Thommo wrote:All the defences don't fall into those categories any more than all moral defences of any human behaviour fall into those categories. The putative debunking assumes things such as the extension of moral principles and obligations in a fairly simple and direct way from humans to animals as well as an assumption that a moral justification is required in the first place. These are things that even any "carnist" who agrees with the assessment that all their arguments are of that form is unlikely to concede.
In any consistent and non-arbitrary moral worldview, you must take into consideration the welfare of non-human animals. It is arbitrary to say that only humans require moral consideration just because they have human DNA. Why would that be? Why does having human DNA determine your moral value?
The determination of how much moral value a creature is worth should be based on sentience, because only and all sentient creatures have interests, and the strength of those interests is in proportion to how sentient the animals are. And how can you morally violate a creature if not violating its interests?
Thommo wrote:As a more specific objection the attempt to debunk even those four points is questionable. For example the fourth category, which you summarise as "I like eating meat" isn't disposed of in any general way, you give examples in which the justification is defeasible, such as saying that rape is not justified by saying "I like it", but ignore the fact that it is not that "I like it" is not a potentially relevant moral (or other) motivator that decides this case, but rather that there are other moral considerations which are held (by our societal values and laws) to be of higher priority - in that instance the ability of the victim to withhold consent to sex, which is an explicitly human right.
I think that the point is that the moral value of the person being raped outweighs the moral value of the rapists's pleasure (and your personal pleasure isn't really morality anyway), and that similarly, the moral value of the animal outweighs the significance of the meat-eater's personal pleasure.
Thommo wrote:As a matter of course there are many rights (such as citizenship, voting and many others) which are extended to humans but not to non human animals. One can question where this line should be drawn, but it is not immediately obvious that the carnist position has to arbitrate this line in a fundamentally different way to the vegan.
I think you're entirely missing the point here. It's not about legal rights. Legal rights, like citizenship and voting, are not the same as moral value. Things might be legal rights for moral purposes, but morality is independent from the law.
The point is that it's immoral to harm animals when unnecessary because it is cruel, not because of legal rights.
Morality =/= law. There are immoral laws.
Thommo wrote:One of the starkest ways that this is portrayed is the inclusion of a statement of personal values in the midst of the argument:
"the suffering animal agriculture inflicts on innocent sentient beings greatly outweighs personal gustatory pleasure"
One assumes that this also is not readily agreed among the disputants. One might also question why this principle extends *exactly* this far and no further as well.
1) I think that is readily agreed upon. I don't think most meat-eaters believe, "Fuck animals, I don't care about harm towards them and that they are abused, because the pleasure I get eating a steak is all that really matters."
I hope that's not what you're saying, but it kinda sounds like it.
I think most meat-eaters just haven't really thought about it, because they've been raised eating meat. I believe they are also just unaware of the harm towards animals done in the animal agricultural industry. It's quite comparable to religion- brainwashing and ignorance.
2) I don't know what you mean by the principle extending exactly.
Thommo wrote:Could it not be argued on a similar basis that the destruction of the lives of billions of sentient creatures by farm machinery makes its use in crop farming unjustifiable?
That's a completely different issue.
Much less animals are killed during crop production than to produce meat. Don't forget that animals eat crops their entire lives.
Humans need to eat food to survive. Unfortunately, it requires the suffering of some animals. But we have a moral obligation to limit that suffering when we can, and that's why it's ok to eat veggies but not animals.
Thommo wrote:If one places no greater emphasis on human suffering or survival on that of non human animals then it's far from clear that the vegan isn't also morally transgressive.
That's also a separate issue. Many vegans unfortunately equate all life, but that's not what we're doing here.
Cows aren't as morally valuable as humans. But that doesn't mean it's ok to abuse and kill cows for personal pleasure that comes from eating them.
it would be great to get some help over there. A few subjects are being raised which I don't know a lot about, such as the ethics of beekeeping and the idea that human beekeeping is necessary for pollination.
).