Anti-whaling thread

Post Reply New Topic

The answer to this will undoubtedly amount to no more relevant a criterion than "different species" or something comparable to the ethical school used to justify the ownership of slaves a few centuries ago ("different race"), or denying suffrage to women at the beginning of the last century ("different sex").

Borrowing one's ethical whims from the society around you and then ascribing them to some "natural order"

as opposed to developing a personal ethical system based on sound reasoning,

seems to be characteristic of this era in human history.

Yes it is, isn't it. Moralizing is such a drag.

ruveyn

First off, my original argument was one against the idea that veganism was less speciesist than eating meat. If you do not believe this to be true, it doesn't apply to you, so stop pretending like something that wasn't directed at you was, and maybe this discussion can start making sense again.

As for "better than", it is really quite self-explanatory: should the lives and mindsets of members of one species be considered more valuable than another. My point was not for or against one side of a dichotomy: I was merely pointing out that, at each extreme, there is no reason to claim eating meat is unethical. But if you are not opposed to eating meat, why are you even arguing with me?

This whole time you've been all over the place: you seem less interested in making any relevant contribution to the discussion at hand and more interested in claiming other people are wrong because of errors you have made in interpreting what they are trying to say.

Hmm. Yeah, sorry. You don't get to dictate the direction the thread takes. If you don't want a response, don't make assertions.



Yes, that is the question. We're still waiting for an ethical reason as to why they should be.




If you say so. We're still waiting for that reasoning.

Last edited by Bethie on 07 Oct 2010, 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

That wasn't what I was trying to do.

You're not listening: Wether or not they should be is beside the point.

the argument has been made. you're ignoring it.

An argument establishing that either
a. animals don't have the same interest in protection from suffering and death as humans or
b. those interests exist, yet should not be protected by ethical rights?


Guess I missed it.

I think you weren't paying attention to my first post on this thread

I'm sorry if I misidentified you.


The capacity to suffer is not identical in all animals, and this argument doesn't even address the actual issue, which is whether, and in what circumstances, animals may be killed.


What stands alone? His statement, which appears to be a description of his personal reaction to the subject and thus irrelevant, or your snide remark about his description, which makes no sense?

There isn't really a logical argument against eating animals based on morality, though there is a logical argument against eating them based on our own long-term self-interest and ecology (using land and food resources to produce animal crops, when both could be better used for producing plant crops or directly feeding humans, will be more and more important as the human population grows, supplies of fertilizers like phosphorus dwindle, and pollution from factory farms becomes more and more of an issue; in addition, eating vast quantities of animal protein is not good for us on an individual level).

There is a emotional argument based on compassion; humans are capable of feeling compassion for other animals better than most other animals are; therefore, we are more responsible to act in ways that reduces suffering than, say, a lion would be. The problem with that is that we still expect non-compassionate humans (sociopaths) to act with a modicum of moral behavior, so why shouldn't we expect non-compassionate animals to do so as well? The answer is, of course, that even sociopaths are capable of more reasoning than non-human animals are. The combination of compassion and reason puts a burden on humans that other animals do not share, b/c one need not feel 'better than' or 'more important than' another individual to feel compassion for its suffering.

▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▀

I like that.