapist, could change her habits and not be so closed minded, and just learn to enjoy the raping and not worry about it so much.

Seem reasonable? Of course not.

So how do you tell the rapist he needs to change his habits to make the world better, but not the victim?

Note: I'm not actually advocating this, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your system.

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:Of course not.
Why not?

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote: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.
Then by what metric would you evaluate it?
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:"...if it values its own life more than a human values eating the animal"
I don't see how this changes anything.
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote: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 you're getting at it a little bit, but there's another problem -- you said the human can not rationally say it.
Not all values are rational. Indeed, a very large majority of values are irrational ones.

Do you discount irrational values?
And what does that mean?
How do you draw a line between rational and irrational values? (This is very important, spend some time pondering this if you can, and second guess and argue with yourself)

A few questions to help you challenge yourself:

Is a mother's love for an infant rational?
Is the desire for genes to be passed on to the next generation rational?
Is the desire to live even rational?
YoImmaEatDatBanana wrote:
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote: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.
Exactly because the human's desire to live would be greater than the animal's desire to live.
No, this has not necessarily been established.

I might not be able to reply for a few days, so please take some time to think about the above.
User avatar
bobo0100
Senior Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:41 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Australia, NT

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

Post by bobo0100 »

I think the focus on interest's can be a bit mistaken, although I for a long time agreed and advocated preference utilitarianism. the problem being that people can hold irrational interest's. such as truly devout Muslim women who, in accordance to the Quran don't think women, (including themselves), should have the right to a number of freedoms, such as liberty from men especially in public places, to be treated as equals to men, being able to hold political power, being able to seek an education, or being able where clothing that is not a hijab without being beaten to death. These irrational preferences become obvious in some debates where Muslim women advocate for a segregated crowd in some of the debates I'm sure we have all seen. would weighing utility by wellbeing be a helpful addition to this conversation?
vegan: to exclude—as far as is practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by brimstoneSalad »

bobo0100 wrote:would weighing utility by wellbeing be a helpful addition to this conversation?
Unfortunately not, because that doesn't really have any coherent meaning.

You should consider idealized self interests; that is, in terms of information. But that doesn't always mean those interests will be rational.

If you have two identical Muslims, and you teach one about science, logic, morality, and she says she doesn't believe Islam anymore, but would have preferred you didn't teach her anything, then you can assume it would be wrong to teach the second one, unless doing that would reduce harm that Muslim is causing to others.

However, that's not usually what we find. People are overwhelmingly grateful for knowledge, and glad to have been liberated from conservative religion once they are. It's also a state of being that is more stable, and harmonious with others so reduces secondary harm.
User avatar
Lightningman_42
Master in Training
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:19 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: California

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

Post by Lightningman_42 »

Hi BrimstoneSalad, so I've been thinking about this discussion that we had a while ago and I'd like to know what aspects of this ethical issue you'd still like to discuss. I'm not sure what you want me to address because I already agree with much of what you said. Are there still some specific points that we might disagree on that you'd like to reconcile? Perhaps you could further elaborate on what your own stance is, criticizing any flaws you see in my past arguments?

That way I can know what we actually disagree on regarding ethics.

In particular I'm confused on what you meant by this:
brimstoneSalad wrote:Or she, like the rapist, could change her habits and not be so closed minded, and just learn to enjoy the raping and not worry about it so much.

Seem reasonable? Of course not.

So how do you tell the rapist he needs to change his habits to make the world better, but not the victim?
I know that you're not actually advocating this, but neither am I. What are you trying to demonstrate with the analogy?
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by brimstoneSalad »

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote: I know that you're not actually advocating this, but neither am I. What are you trying to demonstrate with the analogy?
That the delta involved, in terms of pleasure or suffering is similar between the two: How do you differentiate?
User avatar
Shadow Fox
Junior Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:26 am
Contact:

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

Post by Shadow Fox »

Based off the original post I can debunk this kind of argument easily as I think I have heard it before and if it is the same one I have heard, then its easy to refute and dismiss as being a slippery slop extreme argument.

The goal is to remove the "INTENTIONAL" harm of sentient "Animals" as much as we can. This includes removing them from our diet, and from spaces that would cause significant harm to them. Dairy farms in a place that took proper care of them and didn't sell them off to meat processing plants once they could no longer produce the quality or quantity of milk would be an ideal middle ground as you all have heard from me before. I know there isn't any that doesn't do the final thing among that list, but there are plenty of organic milk farms that take great care of their stock and they get ample field time around the year. Heck, we could sell them off as pets after that was done to rural citizens.

Stepping on an ant, using pesticides in no ways violates any ethical ideas as most of those bugs probably are not sentient. As for buildings and building cities, yes, we do need to stop the deforestation, especially in Australia and the Amazon most of all. If we can find betters ways to build new cities that are far more efficient, then we could easily co-exist far better in the face of increasing populations.

One idea would be something akin to Hengsha or however it is spelled from deus ex human revolution. Or other innovative ideas for newer and better vertical cities.
We are all born Atheists, everyone of us. We are born without the Shackles of theism arresting our minds. It is not until we are poisoned by the fears and delusions of others that we become trapped in the psychopathic dream world of theism.
User avatar
vegan81vzla
Full Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:30 pm
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by vegan81vzla »

I am a vegan, but I have never agreed with the ethical vegan argument. I think it is stupid, childish, and plaged with easter religious dogma.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by brimstoneSalad »

vegan81vzla wrote:I am a vegan, but I have never agreed with the ethical vegan argument. I think it is stupid, childish, and plaged with easter religious dogma.
Of course you haven't agreed with it, because you have never understood it. I suspect you're plagued with Randian Objectivist dogma of some kind.

Read the deontology thread if you want to understand these subjects well enough to discuss them.

https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=7&t=785

It is deontology that is wrong. Consequentialism is consistent with reason.
User avatar
vegan81vzla
Full Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:30 pm
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by vegan81vzla »

the problem, like I said in the other post, is that if you keep asking for people to treat animals better, well, that is what they will do. Hence, we will have grass fed meat, humane meat, happy farms, etc. There is nothing we can do to make animals feel better, except leave them alone. And stop depending on them in any way, shape or form (food included). But if the ONLY arguement for veganism is, because animals don't like the way we treat them, well, other humans will bypass that and just do their best to "love" animals all their lives and eat them in the end with a happy concience.
Post Reply