Philosophical Vegan Forum

One sentence or less? Yep.

Suffering is conserved in vertebrates, and humans have no biological need to eat animals, therefore it is unethical to impose suffering and death on animals for food we don't need.

That's it.

And I'm not trying to be unempathetic. It's just that you're not doing a good job of explaining the logic behind your statements. You just listed a bunch of conclusions for different situations. That doesn't give us much insight into the underlying logic.

Being empathetic is not being psychic.

Humane Hominid wrote:One sentence or less? Yep.

Suffering is conserved in vertebrates, and humans have no biological need to eat animals, therefore it is unethical to impose suffering and death on animals for food we don't need.

That's it.

And I'm not trying to be unempathetic. It's just that you're not doing a good job of explaining the logic behind your statements. You just listed a bunch of conclusions for different situations. That doesn't give us much insight into the underlying logic.

Being empathetic is not being psychic.

Sorry I mean't to say a few sentences or less. And "yep" is not a description of your process of applying empathy. That is what I was wanting a short description of.

What is the "suffering is conserved in vertebrates..." a response to? I'm confused as why you mentioned that here. Are you trying to understand my perspective or are you just trying to restate your own. That statement seems out of place to what I was asking, here anyways.

Is explanation a prerequisite to applying empathy?

No it's not being psychic. And I understand wanting more or better explanation to understand. However applying empathy cannot solely hinge on explanation. Otherwise you have not really exerted any critical thinking on your own.

Steve wrote: Sorry I mean't to say a few sentences or less. And "yep" is not a description of your process of applying empathy. That is what I was wanting a short description of.

What is the "suffering is conserved in vertebrates..." a response to? I'm confused as why you mentioned that here. Are you trying to understand my perspective or are you just trying to restate your own. That statement seems out of place to what I was asking, here anyways.

I think I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking me if I could summarize my moral reasoning process in one sentence or less. "Yep," was just the beginning of that answer, and the "suffering..." was the one-sentence explanation.

But now I see you were asking me how my process of empathy works. Which ties into the next section of your response:

Is explanation a prerequisite to applying empathy?

No it's not being psychic. And I understand wanting more or better explanation to understand. However applying empathy cannot solely hinge on explanation. Otherwise you have not really exerted any critical thinking on your own.

I don't want to put words in people's mouths. In a text-based discussion, where one cannot read body language, inflection, tone of voice, etc., explanation is crucial. Otherwise, one runs the risk of making unwarranted presumptions about other people's thoughts and meanings.

To be clear: I don't think your initial listings of criteria illuminated your moral reasoning very well. I intuited what I think your reasoning might be, but I do not want to presume, so I request clarification.

Humane Hominid wrote: I don't want to put words in people's mouths. In a text-based discussion, where one cannot read body language, inflection, tone of voice, etc., explanation is crucial. Otherwise, one runs the risk of making unwarranted presumptions about other people's thoughts and meanings.

To be clear: I don't think your initial listings of criteria illuminated your moral reasoning very well. I intuited what I think your reasoning might be, but I do not want to presume, so I request clarification.

I was just asking what your process of applying empathy would be. Describing your process in general (not to any specific topic, person, or thing) is not going to put words in anybodies mouth or make any unwarranted presumptions. It's your process.

I'm Vegetarian, the only animal product I eat are eggs (I'm still on the edge about honey).

I'm for animal treatment - the moral issue surrounding animal use isn't enough for me to go Vegan. If given the environment and opportunity to live a happy life, I'm fine with farming animals for their resources. My dog lived a happy life with my family, I'm sure chickens can live a happy life with their farmers.

(Repetition coming up)
I believe taking unfertilized eggs from chickens is in no way harming them or reducing the quality of their life. Putting a chicken in a large farm area to roam, play and live seems fine. While I do my best to find real "free run" eggs, all I can do is trust the farm on that notion sense it's not government regulated.

Lucrecious wrote:If given the environment and opportunity to live a happy life, I'm fine with farming animals for their resources. My dog lived a happy life with my family, I'm sure chickens can live a happy life with their farmers.

But you didn't kill your dog at a young age, after stealing his/her babies, to eat him/her, right?
Killing/restricting sentient beings against their consent is inherently wrong - they have wants, including the one to live and not to suffer.
Harming plants is much preferable - both for environmental issues and because they're not sentient. It's the least harmful way.

Lucrecious wrote:I believe taking unfertilized eggs from chickens is in no way harming them or reducing the quality of their life. Putting a chicken in a large farm area to roam, play and live seems fine. While I do my best to find real "free run" eggs, all I can do is trust the farm on that notion sense it's not government regulated.

If you cared about your health, you'd throw eggs out of your diet, not even thinking twice; they have an incredibly high amount of cholesterol.
Besides, dairy and eggs support the same kind of farming; animals that are used for meat, are not only used for that one thing; a cow is used for milk, a chicken is used for eggs, before going to the slaughterhouse (usually).
A vegetarian world (or a world that only eats eggs as animal product, or only milk) is impossible; the demand to satisfy billions of people that want those products is too high. Therefore there would still be animal farming in this situation.
It'd require too much space, too many resources and it'd be too expensive to have all the chickens roaming free, for all their lives. You wouldn't be able to satisfy the demand this way.

Lucrecious wrote:While I do my best to find real "free run" eggs, all I can do is trust the farm on that notion sense it's not government regulated.

That's really not all you can do. It's all you can be bothered to do, which is a big difference.

You could raise your own chickens.
You could visit the farms to ensure the treatment is to your standards.
You could just not eat eggs, which is the easiest thing to do.

Most of us don't have anything against eggs in principle; it's how it plays out in reality that's the problem.

By "all I can do is trust", I meant that I've done my fair bit of research into the specific farm I'm getting the eggs from. I don't have any time to actually go to the farm and check it out, so the next best thing is read reviews from eye witnesses who have checked it out. Even if I were to go to the farm, who's to say that they aren't just putting on a pretty face? In essence, all you can really do is trust... unless you raise your own chickens or go Vegan. However, I believe in a world where things can play out nicely.

thebestofenergy wrote: But you didn't kill your dog at a young age, after stealing his/her babies, to eat him/her, right?
Killing/restricting sentient beings against their consent is inherently wrong - they have wants, including the one to live and not to suffer.
Harming plants is much preferable - both for environmental issues and because they're not sentient. It's the least harmful way.

There are farms that treat chickens like how I treated my dog.

thebestofenergy wrote: Besides, dairy and eggs support the same kind of farming; animals that are used for meat, are not only used for that one thing; a cow is used for milk, a chicken is used for eggs, before going to the slaughterhouse (usually).

I disagree. What I strive for is humane treatment for other sentient beings, not their use. We should strive to rid this world of it's cruelness by teaching and prevention, not just force it to stop happening by going Vegan. Of course, those who advocate for animal use would still be against farming - I'm not against using animals. What I mean to say is, a cow/chicken doesn't need to go into the slaughter house after we use them for their milk and eggs - that's what I'm advocating.

thebestofenergy wrote: If you cared about your health, you'd throw eggs out of your diet, not even thinking twice; they have an incredibly high amount of cholesterol.

I didn't go vegetarian for health reasons, I did it for animal treatment. Eggs will slowly leave my diet but for health reasons, not for animal treatment, those two things are separate.

thebestofenergy wrote: A vegetarian world (or a world that only eats eggs as animal product, or only milk) is impossible; the demand to satisfy billions of people that want those products is too high. Therefore there would still be animal farming in this situation.
It'd require too much space, too many resources and it'd be too expensive to have all the chickens roaming free, for all their lives. You wouldn't be able to satisfy the demand this way.

How do you know? Did you do some calculations to get to that conclusion? Have you read any peer-reviewed articles covering this issue? What makes you the expert? I'm curious to know.

Lucrecious wrote:There are farms that treat chickens like how I treated my dog.

Sure. Those are very, very rare.
And even there, they probably won't keep the chickens alive for all their natural life.

Lucrecious wrote:What I mean to say is, a cow/chicken doesn't need to go into the slaughter house after we use them for their milk and eggs - that's what I'm advocating.

And that's inherently impossible to achieve.
You can't mass produce hundreds of billions of animals, keep them alive for all their lives, let them roam free, just for milk and eggs.

Lucrucious wrote:How do you know? Did you do some calculations to get to that conclusion? Have you read any peer-reviewed articles covering this issue? What makes you the expert? I'm curious to know.

I tought it was obvious?
Animal killing is required to have milk and eggs.
A cow is artificially inseminated; when calves are born, they're stolen, so that we can take the milk that was meant for her babies. The calves then are killed. This is how the majority of the industry works. To supply the demand of milk, this method is required; what would you do of the calves?
There are billions of cows and chickens. Do you really think it'd be possible to let them all roam free, let them live for all their lives, take care of them and their diseases, and vaccinate all of them?
What when cows don't produce milk anymore? Do you think farmers are going to keep alive billions of cows, roaming free, that don't even give them an income?
What when chickens start laying fewer eggs?
There's not even enough space to let tens of billions of chicken and cows roam free.
Also, if you buy eggs/milk from chickens/cows that are then brought to the slaughterhouse, you support the full circle.

And then there's also the environmental issue. Waste of food fed to the animals - most crops are fed to farmed animals, waste of space and global warming - lots of greenhouse gas emissions.

Lucrecious wrote:In essence, all you can really do is trust... unless you raise your own chickens or go Vegan. However, I believe in a world where things can play out nicely.

Please see my thread here where the possibility of this is discussed substantially, and I argue with TheVeganAtheist:

http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=22&t=115

And also this one here, with regards to a similar but real-world case:

http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=22&t=114

Lucrecious wrote: There are farms that treat chickens like how I treated my dog.

There are rescue sanctuaries, and vegans who keep rescue hens. See the second thread above. There are not any for-profit farms that treat hens as well as you treat your dog, unless you are an inordinately cruel owner who only keeps your dog for a singular commercial purpose.

Some working dogs, particularly in Hollywood, but also in racing and dog-fighting, are treated as badly as hens in the best commercial farms- and those cases are harshly criticized.

If your eggs cost less than around $2 each (NOT per dozen- they should be $24 a dozen at least), the hens are not treated well- it's economically impossible.