Ethical treatment of animal arguments for vegan-ism?

[AsmodesReynolds]

Question for all Vegans… Please explain your point of view?

The ethical treatment arguments for veganism don’t seem to make any sense, at least to me.

It is ethical, to farm thousands of plants in the most cramped and efficient ways possible, dousing them with chemicals to both make them grow faster and larger, and protect them against environmental hazards, parasites, and infections. All for the sole purpose, of human consumption.
But,
It is unethical, to farm thousands of animals in the most cramped and efficient ways possible, dousing them with chemicals to both make them grow faster and larger, and protect them against environmental hazards, parasites, and infections. All for the sole purpose, of human consumption.
Why?

While, you think about that... Please realize that I only changed to words in both those statements, ethical to unethical, and plants to animals.
Yet, the practice is true for both livestock farming and plant farming.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why doesiit matter if your food had a face? Or it if it can feel pain? Or suffering?

We cannot know for sure, that plants do not feel some sort of pain or suffering, science can tell us probably not, but our perceptions of reality/scientific theories are not always true, & are constantly being overturned.

Would you feel as guilty and stopped eating plants, if science discovered that they could feel some semblance of suffering from our farming practices?

To me, if even non-self-aware life form is bred to be food, then it should be done in the most efficient, safest (for the humans ) way possible. Whether that be physically unpleasant for the life form does not matter to me; it was bred to be food, we took care of it in order to feed us, and it’s death will nourish us as it completes its purpose in life, whether it’s a plant, animal, fish, or bird.

Logically speaking, there’s not much difference between the two situations except that animals can feel pain and suffering, and plants may not. Other than that it’s the same situation.

At least from my perspective, the Vegan moral line is arbitrary, granted I have a brain deformity that renders unable to perceive physical pain, temperature, and other sensations the same way a normally functioning human does.
If I understand your vegan logic correctly, it would be would not be ethically wrong to use/farm an animal like me as food? Is this consistent with your worldview? If not, why?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FYI, I do have problems with the way factory farms; farm livestock. Mostly because the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production, is breeding potentially dangerous superbugs, that could easily jump to humans, and lack of regulation/enforcement against selling meat/products from sick/cancerous animals. Not to mention the nonexistent/not enforce sanitary/hygiene requirements in slaughtering houses.

[bobo0100]

Question for all Vegans… Please explain your point of view?

The ethical treatment arguments for veganism don’t seem to make any sense, at least to me.

I'm glad your asking questions, and hope you are willing to follow the arguments that will inevitably follow.

I will start by explaining a few philosophical concepts to you.

UTILITARIANISM:
Utilitarianism is a theory of normative ethics which proposes that the right action it that which increases overall utility. Utilitarianism is a very general field in moral philosophy and has many more refined versions which differ in different ways.

-Classical Utilitarianism
Formally founded by Jeremy Bentham, and quickly adopted by John Stuart Mills. The theory argues that happiness is the quality that effects utility. happiness increases utility, and suffering decreases utility. Bentham though that all moral patients effected by an action counted for one and no more than one, they where all equal. While Mill's developed the theory so that happiness mattered more or less according to the quality of the happiness, Shakespeare is high quality whereas Simpsons is lower quality.

-Preference utilitarianism
Later Utilitarian philosophers measured utility by fulfilled interest's, this is the form of utilitarianism that Peter Singer followed for the vast majority of his career. However he has stated that he follows well-being utilitarianism in a recent lecture in china.

-Negative Utilitarianism
Negative Utilitarianism argues that Negative values of utility should hold far more weight than positive values.

-Wellbeing Utilitarianism
This theory was popularises, and I believe formulated, by Sam Harris (regarded one of the 4 housemen of atheism). The theory weighs utility as the well-being of conscious creatures.

Kantian Ethics
Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential philosophers to a broad range of philosophical fields. Kants theory, known as categorical imperatives, which is known to be very confusing but I will try my best to explain it. Kant thought that an action is good, if and only if, a world in which everyone acted that way, in every situation, would be a good/better world. this is a massive oversimplification, so read his works, most are available on www.loyalbooks.com.

I think it is generally agreed upon, on this forum that the moral bases that most vegans employ to reach such a conclusion is one of utilitarianism. I think this is likely because the founders of utilitarianism often went out of there way to state that the theory applied to "all of sentient creation" (I think this is what Jeremy Bentham said) and this was inclusive of non-human animals. Also playing a part is that some of the people who have been instrumental within vegan academia uphold the theory (see Peter Singers "animal liberation"). I am aware that within modern Kantian ethics (deontology), which is not too dissimilar to utilitarianism, there is an increase in philosophers who count animals as "ends in themselves" rather than "means to an end, that end being humans" as Kant put it. There was also a paper published by someone who posted links to said paper to this forum, and they took a Kantian approach.

Your plants VS animals situation asks the question, what qualifies as a moral patient. What type of being can you do wrong to? As stated before different philosophers draw different lines. Kant though that animals where "means to an end, and that end is humans". So cruelty to animals only morally mattered when being cruel to them would cause you to also be cruel to humans. As stated before this view has changed in modern Kantian thought. Mill's and Bentham drew the line at "sentient creatures" and because that line was not cloudy enough, Harris draws it as "thinking creatures". Long gone are the days where animals do not count in modern academic moral philosophy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does it matter if your food had a face? Or it if it can feel pain? Or suffering?

a "face", it doesn't. The only time I have seen this argued was in an intelligence squared debate, and they still argued sentience within that debate. By what's been said already surely you can see why pain/suffering matter morally. Pain and suffering is exactly what morality attempts to minimise.

We cannot know for sure, that plants do not feel some sort of pain or suffering, science can tell us probably not, but our perceptions of reality/scientific theories are not always true, & are constantly being overturned.

shall I compare thee to a creationist? (Second reference to Shakespeare.)

"We cannot know for sure, that the earth is millions of years old. science can tell us probably so, but our perceptions of reality/scientific theories are not always true, & are constantly being overturned."

Can you at very least tell me this, What evolutionary benefit would a plant gain from feeling pain?

Would you feel as guilty and stopped eating plants, if science discovered that they could feel some semblance of suffering from our farming practices?

Even if science did prove this, than it would still make sense to go vegan, because plants are consumed by animals. Killing a cow would in turn kill far more plants than just eating the plants.

To me, if even non-self-aware life form is bred to be food, then it should be done in the most efficient, safest (for the humans ) way possible. Whether that be physically unpleasant for the life form does not matter to me; it was bred to be food, we took care of it in order to feed us, and it’s death will nourish us as it completes its purpose in life, whether it’s a plant, animal, fish, or bird.

So you agree with Kant "animals are meant to an end, and that end is humans"? I'm glad to see that this view is almost completely rejected by modern philosophers.

Logically speaking, there’s not much difference between the two situations except that animals can feel pain and suffering, and plants may not.

But the difference that you claim is small is what counts one as a moral patient.

If I understand your vegan logic correctly, it would be would not be ethically wrong to use/farm an animal like me as food? Is this consistent with your worldview? If not, why?

I think you need to re-word that xD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be very helpful if you where to clarify your meta ethics (logic you use to determine if an action is or is not moral).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks again for engaging in conversation on this topic, where all fans of a rational discussion here.

[miniboes]

Welcome to the forum!

You're an atheist, right? Why?

I am an atheist because of a lack of evidence for the existence of a god. You do not accept a claim until it is proven, as otherwise you'd have to believe contradictory claims.

The same goes for plant sentience. We know animals are sentient, and we know they derive their sentience from their nervous systems. Plants do not have nervous systems, therefore there is no reason to believe they may be sentient.

But here's the more important point: Even if plants were as sentient as cows. pigs and chicken are, veganism would still be the more ethical option. Why? Because it requires more plants to make animal foods than to make plant foods. The animals need to be fed, after all, and most of the nutrients and energy in the plants fed to them are lost. The result is an awkward situation where we are at this very moment producing enough grain to 'cure' world hunger, but instead are feeding it to livestock.

To summarize: there's no evidence for plants being sentient, and even if they were being vegan causes less plant harm.

Edit: Damnit Bobo, how are you so fast?

[bobo0100]

To summarize: there's no evidence for plants being sentient, and even if they were being vegan causes less plant harm.

I think his point is that he defines a moral patient as a human and finds drawing the line at sentience to be arbitrary. The plant sentience was a foot note at best. Meta-ethical things are difficult to argue about, and I don't think I addressed it very well in my post.

Edit: Damnit Bobo, how are you so fast?

Its called being sick, with a laptop, and not much better to do, apart from study for year 12 exams coming up next week.

[AsmodesReynolds]

I would like to start by thanking both of you, for such prompt well put together responses. Indeed meta-ethics is difficult to rationally debate about, and thank you for being so civil about it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be very helpful if you where to clarify your meta ethics (logic you use to determine if an action is or is not moral).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To clarify my position. I set the ethical patient as any creature that modern scientific consensus currently agrees is self-aware. And I personally think those creatures should be given the same practical rights as humans (practical rights being defined as that the creature could actually use -this is not include the civil rights such as property rights, voting rights, etc.)

And as far as all the other lower animals are concerned, I asked myself a series of questions:

Is this particular species animal domesticated?

(Domestication being defined as bred specifically/ /genetically modified serve a purpose to humans) If the answer this question is yes, then it has no more ethical concern to me than a tool, a car, a computer, my home. All of these things you should take care of and ensure they are in the best possible condition to serve the job they are intended to fulfill.

Is this particular species of animal wild?

Then you have a duty to treat no differently than its role in the food chain. Since humans are arguably on the top. (This is because we have the use of technology and tools). We have a responsibility to treat wild animals the same way they would treat us. Only hunting/kill them. Only we need something from them, i.e. food/materials or for our safety. Not for our pleasure/trophies! Hunting/fishing should always be done in very small, quantities that are sustainable.

If more of a particular material is required by the global population than can be responsibility and sustainably attained from the wild population. Human beings should either find alternative material or a genetically stable population of individuals from that species should be captured, and the selectively bred/genetically modified and farmed for the needed material.

Other than those exceptions, I believe human beings should strive to respect the planet, and the ecosystem that allow it to support us the best we possibly can. Because we only have one earth, and I want my kids to be able to live on it and have food and water that will not kill them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shall I compare thee to a creationist? (Second reference to Shakespeare.)

"We cannot know for sure, that the earth is millions of years old. science can tell us probably so, but our perceptions of reality/scientific theories are not always true, & are constantly being overturned."

Can you at very least tell me this, What evolutionary benefit would a plant gain from feeling pain?

I cannot tell you with the evolutionary benefit of players feeling pain would be.
The question was posed only to test the intellectual consistency of your argument, I do this a lot on the Internet, mostly to avoid feeding trolls, and to avoid arguing with people that do not have a rational argument. There is three other questions, similarly posed that you either explained consistently or didn’t cover.
If by doing this I offended you in any way, I apologize and I will attempt to not do it in such an offensive way again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're an atheist, right? Why?

I am an atheist, because the Bible is inconsistent, lacks evidence, does not logically consistent what we know about reality, and was clearly written by man.

I don’t have a particular problem with theism. I have a problem with theists, more specifically the theists who don’t actually believe in their 4000-year-old Bronze Age desert text in its entirety. Because it is inconsistent to say. Being gay is an abomination because of God, but that pound of shrimp, you just ate, the multi-blended fabric close your wearing, the fact that you’ve cut your hair or shaved your face, the loan, you probably have on your house and car. Will not, when in fact, Yahweh treats all those offenses as abominations, worthy of being sent to hell. Just to name a small amount of common abominations that Abrahamic followers do on a daily basis.

In theory, if a person was completely consistent with their text. I would have no problem with them, but I’ve never met one because it would be impossible to participate in Western society without being an abomination in the eyes of Yahweh.

This section of the form isn’t the place, to discuss theism versus non-theism, and my problems with it.
If you wish to know more, say so and I will post in the other section and an edit this post to include a link. I don’t wish to derail the conversation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s why there is a difference between ethics and morals in my opinion,
Morals are what you personally decide is acceptable to you, whether that’s a 4000-year-old desert text, a flavor of Utilitarianism, etc. or something that you figure out yourself.

Ethics is have consistently, you apply to those beliefs for both yourself and others.

I’m going to use stealing as an example:
If you morally decided that stealing was okay, then you could not be upset if someone stole from you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, in an attempt to not strawman your position . I’m going to summarize how I perceive your argument can you tell me if this is correct before I post my problems with it:

Of the people that are vegan because of ethical reasons, most of them are that way because of the suffering it causes to the animals being eaten/used in farms, or hunted.
Therefore, they strive not to cause suffering to all the sentient lifeforms that that are high enough on the moral scale to matter.
But how do you define suffering? Physical and emotional? Only physical?
Everything expressed in this thread so far seems to imply both physical and mental mistreatment.

If that is the case I can poke several holes in this argument, big enough to drive a Mack truck through. In that case it would be just personal choice, not an ethical imperative.

If I have strawman/misunderstood. Anyone of your arguments. Please explain, explain further
I’m trying to understand your point of view, because being in your own belief bubble only leads to radicalism, and lack of diversity of thought.

[bobo0100]

To clarify my position. I set the ethical patient as any creature that modern scientific consensus currently agrees is self-aware. And I personally think those creatures should be given the same practical rights as humans (practical rights being defined as that the creature could actually use -this is not include the civil rights such as property rights, voting rights, etc.)

Is this particular species animal domesticated?

Is this particular species of animal wild?

Then you have a duty to treat no differently than its role in the food chain.

These "exceptions" seem to be based on ether an arbitrary right (based on the whims of human's) or latterly a misunderstanding of the food chain (more like a web or network) and an appeal to nature fallacy. Can you show how "domesticated" and "wild" are ethically (I'm in the habit of using the term interchangeably with morally) relevant terms.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I understand your vegan logic correctly, it would be would not be ethically wrong to use/farm an animal like me as food? Is this consistent with your worldview? If not, why?

I think I missed this one.

It would not be ethical to farm a being such as you for food because it would remove many of your liberty's, (freedom to move, interact with society and latterly the freedom to live if we assume farming practices similar to that as what is currently in use.) and by these losses of liberty the quality of your life would be drastically decreased.

There are however human "farms" that I don't find immoral, such as human breast milk banks, but this is different enough to not call it a farm. http://mothersmilkbank.com.au/about-mmb/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other than those exceptions, I believe human beings should strive to respect the planet, and the ecosystem that allow it to support us the best we possibly can. Because we only have one earth, and I want my kids to be able to live on it and have food and water that will not kill them.

The global warming argument is one that others would be in a better position to address, but my understanding is that animal products are the worst food's given there effect on the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If by doing this I offended you in any way, I apologize and I will attempt to not do it in such an offensive way again.

No, I don't take on that question well because its posed so of tern, but never in a way that seems to so much as scratch the surface intellectually.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the people that are vegan because of ethical reasons, most of them are that way because of the suffering it causes to the animals being eaten/used in farms, or hunted.
Therefore, they strive not to cause suffering to all the sentient lifeforms that that are high enough on the moral scale to matter.
But how do you define suffering? Physical and emotional? Only physical?
Everything expressed in this thread so far seems to imply both physical and mental mistreatment.

If I have strawman/misunderstood. Anyone of your arguments. Please explain, explain further I’m trying to understand your point of view, because being in your own belief bubble only leads to radicalism, and lack of diversity of thought.[/quote]

Your on the right track however keep in mind that the vegan movement is far less organized than religion, we don't have a doctrine. you will likely find that both in practice and in belief there is likely to be dissonance between myself and say Miniboes. Many is probably a better word than most, and as stated before many vegans are utilitarian in thought. Everything you say seems to suggest that you hold Kantian categorical imperatives. The primary difference being that, by categorical imperatives if an action is wrong in one situations, it is wrong in all situations. Whereas in utilitarianism the specifics of the situation dictate what the moral action is. Am I correctly understanding your views? The implication of this is that there are non vegan actions that a vegan will do if the situation calls for it. On top of all this, the term wellbeing seems to be better fit than suffering "they strive to maintain or improve the welbeing of all thinking creatures." but not all thinking creatures are counted equally, such as oysters which have bundles of nerves but probably cannot think, and Peter singer has stated that lobsters probably don't have an interest in continuing to live, and as such should not be given such a right.

Please poke away, reason is far more important than veganism, and I am willing to follow the argument where it goes.

[AsmodesReynolds]

Thank you, again bobo0100. If this entire forum community, is as patient; well spoken; open to discussing contrary opinions and ideas; as intellectually consistent as you are. I would like to stay if you will have me, Even though I am a self-professed omnivore.
Ps as a side note, I encourage you trying to poke any holes you can in my arguments. I enjoy being challenged in my ideas, it’s the only way that they can get better and more consistent.

Everything you say seems to suggest that you hold Kantian categorical imperatives. The primary difference being that, by categorical imperatives if an action is wrong in one situations, it is wrong in all situations. Whereas in utilitarianism the specifics of the situation dictate what the moral action is. Am I correctly understanding your views?

Clearly I didn’t articulate my position correctly or I have a misunderstanding of Kantian moral philosophy. So I will attempt to clarify my position further:
I would describe myself more as a categorical utilitarianism. However, I can see the similarities to Kantian categorical imperatives. I actually thought you understood my decision more than you do, because of how close you got to describe my position in your original post, (otherwise I would’ve clarified my decision clear in my last post) included here for those who do not want to read through 3000+ words to join the discussion:

Your plants VS animals situation asks the question, what qualifies as a moral patient. What type of being can you do wrong to? As stated before different philosophers draw different lines. Kant though that animals where "means to an end, and that end is humans". So cruelty to animals only morally mattered when being cruel to them would cause you to also be cruel to humans. As stated before this view has changed in modern Kantian thought. Mill's and Bentham drew the line at "sentient creatures" and because that line was not cloudy enough, Harris draws it as "thinking creatures". Long gone are the days where animals do not count in modern academic moral philosophy.

Where I differ from Harris is simple. I draw the line at self-aware creatures, and then categorize all other life forms under the line into one of two categories: intentionally domesticated/modified lifeforms, and wild/not modified to human knowledge lifeforms.

Domesticated/modified lifeforms (both plant and animal) :

These non-self-aware lifeforms, can no longer subsist on their own, in their original natural habitat competing for resources with the other naturally occurring/wild lifeforms. They require, Humans intervention to survive. Humans had selectively bred/genetically modified them in order to get them to express the traits that we require/prefer. There for transforming the organism into a living tool. Since we made them, they are ours destroyed. We have a responsibility to these lifeforms to keep them from destroying the habitat of wild lifeforms, as well as the environment.

Wild/not modified to human knowledge lifeforms (both plant and animal):

These non-self-aware lifeforms, can subsist on their own, in their original natural habitat competing for resources with the other naturally occurring/wild lifeforms. They do not require, Humans intervention to survive. Humans have not selectively bred/genetically modified them. Since we have made them, they are not ours destroyed. We have a responsibility to these lifeforms to keep our actions or the actions of creations from destroying them or their natural environments.

You mentioned that my categories seem to be arbitrary, to a certain extent they are. So are Harris, Mill's and Bentham lines. The lines have to be drawn somewhere is because we can’t be Breatharians (that has to be the most ridiculous religion/diet, I’ve ever heard of it).

I believe that should address, all the concerns/fallacies you have in this portion of your post below, but if I missed one, please pointed out.

These "exceptions" seem to be based on ether an arbitrary right (based on the whims of human's) or latterly a misunderstanding of the food chain (more like a web or network) and an appeal to nature fallacy. Can you show how "domesticated" and "wild" are ethically (I'm in the habit of using the term interchangeably with morally) relevant terms.

The primary reason for my disagreement with Harris is I truly believe that one cannot suffer without the ability to self reflect, or the ability to distinguish oneself from its environment. But then again, that perspective might stem from my disabilities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I understand your vegan logic correctly, it would be would not be ethically wrong to use/farm an animal like me as food? Is this consistent with your worldview? If not, why?

I think I missed this one.

It would not be ethical to farm a being such as you for food because it would remove many of your liberty's, (freedom to move, interact with society and latterly the freedom to live if we assume farming practices similar to that as what is currently in use.) and by these losses of liberty the quality of your life would be drastically decreased.

There are however human "farms" that I don't find immoral, such as human breast milk banks, but this is different enough to not call it a farm.

Judging by your response, to that inquiry, my phrasing was atrocious, so I will attempt to ask it again more clearly.

If human beings were to genetically modify or selectively breed, to the remove pain response, and fear of death from livestock. Would with the average ethically driven Vegan still have moral issues with the farming of such animals? It would be scientifically possible, and relatively easy, given, all be it limited my understanding of my own condition.
Because there still is an argument, that even though the animal is a “tool” it is irresponsible of us to make its existence more excruciating than it needs to be.

I personally would support such a modification, because it would decrease the ethical problems and not significantly raise production costs and consumer costs, assuming it that the genome was not copyrighted by a corporation and price gouged like most of Monsanto’s GMOs (Monsanto is probably the most evil company existence)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you define will well-being? Physical and emotional health? Freedom? Liberty?

Because the very fact of owning a pet, which is something a lot of Vegins do, would break all the tenants of “well-being”.

By owning a pet you decide where it:
- where it lives
- where it goes to the bathroom
- what it eats, how and what it plays with
- whether it lives or dies.
-Socially isolated from the rest of their species,
-restrictive and artificial habitat that are usually less than 0.1% weekly ranging area in when unrestricted, causing anxiety and other emotional disorders
-They routinely forced to into cages,
-remove from their familiar habitat, most of the time to be poked and prodded by unfamiliar humans, in order to maintain health and
-remove from their familiar habitat, most of the time to be poked and prodded by unfamiliar humans, in order modify their anatomy for the convenience of humans (shaving nail, clipping, spaying/neutering, declawing, wings clipped, etc.) But these animals to understand is going on is a very traumatizing experience.
Pet owners put them through this all for what? Our pleasure of keeping a pet?

Now that is not cruel and unusual punishment for no purpose. I don’t know what is.
If my understanding of vegan logic is correct. It also should be immoral to own Pets …

[bobo0100]

Clearly I didn’t articulate my position correctly or I have a misunderstanding of Kantian moral philosophy. So I will attempt to clarify my position further:
I would describe myself more as a categorical utilitarianism. However, I can see the similarities to Kantian categorical imperatives. I actually thought you understood my decision more than you do, because of how close you got to describe my position in your original post, (otherwise I would’ve clarified my decision clear in my last post) included here for those who do not want to read through 3000+ words to join the discussion:

As I said Kants theory's are long and complicated, and even after everything's on the table its incredibly difficult to understand, add to this a language barrier, Kants German. I did not explain it all, just the basic premise upon which it is based. Would this be an accurate statement? "an action is good, if and only if, acting in that way would lead to a good/better world"

Where I differ from Harris is simple. I draw the line at self-aware creatures, and then categorize all other life forms under the line into one of two categories: intentionally domesticated/modified lifeforms, and wild/not modified to human knowledge lifeforms.

You do not differ from Harris or Singer as much as you think. I maybe didn't articulate myself very well, but Singer (who largely agrees with Harris), thinks lobsters probably do not deserve the right to life on the basis as they cannot think about life, or in the words of a preference utilitarian, they do not have an interest in continued life.

In moral philosophy, sentience and sapience have a class sub-class relationship, and as such can feel (suffer) without having knowledge about itself (sapience). Many moral philosophers allow "lower animals" that can suffer and are not self aware, the right to not suffer, but not the right to continue living. The reason I don't like the sapience line is its incredibly under researched. Whereas sentience is easy to demonstrate by behavioural and physiological aspects of the species in question. Something I have expressed frustration about in previous topics on the forum. I would agree that if an animal does not/cannot want to avoid death, than this type of well-being is irrelevant to the animal.

Domesticated/modified lifeforms (both plant and animal) :

...Since we made them, they are ours destroy

I don't think this is true. Its the difference between dominion and domination. In both you have to control the subject, in the first you control with a care for the subject, and the other you control without a care about the subject. Our making them does not grant us the right to destroy them, If you think it does than you need to argue for this premiss.

You mentioned that my categories seem to be arbitrary, to a certain extent they are. So are Harris, Mill's and Bentham lines. The lines have to be drawn somewhere is because we can’t be Breatharians (that has to be the most ridiculous religion/diet, I’ve ever heard of it).

I disagree. Mills and Bentham, draw the line at able to experience happiness, or as they put it "all of sentient creation". It make no sense to maximise the happiness of a creature that cannot experience happiness. This line is the far from arbitrary. Harris point of view is just an adaptation of of Mills and Bentham, and I would argue that there is no reason to maximise the welbeing of a being that cannot experience the benefits that come from said welbeing. At least if we are to consider it the basis of morality.

The primary reason for my disagreement with Harris is I truly believe that one cannot suffer without the ability to self reflect, or the ability to distinguish oneself from its environment. But then again, that perspective might stem from my disabilities.

If you "truly believe that one cannot suffer without the ability to self reflect" than can you give me some supporting evidence?

As stated before sapience is difficult to demonstrate. how do we know that "lower animals" can/cannot distinguish themselves from there environment?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judging by your response, to that inquiry, my phrasing was atrocious, so I will attempt to ask it again more clearly.

If human beings were to genetically modify or selectively breed, to the remove pain response, and fear of death from livestock. Would with the average ethically driven Vegan still have moral issues with the farming of such animals? It would be scientifically possible, and relatively easy, given, all be it limited my understanding of my own condition.

This is correct. Although a better example would be lab grown meat. Many of the vegans on this forum have stated that they would not eat it because of health concerns, and I can be put on the record as saying "I would not eat it because its not appetising to me." However it is a ethical choice morally synonymous with veganism. http://www.cnet.com/news/lab-grown-burg ... matically/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you define will well-being? Physical and emotional health? Freedom? Liberty?

The definition of well-being is defined in a way that is flexible. As proclaimed by Harris and latterly Matt Dillahunty, there are grey areas, but the difference between living happily and healthy, and being dead is about as clear as it gets. The lack of definition does not seem to bother doctor's and medical scientist's, but I doubt you would claim that the lack of definition has effected there conclusions. so for a definition I would say that well-being is wellbeing in any non-moral basis, such as how its used in health care.

By owning a pet you decide where it:
- where it lives
- where it goes to the bathroom
- what it eats, how and what it plays with
- whether it lives or dies.
-Socially isolated from the rest of their species,
-restrictive and artificial habitat that are usually less than 0.1% weekly ranging area in when unrestricted, causing anxiety and other emotional disorders
-They routinely forced to into cages,
-remove from their familiar habitat, most of the time to be poked and prodded by unfamiliar humans, in order to maintain health and
-remove from their familiar habitat, most of the time to be poked and prodded by unfamiliar humans, in order modify their anatomy for the convenience of humans (shaving nail, clipping, spaying/neutering, declawing, wings clipped, etc.) But these animals to understand is going on is a very traumatizing experience.
Pet owners put them through this all for what? Our pleasure of keeping a pet?

The ethics of pet ownership is a complicated and incredibly controversial one.

There are ways in which pets are wronged, such as the problems existing in puppy mills. As such many vegans claim it immoral to have pets that are not "rescued" from dog shelters. Vegans also think it immoral to allow your animals to reproduce, because dog shelters are already overflowing. Its immoral to bring any more dogs into the world.

For many of these is it not the same in regards to young children and there parents? The poor children don't have a choice to chose where they live. Such liberties are of no use to a being like a dog or a cow, because these animals are dependent on humans to survive, but a human wants them.

- whether it lives or dies.

This one is more interesting. I'm not a libertarian. The being is not wronged because it is unable to chose, it is wronged because its wellbeing was effected in positive or negative ways.

If my understanding of vegan logic is correct. It also should be immoral to own Pets …

Its not that simple.

[AsmodesReynolds]

Would this be an accurate statement? "an action is good, if and only if, acting in that way would lead to a good/better world"

Personally through my job, the Internet, and my life experience, I have spent too much time analyzing and manipulating the underbelly of the human psyche ever make such an idealistic statement. A more accurate statement my viewpoint would be “an action is only not bad if and only if, acting this way would not make the world worse.”

Domesticated/modified lifeforms (both plant and animal) :

...Since we made them, they are ours destroy

I don't think this is true. Its the difference between dominion and domination. In both you have to control the subject, in the first you control with a care for the subject, and the other you control without a care about the subject. Our making them does not grant us the right to destroy them, If you think it does than you need to argue for this premiss.

I can’t really answer this one without straying a little bit from moral philosophy. I agree with you and premise. However, since they can’t survive without us. If we stop eating/using them. We have no reason to spend our time and resources on maintaining them, besides compassion. Which unfortunately compassion is in very short supply in this world. So effectively my previous statement is true. It may not be moral, but it is the reality.

I disagree. Mills and Bentham, draw the line at able to experience happiness, or as they put it "all of sentient creation". It make no sense to maximise the happiness of a creature that cannot experience happiness. This line is the far from arbitrary. Harris point of view is just an adaptation of of Mills and Bentham, and I would argue that there is no reason to maximise the welbeing of a being that cannot experience the benefits that come from said welbeing. At least if we are to consider it the basis of morality.

Anthropomorphizing animals is a logical trap that most people fall, providing that they have not studied some amount of animal psychology, and behavior . We extrapolate the emotions based on the animal’s actions and our own perception of the situation. Humans from our perspective, don’t have the ability to truly understand if/what a particular animal is feeling. The behavior being displayed could be a genuine emotion or merely just a learned behavior displayed to elicit a particular response from us.

A very good and representative example of this is, the common house cat purring and meowing behavior, cats do not per or meow in the presence of purely other house cats, they use other communication styles, such as body language sent and vocalizations (hissing and growling, a sort of Chirr, as well as some ultrasonic frequencies that we cannot hear.) There’ve been a number of studies that have concluded that house cats meow and certain instances of the purring behavior is a learned behavior in order to elicit certain responses from us, that is not necessarily related to their emotional state. Do animals even feel happy or sad the way humans do? There is scientific evidence to say they do, but most of these studies have some sort of methodological problems and have not been retested as rigorously as I would like. I personally think a great deal of these studies may be suffering from confirmation and sensationalism biases which is unfortunately very common in the social science field due to the publish or die mentality. I don’t think we will ever know for sure.

If we can only judge by a creature’s actions what their emotional state is and the actions can be misleading, then you need additional evidence for that creature having emotions, and as you said, there is no reason to maximize the happiness/well-being of the creature they cannot experience the benefits that comes from that said well-being. As you said earlier, there is not much research in being done in this field. There’s not much money being thrown at research that does not necessarily practical use, and even if they are done, they are often not retested and that’s a shame.

If you "truly believe that one cannot suffer without the ability to self reflect" than can you give me some supporting evidence?

No, nothing besides anecdotal, that’s why I weekend, my claim with “I believe” I realize that is the weakest part of my argument.

As stated before sapience is difficult to demonstrate. how do we know that "lower animals" can/cannot distinguish themselves from there environment?

See mirror self-recognition test (MSR): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

If my understanding of vegan logic is correct. It also should be immoral to own Pets …

Its not that simple.

This I 100% agree with you on. I myself has moral issues with owning pets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bobo0100, I really appreciate you discussing this with me and helping me understand, your point of view. But I’m kind of disappointed that you’re the only has really engaged in the conversation with me. When there are some obvious trolls like Tostrong4you, get 7 people responding to their nonsense. Why? I realize that 1000 to 1300 word posts sets the bar pretty high. You’ve been in this community longer than I have. Do you have any suggestions on how to posts to get a more representative sample of the vegans on the site? This section is called vegan versus non-vegan debates, I figured I’d ask a provocative question to provoke debate. It doesn’t seem to have worked as well as I planned. Any help would be really appreciated.

[Mr. Purple]

Anthropomorphizing animals is a logical trap that most people fall, providing that they have not studied some amount of animal psychology, and behavior . We extrapolate the emotions based on the animal’s actions and our own perception of the situation. Humans from our perspective, don’t have the ability to truly understand if/what a particular animal is feeling. The behavior being displayed could be a genuine emotion or merely just a learned behavior displayed to elicit a particular response from us.

I don't see why you would treat the situation any different than with humans. If domesticated animals did evolve or learn behaviors specifically for human interaction, i don't see how that's different than the behaviors humans evolved or learned through living with each other. Assuming it's a trap or the animals are just tricking you seems sort of paranoid. Given how remarkably similar almost all mammals are biologically, making a significant distinction between humans and other mammals when it comes to something as primitive as emotions doesn't seem warranted.