Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

I'm speaking in terms of overall quality of life, here, as well as psychopathology.

I'm also not sure why the lifespan is terribly relevant to this; there's no reason why killing something when it's younger would make it any more ethical.

[Realmfighter]

What is the point in giving something a great life, if it only ends up as a pork chop?

[G-Flex]

If the eventual death of something means it doesn't matter how you treat it, then it doesn't matter how you treat anything or anyone. I mean, hell, if some kid is terminally ill and going to die within a year and a half, that's not an excuse to do whatever you want to that person either. It's just irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's okay to treat the person or animal poorly in the first place.

[nil]

Not really; you need to define 'suffering' now.

Easily done, and done long ago.

Hell, semantics is one of the few things modern ethics does well; paid professionals have spent careers pedantically pinning down what these terms mean.

The problem isn't a lack of meaningful categories, it's that how one treats those categories is ultimately a pretty arbitrary decision.  For example, Ayn Rand would eat a gorilla.

[G-Flex]

Granted, Ayn Rand would be a half-step away from eating one of us, but yeah.

[Neruz]

I assume you do realise that the animals we farm are so far removed from their original wild ancestors that they aren't even the same species anymore?

Irrelevant. Domesticated pigs being different from wild hogs doesn't make them some sort of nonliving meat machine.

No; but it does make any comparison to how said pigs would be like 'naturally' or 'in the wild' somewhat difficult; as said pigs would not exist in the wild.

I suppose we could start making decisions about what to do with people by making comparisons to chimpanzees, but something tells me there are a few holes in this idea.

You can tell how healthy an animal is physically without talking to it, and psychology/social health exists for animals too. You don't have to be able to ask it "so, how ya feeling?" in order to know that certain treatments are simply unhealthy in general. You are going against conventional science by attempting to refute this.

No, but i am suggesting that when you start dealing with consciousness, sentience and applying human morals to non-human entities, things get very gnarly very quickly.

Easily done, and done long ago.

Hell, semantics is one of the few things modern ethics does well; paid professionals have spent careers pedantically pinning down what these terms mean.

The problem isn't a lack of meaningful categories, it's that how one treats those categories is ultimately a pretty arbitrary decision.  For example, Ayn Rand would eat a gorilla.

Well?

If the eventual death of something means it doesn't matter how you treat it, then it doesn't matter how you treat anything or anyone. I mean, hell, if some kid is terminally ill and going to die within a year and a half, that's not an excuse to do whatever you want to that person either. It's just irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's okay to treat the person or animal poorly in the first place.

Ah; but you see, the difference is that is a person, not a pig.

[Reasonableman]

Fundamentally, the question is one of fairly Ayn Rand-ian egotism vs. altruism.

Are we the alpha-species and therefore entitled to do what we'd like with the others?

Or are we, by nature of our position, imbued with some sort of responsibility to make sure that they are given a wide berth, if not an advantage, in a world we dominate... even at some cost (however small or large) to ourselves?

Personally, I favor the first, but then I've got a rather unusually focused philosophy.

[Neruz]

The second option seems somewhat unfounded and unbelievably arrogant to me.

[Reasonableman]

Well try not to be too harsh, there's got to be a certain amount of bias since I've written it. And frequently such 'unfounded' beliefs are based religiously; those sorts of things are... sensitive, to say the least.

[G-Flex]

I assume you do realise that the animals we farm are so far removed from their original wild ancestors that they aren't even the same species anymore?

Irrelevant. Domesticated pigs being different from wild hogs doesn't make them some sort of nonliving meat machine.

No; but it does make any comparison to how said pigs would be like 'naturally' or 'in the wild' somewhat difficult; as said pigs would not exist in the wild.

I'm not trying to. The question is what's healthy or could be considered good treatment, not what's "natural".

You can tell how healthy an animal is physically without talking to it, and psychology/social health exists for animals too. You don't have to be able to ask it "so, how ya feeling?" in order to know that certain treatments are simply unhealthy in general. You are going against conventional science by attempting to refute this.

No, but i am suggesting that when you start dealing with consciousness, sentience and applying human morals to non-human entities, things get very gnarly very quickly.

Of course they do, but non-human animals still have psychology to varying degrees. There is actual research into animal psychopathology; it's not just some made-up crock. Obviously, it all depends on the individual animal you're studying, but the animals we eat usually aren't even the particularly "dumb" ones anyhow. At least none of the ones we've been mentioning.

If the eventual death of something means it doesn't matter how you treat it, then it doesn't matter how you treat anything or anyone. I mean, hell, if some kid is terminally ill and going to die within a year and a half, that's not an excuse to do whatever you want to that person either. It's just irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's okay to treat the person or animal poorly in the first place.

Ah; but you see, the difference is that is a person, not a pig.

You completely missed the point. My point was that whether or not it's going to die at some point within the next year or two is irrelevant to whether or not it's okay to mistreat it. It's just dodging the question of how much ethical weight should be given to the creature in the first place.

If the ability for pigs to suffer and their status as beings with complex psychology makes it inhumane to treat them poorly, then this is the case regardless of whether or not they're going to be eaten for food, for (some of) the same reasons that it's the case for a person.

The second option seems somewhat unfounded and unbelievably arrogant to me.

Agreed. Saying we're the "alpha species" is kind of silly anyway; we GUARANTEE the survival of other species by simple virtue of the fact that we need them to survive. It's not as if we can just decide "screw it all, every species besides us goes" because 1) we don't even have the current capacity to do that, and 2) we'd die in short order. This is to say nothing of the kind of symbiosis that goes on inside us with, say, bacteria.

[Neruz]

Well try not to be too harsh, there's got to be a certain amount of bias since I've written it. And frequently such 'unfounded' beliefs are based religiously; those sorts of things are... sensitive, to say the least.

I'm just saying that in order to concieve of the second option you need to first decide that human beings are so unbelievably special that they get their own seperate category unique from all other life-forms on this planet.

The level of arrogance required to reach this view is actually beyond my comprehension.

Of course they do, but non-human animals still have psychology to varying degrees. There is actual research into animal psychopathology; it's not just some made-up crock. Obviously, it all depends on the individual animal you're studying, but the animals we eat usually aren't even the particularly "dumb" ones anyhow. At least none of the ones we've been mentioning.

Most animals aren't anything like as dumb as we like to think; intelligence is one of those sliding scale things, rather than a switch.

You completely missed the point. My point was that whether or not it's going to die at some point within the next year or two is irrelevant to whether or not it's okay to mistreat it. It's just dodging the question of how much ethical weight should be given to the creature in the first place.

If the ability for pigs to suffer and their status as beings with complex psychology makes it inhumane to treat them poorly, then this is the case regardless of whether or not they're going to be eaten for food, for (some of) the same reasons that it's the case for a person.

I was responding to your claim that if it's alright to treat a pig poorly because it's going to die in a year's time, then it's alright to treat a person poorly because he's going to die in a year's time; this is ovbiously rediculous, as one is a pig, and the other is a person. Treating both entities the same is ludicrous.

Agreed. Saying we're the "alpha species" is kind of silly anyway; we GUARANTEE the survival of other species by simple virtue of the fact that we need them to survive. It's not as if we can just decide "screw it all, every species besides us goes" because 1) we don't even have the current capacity to do that, and 2) we'd die in short order. This is to say nothing of the kind of symbiosis that goes on inside us with, say, bacteria.

It's extremely silly; the current alpha species would almost definitely be the Common Cold, which has us thougherly beat and reminds us of this fact every year. Cockroaches, rats and other parasites and vermin that have adapted well to Humans would come in second, Humans only score third on the graph, unfortunately.

Of course we're working to change that, and given enough time it's reasonable to think we should be able to get up to the second-best rung, and might even be able to claim the top, but it's going to take awhile yet.


Finally; simply because we need another species to survive, does not mean we suddenly have some sort of duty to rear it in a bed of silk cushions. If we need Species X for a given purpose, we should be treating it exactly as well as is required in order for it to meet that purpose with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Expending additional resources above and beyond that marker is, quite simply, a waste.

[G-Flex]

Well try not to be too harsh, there's got to be a certain amount of bias since I've written it. And frequently such 'unfounded' beliefs are based religiously; those sorts of things are... sensitive, to say the least.

I'm just saying that in order to concieve of the second option you need to first decide that human beings are so unbelievably special that they get their own seperate category unique from all other life-forms on this planet.

The level of arrogance required to reach this view is actually beyond my comprehension.

Of course they do, but non-human animals still have psychology to varying degrees. There is actual research into animal psychopathology; it's not just some made-up crock. Obviously, it all depends on the individual animal you're studying, but the animals we eat usually aren't even the particularly "dumb" ones anyhow. At least none of the ones we've been mentioning.

Most animals aren't anything like as dumb as we like to think; intelligence is one of those sliding scale things, rather than a switch.

Oh, I know. That's why I don't like to draw clear lines in the sand or anything like that. I don't think a pig deserves to be crammed into a tiny cage for its entire life because it's pretty obvious from even cursory research that they demand more than that, and respond to such stressors and have serious problems, but I don't think they exactly demand the right to vote or not be kept as property either. So yeah, of course it's a sliding scale.

You completely missed the point. My point was that whether or not it's going to die at some point within the next year or two is irrelevant to whether or not it's okay to mistreat it. It's just dodging the question of how much ethical weight should be given to the creature in the first place.

If the ability for pigs to suffer and their status as beings with complex psychology makes it inhumane to treat them poorly, then this is the case regardless of whether or not they're going to be eaten for food, for (some of) the same reasons that it's the case for a person.

I was responding to your claim that if it's alright to treat a pig poorly because it's going to die in a year's time, then it's alright to treat a person poorly because he's going to die in a year's time; this is ovbiously rediculous, as one is a pig, and the other is a person. Treating both entities the same is ludicrous.

I wasn't trying to treat them as the same thing, I was drawing an analogy because similar reasoning, in that case, applies to both: That whether or not something's going to die in X months doesn't give you the right to treat it differently, at least not when it comes to fundamental things like basic humane treatment. I wasn't trying to imply equivalency or anything.

Agreed. Saying we're the "alpha species" is kind of silly anyway; we GUARANTEE the survival of other species by simple virtue of the fact that we need them to survive. It's not as if we can just decide "screw it all, every species besides us goes" because 1) we don't even have the current capacity to do that, and 2) we'd die in short order. This is to say nothing of the kind of symbiosis that goes on inside us with, say, bacteria.

It's extremely silly; the current alpha species would almost definitely be the Common Cold, which has us thougherly beat and reminds us of this fact every year. Cockroaches, rats and other parasites and vermin that have adapted well to Humans would come in second, Humans only score third on the graph, unfortunately.

Of course we're working to change that, and given enough time it's reasonable to think we should be able to get up to the second-best rung, and might even be able to claim the top, but it's going to take awhile yet.


Finally; simply because we need another species to survive, does not mean we suddenly have some sort of duty to rear it in a bed of silk cushions. If we need Species X for a given purpose, we should be treating it exactly as well as is required in order for it to meet that purpose with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Expending additional resources above and beyond that marker is, quite simply, a waste.

[/quote]

What duties we have depends on what we consider morally right, not just efficient or good for us. That's the thing about being human; we have the capacity to think beyond what's good for ourselves or our current genes. If we were to think in cold, hard survival-of-the-fittest terms like that, a lot of horrible things humans do to each other are excusable too.

So yeah, it would be a "waste" in terms of efficiently serving our own needs, but ethics isn't just about that.

[ein]

I don't think a pig deserves to be crammed into a tiny cage for its entire life because it's pretty obvious from even cursory research that they demand more than that, and respond to such stressors and have serious problems, but I don't think they exactly demand the right to vote or not be kept as property either.

I need to not read such heavy posts when sleep deprived.
I read that as something along the lines of "When you cram pigs in tiny cages, they get all stressorzed out and want to vote and buy property."

[Neruz]

Oh, I know. That's why I don't like to draw clear lines in the sand or anything like that. I don't think a pig deserves to be crammed into a tiny cage for its entire life because it's pretty obvious from even cursory research that they demand more than that, and respond to such stressors and have serious problems, but I don't think they exactly demand the right to vote or not be kept as property either. So yeah, of course it's a sliding scale.

Unfortunately; many people do not recognise this.

I wasn't trying to treat them as the same thing, I was drawing an analogy because similar reasoning, in that case, applies to both: That whether or not something's going to die in X months doesn't give you the right to treat it differently, at least not when it comes to fundamental things like basic humane treatment. I wasn't trying to imply equivalency or anything.

Life expectancy, along with thousands of other factors, should all be a part of the final decision on how to treat an entity. Species is, of course, one of those factors. The trick is working out the correct scale.

What duties we have depends on what we consider morally right, not just efficient or good for us. That's the thing about being human; we have the capacity to think beyond what's good for ourselves or our current genes. If we were to think in cold, hard survival-of-the-fittest terms like that, a lot of horrible things humans do to each other are excusable too.

So yeah, it would be a "waste" in terms of efficiently serving our own needs, but ethics isn't just about that.

There's fairly good odds that other animals are capable of thinking beyond what's good from a mere personal standpoint; chimpanzees, dolphins and octopi have all been witnessed engaging in activities that have no real or tangible personal gain, but do have gain for other creatures they were interacting with.

There is no reason to believe that the concept of morality or the capacity to think beyond personal gain is unique to humans, nor any reason to assume this conveys some sort of responsibility upon us. Sure we've taking the concept further than all the other critters on this ball (we think), but the concept itself is by no means unique to mankind.


See; there's that arrogance again. I really wish i knew where that came from.

[DJ]

Why do people insist that there is such thing as objective morals? Morals are pretty much just a tool for keeping a society from falling apart. They're useful because they make us all better off. I don't see how would improvement of life conditions for animals make us any better off.