frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Can you morally justify killing animals for food when it’s not a necessity?

Debate Information

This is a ethical debate on the immortality of animal product consumption and the premise that I present is that Veganism is morally correct and should be mandatory
CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenHumbug
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    I don't see how killing animals for food is any worse than killing vegetables.

    Plaffelvohfenpiloteer
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  


    You say .....I don't see how killing animals for food is any worse than killing vegetables

    My reply .....Is animal suffering not persuasive? You rate a vegetable equally with the life of an animal? 
  • all4acttall4actt 305 Pts   -  
    I don't have a problem with the killing of animals as a food source providing it is done humanely and the animals don't suffer.  

    I do have a problem with sport hunting where the animal or fish is never consumed.  I also have a problem with hunters that bait animals for no other reason than to just kill them.

    Zeref

    I want to know what problem vegans have with milk and eggs?
  • This is an interesting topic and I plan to read a book on the ethics of this sometime soon. But for now, I think I will reserve judgment for now.



  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Dee said:


    You say .....I don't see how killing animals for food is any worse than killing vegetables

    My reply .....Is animal suffering not persuasive? You rate a vegetable equally with the life of an animal? 

    They're both living organisms, so yes.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @CYDdharta

    Right , if someone stabbed your dog to death or your prize cabbage you would feel the very same as in you value  them equally? 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @CYDdharta

    Right , if someone stabbed your dog to death or your prize cabbage you would feel the very same as in you value  them equally? 
    I don't have a prized cabbage, but then again I don't have a dog so...
  • Zeref said:
    This is a ethical debate on the immortality of animal product consumption and the premise that I present is that Veganism is morally correct and should be mandatory
    Can you morally justify killing animals for food when it’s not a necessity? 
    Yes...……………..
  • all4actt said:
    I don't have a problem with the killing of animals as a food source providing it is done humanely and the animals don't suffer.  

    I do have a problem with sport hunting where the animal or fish is never consumed.  I also have a problem with hunters that bait animals for no other reason than to just kill them.

    Zeref

    I want to know what problem vegans have with milk and eggs?

    Here's the dilemma to sports hunting. If a hunter hunts and kills allowing a less predatory animal the chance to feed on a larger predator how do you ethically argue morality when they feed starving people with vegetables that are alive or animals which are dead, isn't the hunter simply feeding the scavengers in the animals natural habitat? Realistically trophy hunting should co-exist with farming of animals in a more open free range stile of agriculture. 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @CYDdharta

    Right , if someone stabbed your dog to death or your prize cabbage you would feel the very same as in you value  them equally? 
    This is one of the instances where I actually agree with @CYDdharta's point, so allow me to respond.

    I don't think that our ability to empathize with a given life should define the value of that life. Don't get me wrong, we can all personally value many lives simply because they're close to us and we have grown attached to them over the course of time, but I don't think personal attachments have anything to do with the moral turpitude involved in taking a life. Our capacity to understand and thereby experience by proxy the suffering of a living organism shouldn't become the basis, either. Assuming that the capacity to suffer is an essential facet of what makes a life have value seems more than a little problematic to me (there are conditions that prevent people from feeling pain, and complete loss of consciousness doesn't obviate our value as humans), but even if we do assume it, I don't see how that supports the point that ending the life of an animal isn't justifiable. If the animal experiences absolutely no suffering (i.e. the end to their life is sudden, without pain, and they live well up to that point), is its loss morally justifiable?

    Beyond that, though, your argument functions on the assumption that suffering is directly related to our ability to feel pain. The notion that other life forms, simply because they lack the same kind of nervous system we have, do not suffer in any way, shape or form is problematic. I think it's more than reasonable to assume that all life can suffer in a multitude of ways, many of which may be foreign to us as non-plant-based life forms. A plant deprived of sunlight or nutrients, or one that is stabbed repeatedly (as you've suggested) is almost certainly experiencing a form of suffering. Why do you discount that suffering as having minimal value? Or is your goal to argue that the loss itself is more meaningful? If so, why is the loss more meaningful? Because we can make more cabbages? Because the dog had a personality that we could perceive, while the cabbage did not? Is it that you value the suffering by association more because the dog was more likely to be loved and appreciated, and therefore its loss deeper felt? What about someone who values their cabbages very much? What if the dog was a terror that caused nothing but harm to those around it? 

    I feel like your scenario invites more questions than it answers. You're establishing a claim, but providing none of the actual reasoning to support it. If you think it's so obvious, then explain it: what makes an animal's life more valuable than a plant's life?
    piloteer
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    You say ....I don't have a prized cabbage, but then again I don't have a dog 

     My reply .....

    Well if you included yourself you would  indeed have a cabbage but I agree I wouldn’t say prized is an applicable term to use as regards you 

    Your reply was anticipated , and yes you view animal suffering the same as”vegetable suffering “ maybe you should start a branch of cruelty against vegetables society  as you claim they’re both the same 
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    For the glory of Jesus Christ,

    First of all intentionally killing for sport or entertainment would define the purpouse behind, killing animals without a need for food.

    To kill an animal to survive means an animals life is worth less than a human person. The value of an animals life is then debated either to have value or not.

    Now to clarify animals do have value but in situation where a person's life is in question, there's a need being assessed.

    Human needs outweigh an animals purpouse for living.

    First animals experience something called cognitive determination. Animals have thoughts but not like human beings. They think in terms without self-reflection. They are unaware they exist and do not consider their own existence. Their choices are based on biological nescessity.

    Human beings are self-aware and as created in the image of God Jesus the Christ have more value substantially, understanding the difference between a person and an animal.

    The reason it's unethical to kill animals for the sole purpouse of entertainment despite their lack of value is the intent of killing an animal for no reason lacks a purpouse and is defined as unethical because the internal motive of the person killing the animal not  the animals death.

    Plants however are the result of a biological process. They are simply material, do not have a cognitive process, are not self-aware , do not experience pain as a result of lacking self-awareness and therefore are fine to eat ethically.

    Animals are fine to eat ethically because the type of protein in animals sustains a person.

    I'd say No it's not ok to kill animals just because they lack a personal value, in the sense they lack a "person", however the immorality of killing is the intent of the person.

    Jesus is God and Jesus weighs the heart. Jesus is Lord
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    I don't see how killing animals for food is any worse than killing vegetables.

    Stop making arguments that I agree with. You knob!!!!
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    What is it about the vegetables that makes you hold no value in their lives? It's known that plants can communicate with each other, so it can be argued that they may have a realization that they are alive. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    The hidden track on undertow by tool is about this very subject. 
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    What do you define as life? 

    This is difficult because the Lord God Jesus the Christ says I can't make someone stumble.

    So.

    Plant life is not essential biological.

    There is no individuality among plants in the sense they are people.

    Animals are not person's. No animal differs from another in the sense of what an animal is.

    People differ.

    Jesus said.

    If you are vegetarian that's between you and Jesus and that shows faith.

    If you are a meat eater that's between you and Jesus and that shows faith 

    However, Jesus said the meat eater can not disturb the vegetarian so if a vegetarian sits at a meat eaters table a meat eater must only eat vegetables.

    Jesus is Lord.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @CYDdharta

    You say ....I don't have a prized cabbage, but then again I don't have a dog 

     My reply .....

    Well if you included yourself you would  indeed have a cabbage but I agree I wouldn’t say prized is an applicable term to use as regards you 

    Your reply was anticipated , and yes you view animal suffering the same as”vegetable suffering “ maybe you should start a branch of cruelty against vegetables society  as you claim they’re both the same 
    Your argument is basically an appeal to popularity, i.e. because so many people see cruelty to animals as sufficient reasoning to found groups against said cruelty and such groups do not exist for crops, the former suffers while the latter does not (or the former suffers more than the latter - I'm honestly having a difficult time determining which is your point). You're also engaging in an appeal to emotion, though that runs a bit deeper; you're arguing that we should care about animal suffering and not plant suffering because it is more affecting to us to see animals suffer. Note that the reasoning here is not because you're using some objective measure to determine the degree to which each suffers - you're simply declaring that our emotional response (driven by empathy) dictates whether or not their suffering matters. Both parts of your point are fallacious, and neither really helps your case.

    However, I feel like there's something more fundamental from your points I haven't addressed yet. From the beginning, you've assumed that the degree to which something suffers determines its moral value. Why is that true? Even if we function under the assumption that plants cannot suffer, doesn't life have moral value whether it can suffer or not? Why does suffering establish that moral value? 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @piloteer

    You say .....
    What is it about the vegetables that makes you hold no value in their lives?

    My reply .....I can easily pluck a lettuce from the ground without it affecting me , I cannot say the same about killing a cow 

     My reply ......It's known that plants can communicate with each other, so it can be argued that they may have a realization that they are alive. 

    You say ......They realize they’re alive ok let’s run with that , so do plants have feelings as in do they feel pain?

    You also place plant suffering on the same level as animal suffering , which would you rescue from a burning building if you had a choice of one a pot plant or a dog and why?
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    You say ......If the animal experiences absolutely no suffering (i.e. the end to their life is sudden, without pain, and they live well up to that point), is its loss morally justifiable?


    My reply .....If we accept, as many people do, that animals are sentient creatures whose needs and interests matter, then we should ensure these needs and interests are at least minimally met and that we do not cause them to suffer unnecessarily.

    Industrial livestock farming falls well short of this minimal standard. Most meat, dairy and eggs are produced in ways that largely or completely ignore animal welfare – failing to provide sufficient space to move around, contact with other animals, and access to the outdoors.

    In short, industrial farming causes animals to suffer without good justification.







    You say ......I feel like your scenario invites more questions than it answers. You're establishing a claim, but providing none of the actual reasoning to support it. If you think it's so obvious, then explain it: what makes an animal's life more valuable than a plant's life?


    My reply .....My reasoning is sound and the value I place on animal suffering over a plant which is incapable of feeling pain although subjective is to me eminently sensible , you place plant suffering on the same level although I’ve yet to see anyone realistically believe this.


    So a burning building scenario you can only save one a dog or a pot plant which

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @whiteflame

    You say .....Your argument is basically an appeal to popularity


    My reply ....It’s not , my opinions are my own and appeal to no authority nor do I really care what others think on the matter 


    You say ...... You're also engaging in an appeal to emotion


    My reply ......I’m not , I’m giving my opinion and do not care if you think animal suffering is not enough , I get it you see animal suffering and plant suffering as the same 


    You say ......though that runs a bit deeper; you're arguing that we should care about animal suffering and not plant suffering because it is more affecting to us to see animals suffer. 


    My reply .....No doubt if you see an individual slice an apple up you well up with emotion and your reaction is the very same if one sliced a dog up and did likewise 


    Pain is the criteria for moral consideration regarding my position and animals are capable of feeling intense pain plants are not , I have not stated pain determines its moral value but it certainly comes into the equation 

  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @Dee ;

    You're starting to stray from the topic and you're missing the point of a lot of my responses.

    Your argument is that the capacity to suffer is what makes a life form have value. You haven't justified that perspective. Instead, you're now drifting to an argument about sentience, which invites many of the same issues. In fact, it may be worse. To what degree does an animal have to be sentient to earn value? Essentially, sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. It's not clear that all animals can do this, and every animal (humans included) can be born with non-existent capacity to do this (not to mention going into a coma utterly destroys this as well). So, if established sentience is the new bar you're giving for allowing or disallowing suffering, it's actually worse than just saying capacity for suffering, since it excludes more animals in the process.

    You've ignored the point that this debate is about justifying killing animals for food. If no suffering is inflicted on the animal, your point doesn't apply, and there are plenty of ways to kill an animal without causing suffering of any kind. Beyond that, you also appended the word "unnecessarily" to the end of that first reply. What establishes necessity? Do you get to decide what is and is not necessary suffering? 

    Finally, you move from the topic to "industrial livestock farming," which I agree comes with a host of moral problems, but does not address the topic. I can completely agree that it's a bad thing that we mistreat animals in the way that factory farms do while simultaneously saying there is nothing morally wrong with eating animals produced by other methods. 

    So, no, I haven't seen the reasoning you claim to have presented. I also see you continuing to make assertions without support. You say a plant is incapable of feeling pain. In the sense that it does not have a nervous system capable of feeling what we regard as "pain" you are correct, but that does not mean that plants do not have any response to injury, indicating a response similar to pain. What's more, plants can sense their environment, they can respond to stimuli, they have electrical signaling pathways similar to our neurons, and they have memory.[https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants] Why is that not enough for you? 

    The rest of your response is an effort to repeat what you're trying to do with CYDdharta's points. Saying that something is not true because no one believes it is an appeal to popularity, the same fallacy I cited before (appeal to authority is a different fallacy, not sure why you're conflating the two). Asking me to choose between the dog and the potted plant is an appeal to emotion. I would choose the dog most likely, but that's because I can perceive the dog's suffering. That doesn't mean the plant has less value, just that my empathy for the dog taints my decision. You don't see these as fallacies, but they are, and you keep repeating them ad nauseum.

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @whiteflame


    You say ......You're starting to stray from the topic and you're missing the point of a lot of my responses.


    My reply .....But you’re all over the place with the amount of questions you ask 


    You say .......Your argument is that the capacity to suffer is what makes a life form have value. 


    My reply .....It’s not my argument but it’s one of the criteria I use which influences my decision 


    You say ......You haven't justified that perspective. 


    My reply ......My perspective is based on Utilitarianism which is perfectly sound and justified 


    You say ......Instead, you're now drifting to an argument about sentience, which invites many of the same issues. 


    My reply .....My argument from the start has not deviated , by asking loads of questions and me replying you accuse me of deviating 


    You say .....In fact, it may be worse. To what degree does an animal have to be sentient to earn value? 


    My reply ......Animals have an interest in not being hurt , we know an animal caught in a trap will suffer the sort of argument you make is speciesist as in you treat non human animals as inferior to humans, Animals display intelligence some more so than others how is animal suffering different from human suffering?


    You say ......Essentially, sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. It's not clear that all animals can do this, 

    and every animal (humans included) can be born with non-existent capacity to do this (not to mention going into a coma utterly destroys this as well). 


    My reply .....But yet most can and do so your point is?


    You say ......So, if established sentience is the new bar you're giving for allowing or disallowing suffering, it's actually worse than just saying capacity for suffering, since it excludes more animals in the process.


    My reply .....New bar ? I said from the start .........Is animal suffering not persuasive? You rate a vegetable equally with the life of an animal? 


    How the f..k is that a “new bar”?


    You say .....You've ignored the point that this debate is about justifying killing animals for food. If no suffering is inflicted on the animal, your point doesn't apply, and there are plenty of ways to kill an animal without causing suffering of any kind. 


    My reply ......I didn’t , the O P never mentioned suffering or the lack off in his topic he only mentioned necessity 


    You say ......Beyond that, you also appended the word "unnecessarily" to the end of that first reply. 


    My reply .....Appended? ......add (something) to the end of a written document .....right 


    You say ......What establishes necessity? Do you get to decide what is and is not necessary suffering? 


    My reply .....I do regarding me yes , is that so strange?



    You say .....Finally, you move from the topic to "industrial livestock farming," which I agree comes with a host of moral problems, but does not address the topic. 


    My reply .....Hows that moving from the topic it’s related to animal suffering?


    You say I can completely agree that it's a bad thing that we mistreat animals in the way that factory farms do while simultaneously saying there is nothing morally......... wrong with eating animals produced by other methods. 


    My reply .....But I didn’t mention other methods , so you agree like me it’s morally wrong to mistreat animals my very point from the start 


    You say ......So, no, I haven't seen the reasoning you claim to have presented. I also see you continuing to make assertions without support. 


    My reply ......My reasoning I’ve explained several times you’ve just agreed mistreating animals is morally wrong , the majority of animals are mistreated  


    You say .........a plant is incapable of feeling pain. In the sense that it does not have a nervous system capable of feeling what we regard as "pain" you are correct, but that does not mean that plants do not have any response to injury, indicating a response similar to pain. 


    My reply .....Nonsense , plants do not have pain receptors how is not feeling pain similar to feeling pain?


    You say .....What's more, plants can sense their environment, they can respond to stimuli, they have electrical signaling pathways similar to our neurons, and they have memory.[https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants] Why is that not enough for you? 


    My reply ......So again you place plants on a par with animals regards feeling pain , but you actually don’t believe that 



    You say .......The rest of your response is an effort to repeat what you're trying to do with CYDdharta's points. 


    My reply ....My response wax pretty basic three or four lines and repetition  is necessary to those who place animal and plant suffering on an even keel 


    You say ......Saying that something is not true because no one believes it is an appeal to popularity, 


    My reply .....I said plants don’t feel pain that’s a fact I’ve appealed to science nothing else 


    You say ......the same fallacy I cited before (appeal to authority is a different fallacy, not sure why you're conflating the two). 


    My reply ......I’m not you’re very confusing as in you fire off question after question like a machine gun instead of listening to what I’m actually saying your technique is fallacious and relies on the Gish gallop Fallacy 


    You say ......Asking me to choose between the dog and the potted plant is an appeal to emotion. 


    My reply ......It’s a perfectly valid question 


    You say .....I would choose the dog most likely, but that's because I can perceive the dog's suffering. That doesn't mean the plant has less value, just that my empathy for the dog taints my decision. 


    My reply ......So you still value a plant and an animal equally , do you value a plant equally with a human if not why not?


    You say .....You don't see these as fallacies, but they are, and you keep repeating them ad nauseum.


    My reply .....They’re not , they are valid questions seeking honest answers , you need to address your own fallacies and inconsistent views if you wish to present a plausible defence. 


    You beat your own arguments by stating ......


    You say I can completely agree that it's a bad thing that we mistreat animals in the way that factory farms do while simultaneously saying there is nothing morally......... wrong with eating animals produced by other methods. 


    My reply .......The majority of animals for food are products of factory farming and therefore suffer mistreatment I said from the start .....Is animal suffering not persuasive? You rate a vegetable equally with the life of an animal? 


    You agreed animal suffering is persuasive your argument is defeated despite your  attempted  Gish gallop technique to deviate from this 

  • SharkySharky 101 Pts   -  
    I am an animal lover who would defend my pet's lives with my own. That said, I do believe that killing animals for food is morally justifiable. I have no desire to tour any slaughterhouses anytime soon but I also have no plans to explore veganism. Do I sound like a mass of contradictions? I'm sure I do. 

    Here's how I justify my seemingly diametrically opposed views; let's say society suddenly decides to go full-authoritarian and mandates veganism for everyone. All livestock-based agribusiness is suddenly shut down and all animal-based protein in the supply chain is intercepted and destroyed. That sounds pretty much like what you proposed and favor, right? OK, fine. What's next? Do we put up all cattle, swine and fowl for adoption to a good home with the understanding that none can be killed and consumed? How realistic is that? Do we allow these animals to continue being raised for export where their slaughter will not be so humane? What moral dilemma will we have "solved"? Do we simply kill whatever animals are left on farms and ranches in order to keep them from continuing to multiply since nearly no one will want them as pets? How does that square with our moral goal of no longer killing animals for human consumption? Is it better to kill them and waste all of the food they represent when millions of humans don't get enough to eat? Keep in mind that that "solution" entails purposely rendering many species extinct in order to satisfy our quest for "morality."

    Mandating veganism actually presents more of a moral dilemma than continuing to kill animals for human consumption. Either way, animals don't end up faring any better than they are currently.  
    piloteer
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    While I agree that humans should have duties towards the natural world, I'm an unapologizing speciesist because the idea of rights and responsibilities is distinctive to the human condition, and it makes no sense to spread them beyond our own species. If animals have rights, then they also have duties, which animals would routinely violate, with almost all of them being "habitual law-breakers" and predatory animals such as foxes, wolves and killer whales being "inveterate murderers" who would need to be permanently locked up.

    Focusing on the suffering humans inflict on animals and ignoring suffering animals inflict upon themselves or that inflicted by nature, creates a hierarchy where some suffering is more important than others, despite claiming to be committed to equality of suffering. By its nature and throughout the animal kingdom, life survives by feeding on life. To demand that man defer to the 'rights' of other species is to deprive man himself of the right to life.

    Mandatory veganism is altruism gone crazy...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @Dee

    I disagree that my questions are all over the place. All I’m asking is for you provide clear reasoning, and I feel there are a lot of holes to address. If you feel that it’s too much to address at once, just take it one block at a time, or choose the major questions and go after them. The way you’re handling it just seems to be cherry-picking single sentences and ignoring the major issues I’m bringing up.

    So, then, what is your argument? If suffering is a criteria that influences your decision, what else does? I’ll assume, for the moment, that you’re not altering your point and instead are just clarifying it.

    You say “utilitarianism” supports your position, but that’s just a catch-all term for what’s best for the majority is the best policy. That doesn’t tell me why you’re choosing suffering or any other criteria for establishing value. If anything, I would argue that plants are far more plentiful than animals, and the utilitarian choice would involve seeing to their benefits first and foremost. Moreover, you haven’t justified the application of utilitarianism here. It’s not “perfectly sound and justified” in this particular application just because you say it is.

    You say that animals have an interest in not being hurt… Does that not apply to literally every living organism? Plants that are injured tend to show symptoms like wilting and discoloration. Bacteria will move away from negative stimuli. Sentience is not the same as aversion to injury – again, sentience is literally defined as the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively, and injury is objective. It’s not speciesist to point out that different animals have different capacities in this regard. You shrug off the arguments about some individuals being incapable of sentient thought, but my point is that your argument would deny them value on the basis that they lack these capacities. The fact that most do is irrelevant – you’re saying that these people and animals lack value due to reduced capacity for abstract thought. Are you fine with that?

    Let me be very clear what my position is (though I’ve already said this a few times). I’m arguing that plants share a number of capacities with humans, and that we cannot know for certain if they are capable of feeling pain in any sense (you say you’ve “appealed to science,” yet that article very clearly states that it’s a big unknown). Given that, I’m arguing that we should not discount or dismiss their value. Personally, I would empathize with an animal more. That personal empathy is not the same as ascribing moral value. You keep treating them as though they are the same, but they’re not, otherwise you wouldn’t be providing what you deem to be objective differences (sentience and the capacity for suffering) to support the difference in moral value. So, when you ask how I would rate these lives, I would rate them equally on a moral scale. A vegetable and an animal are both lives of equal moral value. Similarly, the moral value of a human is the same as a plant. Again, I would empathize with the human far more and favor said human over any given plant, but that doesn’t make the moral value of the plant lessen.

    So, no, I don’t agree with your point. I agree that factory farming is problematic because it causes a great deal of unnecessary suffering to animals. On that one point, we agree. However, I’m adding that unnecessary suffering in both animals and plants is equally immoral. I don’t think the reason is because animals have more value than plants, and I don’t think that all methods of producing meat (yes, you didn’t mention others… and they exist, which is my point) for general, “unnecessary” consumption is any more immoral than agricultural practices.

    One last thing. I’m aware of what Gish Gallop is (it’s not a fallacy, it’s a debate tactic), and it doesn’t apply here for two reasons. One, I’m just asking you questions. You’re not required to respond to any of them and certainly not all of them because no one’s judging this debate. If you were required, maybe I could see your point. Two, they’re almost all questions asking you to clarify your position. If my attempts to better understand your argument are what you perceive as Gish Gallop, then something is sincerely wrong, because I’m not trying to spread you out. Hell, you could address many of these questions all at once with a single answer if you worked at it. Three, Gish Gallop isn’t a thing when there aren’t word or time limits. You have as much space as you want to respond to me, as much time as you want to craft a response. This isn’t a formal debate and you don’t have limitations on your response, so why are you accusing me of giving you too much to address? Take your time if you want to address it. Or ignore me. Just don’t pretend that I’m using nefarious, malicious tactics in this debate that doesn’t matter and has no limits.

  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    "@whiteflame

    I don't disagree with any of what you said, but your entire argument is drenched in relativism. You not only justified killing animals for food, but your argument could be used to justify killing other humans for food also. And even though you mentioned animal suffering, as soon as you made the point that you were trying to make, you quickly moved on, so as not to dwell on it long enough for it to be pointed out. The lives of the animals that are created simply for the sake of being slaughtered doesn't even approach living "well up to that point", with "absolutely no suffering". Not to be offensive to the plight of people who suffered, but to make my point I have to say that those animals would probably envy the people who were imprisoned in German concentration camps. The cows have to stand in the same position for the duration of their entire lives, without the ability to even turn around. They are fed a cocktail of medicine and antibiotics, and their own $hit, and are being milked the entire time. Chickens are stuffed in cages that are packed so tightly, some of them need to stand on the others to fit inside. Their chicks are stuffed in drawers that resemble large tool cabinets. As soon as the chicks get big enough, they risk being decapitated when the drawer is opened or closed. They never even get the chance to bond with their mother, because the eggs are taken away before they even hatch. Some people think cows and pigs and chickens are especially gross because they eat their own excrement, but the reason they do that is because of the conditions they're forced to live in. That doesn't happen with their ancestors in the wild. 

    These massive facilities pollute groundwater, increase carbon dioxide emissions on a massive scale, and they even risk injury to the workers, and the possibility of food contamination always exists. Chemical solutions and massive amounts of water are needed to clean the pens, and clean up after the killing process. The results from this renders the water unusable. The polluted water gets into the soil which can pollute groundwater. The organic materials in that water give off carbon dioxide, but it's the massive amounts of electricity needed to run these facilities that cause the most carbon emissions. These facilities require as much energy as a small city does. Demands for increased outputs put the workers in risk of injuries, sometime major. The chemicals used in the process, and the animals excrement can contaminate the food, and not every instance of contamination can be discovered before its consumed.

    If a plant does indeed suffer when we pick them and consume them, that suffering probably only happens after we pick them, as opposed to suffering the duration of their entire lives like animals do. Lets be honest, your justification for killing animals is simply because we're hungry, and with your argument, what exactly is there that shouldn't be on the menu?


     https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/03/ipcc-land-use-food-production-key-to-climate-crisis-leaked-report

    https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/how-slaughterhouses-are-polluting-the-planet/
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    I didn’t dwell on the immorality of factory farm practices because it’s something on which we agreed. I don’t feel it’s necessary to belabor a point that we already agree on, and I completely agree with your analysis about the way animals are treated in those facilities. That’s not the only way that animals bred for slaughter are treated, but it is by far the most common, and that should change. I say that unequivocally. To expand on this, I also state unequivocally that we do far worse by animals than we do plants. Plants need space to grow, but they don’t move, they don’t require exercise, etc. I’m not challenging, nor would I seek to challenge, the notion that our treatment of animals up to the point of slaughter is far more morally repugnant for the vast majority of cases. 

    As for having human on the menu... I think you’ve taken my point and run with it further than I would have. I said that the moral value of those lives is equivalent, I did not say that that means we are equally justified in eating everything at hand. I’d say basic social contract (I don’t eat you and you don’t eat me) and pragmatics (vegetables are a hell of a lot easier to grow and harvest, you can grow a lot more of them, and they don’t often come riddled with diseases) make the decision rather simple. We could also talk about value to society, which is rather easy to establish in the case of humans and also pretty straightforward for some animals (there’s a reason we don’t tend to eat dog or cat, and it’s not just social taboo - they are often treated as part of the family). There are probably a half dozen other points that aren’t immediately coming to mind, but they all validate the same decision calculus. My issue is and remains with the notion that the value of a life itself is based on having certain characteristics (e.g. a nervous system, self awareness) that make it more human-like. Anthropocentric attribution of value in this way seems problematic to me. We can recognize the need to eat living things and create a hierarchy of sorts along those lines without arbitrarily designating what makes a life valuable in this way.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @whiteflame

    The value of something's life has been thoroughly dissected by you, and I admit that I can't disagree with that aspect of your case. Life feeds on life, there's really no way around that fact. Still, you obviously can only use social constructs to make your case, and your case against eating other humans is also based on social construction. Again, I don't disagree with you there, but I was just pointing out that you tried to call "@Dee out on making an appeal to popularity, and not using objective reasoning, yet can you deny your entire argument on the morality of this discussion is not just that? It's an appeal to popularity, and a lack of objective reasoning. Lets bury the social arguments of this discussion, and get down to the nitty gritty of objective reasoning then.

    What I do have trouble with is your assertion that industrialized farming should change. I think we would be hard pressed to find anybody who actually likes how that system works(other than the owners of those companies), because we all know that it's not morally sound. I include myself also because I do eat meat, and yet I know of the horrible things that take place to get that hunk of meat on my plate, and yet I still eat it like all meat eating people do. We all wish it could change, but does that actually address my real point about the impact to the environment? Perhaps less energy would be needed if all livestock were made to be free range, but that would require insanely vast amounts of land. That land would be grazed on, so it would essentially be a permanently open field, and whatever carbon emissions are saved by using less energy, may be nixed by the sheer size of an open carbon emmiting field that would be as efficient in reducing carbon emissions as a parking lot would. Free range farming would also still be a major contributor to water pollution. There's not really anything that can be done to stop rain from soaking the animals excrement into the ground and contaminating the ground water. Free range farming also doesn't change the killing process at all. Large amounts of water, and harsh chemicals will still be needed to clean equipment, and the risk of food contamination would still exist. 

    As it stands now, the only truly viable way to prevent our collective consumption of food from not being a major contributor to environmental pollution is to stop eating meat, or significantly reducing the amount we eat. We can still get protein from tree nuts, which would help to reverse our carbon footprint because trees absorb carbon dioxide, while simultaneously being a great food source. There is the idea of cultured meat(meat grown in labs), but it doesn't seem like that technology is reliable enough yet to feed our population the same way meat from animals does. It would seem to me that we can't actually justify killing animals for food because of the undeniable impact it has on the environment, therefore it has an undeniable impact on all of us.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    I would deny that my position against eating other people is an appeal to popularity. Every reason I cited has a logical, rational basis for support. At no point have I argued that, simply by virtue of the number of people who believe in the social contract or the number of people who believe that humans serve a function, we should not eat humans. You can argue that only humans have reason to buy into this, which... yes, is kind of the point, but that’s not fallacious. It’s also not akin to the arguments @Dee has been making.

    As for your latter points about factory farms, I feel like I need to slap a big fat disclaimer on my arguments to this effect. I have been arguing that they are morally wrong and therefore should be shut down and/or replaced. That doesn’t mean that I pragmatically support that plan, I’m simply recognizing the moral problems of having factory farming. Essentially, I’m taking the stance that it is immoral to keep using them, but not actually advocating for their closure. Part of the reason for this stance is, as you suggest, where those animals will go and the impossibility of keeping productivity up. 
    piloteer
  • WinstonCWinstonC 235 Pts   -  
    @Zeref Without heme-iron, which is only available from meat, you run the risk of anaemia. This is because non-heme iron from plants is very difficult to digest unless accompanied by heme-iron. Further, there are a wealth of other nutrients that meat is rich in which our body needs for optimal health (1). Can we survive without meat? Yes. Is it optimal? No.

    Sources:
    (1) https://www.businessinsider.com/5-brain-nutrients-that-you-cant-get-from-plants-2013-10?r=US&IR=T
  • WinstonCWinstonC 235 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame "I think it's more than reasonable to assume that all life can suffer in a multitude of ways, many of which may be foreign to us as non-plant-based life forms. A plant deprived of sunlight or nutrients, or one that is stabbed repeatedly (as you've suggested) is almost certainly experiencing a form of suffering."

    I think that this is a great point and completely agree that this could be the case. I would make a distinction though, for it appears that suffering requires consciousness which in turn requires a brain. We know almost for sure that animals suffer, yet we can only speculate as to whether plants suffer.
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    Apparently I've been barking up the wrong tree. I guess we are actually in agreement on this issue. My apologies for misunderstanding your point.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @WinstonC

    Insofar as the information we have suggests that suffering requires a brain, I agree that plants may not suffer or, even if they do, that their suffering is not clearly comparable to animal suffering in terms of sheer magnitude. The question is whether which side we favor in the uncertainty.

    @piloteer

    I’m sure we could find some differences of opinion on this if we look hard enough, though yes, I think we’re on the same page so far.
    WinstonC
  • all4acttall4actt 305 Pts   -  
    John_C_87

    As I stated beforre trophy hunting is where the meat is not eaten is something I can not really get behind.

    I realize big game hunts in places like africa the meat is used to feed the local population.

    Also I believe that trophy hunting, where the meat is not used, is illegal in a good portion of the US.

    As far as it being an agrcultural type of farm where I think your alluding that the animals should be raised t be hunted well that would depend on how it was setup.

    If the animals are in a small fenced off area is that really hunting?

    There was a case where the ranch owner purchased large game animals that spent most of thier lives around people therefore they did not have the natural fear of people.  They placed these animals in a what I would call a fairly small containment area which offered no where for the animals to run or hide.  This was done so people could shoot one of these animals for a trophy and bragging rights of having killed a large game animal.  

    Is this the type of farm you are referring too?  In your mind is this really hunting?  

    In my mind part of the hunt  is the actul hunting of an animal.  The tracking and finding of your prey and then eating it afterwards.

    Zeref

    I still would like to know why Vegan's have a problem with milk and eggs.  I don't know any other Vegan's I can ask.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 235 Pts   -  
    @all4actt "I still would like to know why Vegan's have a problem with milk and eggs.  I don't know any other Vegan's I can ask."

    I'd hazard to guess that it's because the animals live in horrible conditions in factory farms. Though, this could always be avoided by using free-range animal products.

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    You say .....I disagree that my questions are all over the place. 

    All I’m asking is for you provide clear reasoning, and I feel there are a lot of holes to address. 


    My reply .....I started out with one statement as to my position you keep asking for “clear reasoning “ which any time I attempt to do so you totally ignore. An example when I mention animals feel pain as they have pain receptors you say  a plant has an experience which is “ similar” to pain , I reasonably asked how is not feeling pain “similar” to feeling pain?


    The sole biological purpose of pain is to ensure that a living organism gets away from or avoids potentially life-threatening dangers. Since plants are unable to escape life-threatening situations (with a few very rare exceptions), there is no reason to imagine that plants would have evolved a heightened sense of pain. 


    A common means of reproduction by plants is via seeds embedded in edible fruit produced expressly for the purpose of attracting animals who will then consume the fruit and later drop the seeds along with natural manure fertilize how is this hurting or damaging a plant?


     

    You say ......If you feel that it’s too much to address at once, just take it one block at a time, or choose the major questions and go after them. 


    My reply .....My original point still stands most animals worldwide experience dreadful treatment prior to being served up on the dinner plate , you may deny this if you wish but the veracity of my words can be backed up by a bit of research. You agreed that the mistreatment of animals was immoral the majority for consumption are indeed mistreated so what are you even arguing about?


    If you feel certain  plants and animals are mistreated why do you eat both? How is it immoral to mistreat an animal but moral to eat it?



    You say ......The way you’re handling it just seems to be cherry-picking single sentences and ignoring the major issues I’m bringing up.


    My reply ....It’s unfortunate you feel this way but I’ve challenged the notion of moral equivalency regarding plants and animals one of your many defenses is they have similar experiences regarding pain which is clearly not true , you cannot defend this position 


    You say .....So, then, what is your argument? If suffering is a criteria that influences your decision, what else does? I’ll assume, for the moment, that you’re not altering your point and instead are just clarifying it.


    My reply ....An animal raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself.


    Even the most humane forms of rearing and killing animals for food always violates the animal's most basic interest - to continue living.


    • to live in natural (or at least, decent) conditions
    • to make free choices
    • to be free from fear and pain
    • to live healthy lives without needing medical intervention
    • to eat a natural diet
    • to enjoy the normal social/family/community life of its species


    You say .....You say “utilitarianism” supports your position, but that’s just a catch-all term for what’s best for the majority is the best policy. That doesn’t tell me why you’re choosing suffering or any other criteria for establishing value. If anything,. Moreover, you haven’t justified the application of utilitarianism here. It’s not “perfectly sound and justified” in this particular application just because you say it is.



    My reply .....My saying it’s so is my considered opinion yes as is yours totally yours , who am I meant to be “justifying” myself to?


    You say ..... I would argue that plants are far more plentiful than animals, and the utilitarian choice would involve seeing to their benefits first and foremost


    My reply ....But its to their benefit that they are eaten by animals in a lot of cases and others leave their fruits,  seeds , grains on the ground ready for consumption 


    You say .....Regards utilitarian reasoning ..... I would argue that plants are far more plentiful than animals, and the utilitarian choice would involve seeing to their benefits first and foremost


    My reply .....We should act so as to increase the amount of goodness in the world

    • Raising and killing animals for food is cruel and so reduces the total amount of goodness in the world
    • If everyone was a vegetarian, there would be no demand for meat
    • If there were no demand for meat no one would raise and kill animals for food
    • Therefore if everyone was a vegetarian, the total amount of goodness in the world would be higher
    • Therefore everyone should 


    You also shift the goalposts as in you said .....


    You've ignored the point that this debate is about justifying killing animals for food. 


    My reply ......You left out “for necessity “ how do you justify animal killing for pure pleasure when it’s not out of necessity?


    You say .....If no suffering is inflicted on the animal, your point doesn't apply, and there are plenty of ways to kill an animal without causing suffering of any kind. 


    My reply ....


    I’ve addressed this above as in .....

    Even the most humane forms of rearing and killing animals for food always violates the animal's most basic interest - to continue living.


    • to live in natural (or at least, decent) conditions
    • to make free choices
    • to be free from fear and pain
    • to live healthy lives without needing medical intervention
    • to eat a natural diet
    • to enjoy the normal social/family/community life of its species 


    Can you morally justify killing animals for food when it’s not a necessity?


    You say .....


    You say that animals have an interest in not being hurt… Does that not apply to literally every living organism? Plants that are injured tend to show symptoms like wilting and discoloration. Bacteria will move away from negative stimuli. Sentience is not the same as aversion to injury – again, sentience is literally defined as the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively, and injury is objective. 


    My reply ......But if one truly believes that killing a carrot is as bad as killing an animal, then the moral imperative is to refrain from eating either instead of eating both



    You say.......It’s not speciesist to point out that different animals have different capacities in this regard. You shrug off the arguments about some individuals being incapable of sentient thought, but my point is that your argument would deny them value on the basis that they lack these capacities. 


    My reply .....I don’t deny them value but I do accept mistreatment and pain is unacceptable when meat is not a necessity but is eaten mostly for pleasure , you deny but yet accept that you would save a dog over a plant because the dog obviously can feel pain and suffer yet you condemn me for feeling likewise 


    You say .....The fact that most do is irrelevant – you’re saying that these people and animals lack value due to reduced capacity for abstract thought. Are you fine with that?


    My reply .....I’m fine with not causing pain and suffering to animals when it’s totally unnecessary, you still cannot answer how animal pain is “similar” to a plants so called suffering when it cannot feel pain 


    You say ....Let me be very clear what my position is (though I’ve already said this a few times). I’m arguing that plants share a number of capacities with humans, and that we cannot know for certain if they are capable of feeling pain in any sense (you say you’ve “appealed to science,” yet that article very clearly states that it’s a big unknown). 


    My reply .....You’ve admitted they don’t feel pain previously but something “similar “ I keep asking how is now pain now pain?


    Plant  do not have pain receptors, nerves or a brain , they do not feel pain and you should eat neither if you feel that strongly about it , so why do you If you feel it’s so immoral? 


    You seem to have no problem eating animals but get all hung up on the immorality of plant suffering why’s that?


    You say .....Given that, I’m arguing that we should not discount or dismiss their value. 


    My reply .....I haven’t done so , I don’t see their equivalency though  


    You say .....Personally, I would empathize with an animal more. That personal empathy is not the same as ascribing moral value. 


    My reply ..... But moral values help  us distinguish between what's right and wrong, you don’t seriously place the same value on your favorite pot plant with you dog or cat , to suggest such is to embrace absurdity 


    You say ....You keep treating them as though they are the same, but they’re not, otherwise you wouldn’t be providing what you deem to be objective differences (sentience and the capacity for suffering) to support the difference in moral value. So, when you ask how I would rate these lives, I would rate them equally on a moral scale. A vegetable and an animal are both lives of equal moral value. Similarly, the moral value of a human is the same as a plant. 


    My reply ....What moral value do you place on a plant , a human and an animal that’s makes them all equal? 


    You say .....Again, I would empathize with the human far more and favor said human over any given plant, but that doesn’t make the moral value of the plant lessen.


    My reply ..... What is the moral value of the plant 



    You say .....So, no, I don’t agree with your point. I agree that factory farming is problematic because it causes a great deal of unnecessary suffering to animals. On that one point, we agree. However, I’m adding that unnecessary suffering in both animals and plants is equally immoral. I don’t think the reason is because animals have more value than plants, and I don’t think that all methods of producing meat (yes, you didn’t mention others… and they exist, which is my point) for general, “unnecessary” consumption is any more immoral than agricultural practices.


    My reply .....Right so you agree both are immoral so is all your meat and vegetables sourced from places that guarantee this is not the case?


    I’ve covered these points earlier anyway 



    You say .....One last thing. I’m aware of what Gish Gallop is (it’s not a fallacy, it’s a debate tactic), and it doesn’t apply here for two reasons. 


    My reply .....It’s a deflection technique used in debate 


    You say .....One, I’m just asking you questions. You’re not required to respond to any of them and certainly not all of them because no one’s judging this debate. If you were required, maybe I could see your point. Two, they’re almost all questions asking you to clarify your position. If my attempts to better understand your argument are what you perceive as Gish Gallop, then something is sincerely wrong, because I’m not trying to spread you out. 


    My reply ....But the whole point of my argument was stated in two sentences from the off , you followed this with a barrage of questions so basically the fallacy you’re using is a type shotgun argumentation and fallacious 


    You say ......Hell, you could address many of these questions all at once with a single answer if you worked at it. 


    My reply ....But I did and keep trying but you seem to want more and animal suffering is not enough to for you 


    You say .....Three, Gish Gallop isn’t a thing when there aren’t word or time limits. You have as much space as you want to respond to me, as much time as you want to craft a response. This isn’t a formal debate and you don’t have limitations on your response, so why are you accusing me of giving you too much to address? 


    My reply ....Read above 


    You say ......Take your time if you want to address it. Or ignore me. Just don’t pretend that I’m using nefarious, malicious tactics in this debate that doesn’t matter and has no limits.


    My reply .....I have not accused you of using wicked or criminal tactics or indeed of using spiteful or hostile tactics either , it’s incredible you accuse me of this yet yet when you level accusations of fallacious argumention at me  that’s different of course..


    I really don’t wish to continue this when you accuse me of tactics I haven’t or wouldn’t use 

  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  

    @Dee

    For what it’s worth, I eat both because of pragmatic reasons: I must eat to survive, and since both maintain equal value, I see no difference in eating one over the other. I don’t think I have to morally support it; I’ve deemed my continued survival to be worth the cost, just as you and everyone else have. You might write off the cost to plants, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a cost, yet you continue to eat them.

    Maybe you view what you’re saying as reasoning, but all I’ve seen is a series of points where you largely assume the conclusions to be true. The few points for which you have provided reasoning I’ve long since conceded as true, yet you keep bringing them up again and again. I agree that animal mistreatment is bad. I’m not talking about animal mistreatment. I’m talking about the value of an animal life vs. that of a plant life. That’s different because we’re talking not about the way they were treated prior to their death, but the values of the lives themselves, yet you continually conflate the two.

    Your point this post starts, in a minimal way, to explain the value separate from mistreatment. Yet the 6 bullet points you use apply all apply to plants. Plants do not naturally live in cultivated fields, receiving their nutrients from massive amounts of fertilizer. Plants usually have unconstrained growth, but are kept in neat rows and forced to grow in specific directions. We can argue about fear and pain (though, honestly, freedom from either of those does not exist in any environment, so I don’t know why that’s here), but I have argued that plants could experience the latter in some form. The same is true of medical interventions, as plants have plenty of those. Diet is related to natural conditions for plants, and the community life of a plant grown among clones is very different from the wildlife they normally experience. All these points do is provide more reasons why the two lives should be valued the same.

    It’s entirely up to you if you don’t want to justify your opinion to me or anyone else. Your opinion requires support if you plan to convince others. You try to do that with your point on increasing the amount of goodness, but your bullet points are somewhat confusing. I’m still not clear how the act of raising and killing animals, without the cruelty that (admittedly) often accompanies these acts, reduces total goodness in the world. Honestly, not totally sure what “goodness” is in this context or how you’re weighing it against human desire. Everyone becoming vegetarian would only happen under duress, so there would still be demand for meat, it would just be unsatiated. That would decrease happiness among many humans. So that would have to be compared with the (presumably) increased happiness among animals (though, to be clear, I’m not sure that’s true – these animals would not suddenly be released into the wild, and if they were, they would die out rapidly in an environment they are not suited towards). Beyond that, you’ve left out what this means to plants and whether they would be happy with this outcome. Assuming plants don’t feel pain, we would still need a lot more farmland to feed all those humans who would no longer be eating meat. That means a lot more forests chopped down, a lot more animals without homes in the wild, and more damage to the general environment. I’m not sure that’s supportive of your reasoning.

    I’m the only one who’s provided actual evidence to support my point here. I pointed to evidence that plants have electrical impulses and that they respond to physical stimuli. It’s reasonable to assume that those, in combination with the multitude of responses that they have to physical damage, produce a response akin to physical pain. You didn’t address that. You also didn’t address the fact that your position assumes no physical pain response and claims it to be scientifically proven, yet you’ve provided no proof for that position.

    This is the first time you’ve provided any logical reasoning to support it, and your basis, once again, functions based on two wrong assumptions. The first is that a plant cannot move. All plants grow. They cannot uproot themselves and move away from a given stimulus, but they can grow in a given direction, away from or towards a given stimulus. Slow as that process may be, it still exists, and provides them a means of escape. The second is that pain has only one function. Pain is a motivator, certainly, but not just to remove oneself from a situation. It draws the organism’s attention to the damaged body part. That can result in a withdrawal, but it can also cause the organism to protect the damaged body part and learn from this experience in the future. The link I sent earlier says they can do the last of these three, and there is plenty of evidence for the second as well. Plants direct a variety of responses to damage, including shedding a damaged leaf and killing cells in the surrounding site. It’s protecting itself from further injury in both cases. As for your case with the fruit, the fruit by itself is not a plant. It’s a receptacle for seeds, as you’ve pointed out. The purpose of that receptacle is to be damaged. I don’t see how this says anything in support of either of our positions.

    What I’m challenging you on (it’s not a condemnation, don’t put words in my mouth) at a basic level is why you choose to elevate the value of animal life over plants. I’m not challenging you on the notion that you should care more for animals due to basic empathy; I believe many humans do, and we should, because we are capable of and regularly do inflict tremendous pain on animals for our own self-interest. That is a problem, and I’ve said (now several times) that it’s worth our consideration. That point is separate from the value point, and I’ve explained this multiple times, but I’ll try again. We’re talking about life and how much each individual life is morally valued. When a life is snuffed out, when it is killed, does it morally matter if that life was a dog or a cabbage? You would argue that it does and point me to all the things that make a dog more like a human than a cabbage is like a human, including its consciousness and capacity for suffering. I would argue that that statement imposes human values on what makes a life morally valuable, and thereby imposes bias in our assessment of what is morally valuable. Even if I consider consciousness and the capacity for suffering to make a life more valuable, why is only our conception of these capacities valuable? If they existed in a very different form in plants, would they be as valuable? My view is that these lives have equal moral value. I take myself – my personal feelings about what I should empathize with – out of the equation. I look at it solely logically. What makes a life morally valuable? The fact that it lives. The fact that it experiences and interacts with the world. That makes it valuable. I may not be able to empathize with a plant, but that doesn’t reduce its value, even if it changes my personal calculations for which I would favor.

    Last thing: when you say I’m using Gish Gallop, I would say that that’s an extremely negative view. You may not view it as a nefarious or malicious, but I take the term seriously. It’s a tactic aimed at winning a debate, nothing more. I view its usage as either gaming the system (if it’s a debate tournament) or nefarious and malicious (if it’s in an online system where no one stands to gain anything meaningful by having done it). So, if you want to accuse me of engaging in Gish Gallop, I treat it as slanderous of my character. You might not, but I do; it matters to me, and I meet accusations like this head on. You might not like my choice of words, but I haven’t levied any such accusations at you. What I said is not an accusation at you. It's a statement of how I view your accusation, one which I still very much feel in spite of your response. It's not fallacious or nefarious of me to seek answers to basic questions that underpin your whole argument, yet that's how you treat it. So if you want to stop this because I'm identifying hostility in some of your responses, that's your choice. I'm willing to continue.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Note the essential discrepancy here: killing an animal is one thing, and eating a cooked meat of an already killed animal is another.

    Veganism cannot be a consequence of animal rights, since animal rights apply to living animals, while veganism applies to the meat of dead animals. I personally may never kill an animal in my life, but I can be okay with buying meat of the already killed animals at a grocery store. One could say that it makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but nonetheless, it is a viable position - a position I personally hold.

    Similarly, I am against murdering humans, but I do not see anything wrong with cannibalism per say - aside from the reported negative effects of eating dead humans' brains, cannibalism seems a perfectly valid behaviour to me. Corpses could be of more use if we cooked them, instead of simply burrowing them in the soil.

    How about the compromise: we cannot kill any animals, but we can eat the meat of animals found dead to natural causes in the wilderness. Would you support such a position?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    I don't see how killing animals for food is any worse than killing vegetables.

    Are you not anti-abortion though? I do not see how this position is consistent with what you just said, since if killing animals for food is the same as killing vegetables, then killing a fetus should be the same as well.

    For that matter, perhaps killing living adult humans is also the same. Where do you draw the line between what living beings can be killed and what cannot?

    I do not disagree with you that killing animals should be legal (at least at this stage of our technological evolution), but your position here strikes me as overly generalising and, perhaps, hypocritical too.
  • HumbugHumbug 13 Pts   -  
    I agree with your precise sentiments and mostly totally with what you say except for when you said mandatory veganism, why not go super eccentric with authoritarian breatharianism is it not a higher morality ground, are you mad? Every living creature, human or otherwise is precious! Should be treated humanely and we should never treat a life without concern and compassion if unless it is called for in order to defend ourselves from physical harm. What's ethical about imposing your will on others to do as you dictate to them and making it a law? Who will enforce it, armies of uniformed lawmen? I don't possess a moral high ground and neither do you and you can't go around saying something crazy like you do without risk of going to an asylum. 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @whiteflame


    You say .....For what it’s worth, I eat both because of pragmatic reasons: I must eat to survive, 


    My reply .....Why aren’t you vegan seeing as you place plants and animals on an even keel?


    Your survival can be guaranteed without affecting your choices in what you eat morally , you speak of the moral equivalency of plants and animals yet totally ignore such for “pragmatic” reasons , that’s cognitive dissonance plain and simple.


    If you are a pragmatist regarding the issue that means you are dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical down to earth considerations as in your eating of meat for pleasure is more important than any of the moral issues concerned , your pleasure is more important as it’s not out of necessity you do so.


    This is also hypocritical to say the least 


    You say ......and since both maintain equal value, I see no difference in eating one over the other. 


    My reply .....Obviously to be consistent you would have no objection to humans eating other humans? 


    If so why?


    You say ......I don’t think I have to morally support it; I’ve deemed my continued survival to be worth the cost, just as you and everyone else have. 


    My reply .....So a cannibals continued survival is worth the cost of eating humans if not why not?


    You say .....You might write off the cost to plants, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a cost, yet you continue to eat them.


    My reply .....There is no ethical issue with Veganism and eating plants as plants have a symbiotic relationship with animals , humans , insects and birds.


    I told you a variety of plants need to be eaten by animals as they will not survive unless they pass through the digestive tract of an animal which again shots down your theory of plant “suffering” which  of course you totally ignore 


    Flowers rely on bees , nut trees rely on squirrels. If you eat an apple what dies?

    Where is the “pain”? Does the tree die?


    If we don’t eat the fruit it falls to the ground and rots it cannot grow into a tree as the shade of the parent tree does not allow it , it requires humans and animals to spread its seed.


    Even a carrot does not die , you plant a carrot top back in the ground it will grow. All grains and legumes are harvested after the plant has died.


    I can go on and on , your argument about moral equivalency is utter nonsense and no doubt you will find something immoral about everything I’ve just said to push your equivalency argument into total absurdity 



    My reply ....

    Maybe you view what you’re saying as reasoning, but all I’ve seen is a series of points where you largely assume the conclusions to be true. 


    You say ....Yet another straw man and merely a deflection from you as you again totally ignore what I say 


    You say .....The few points for which you have provided reasoning I’ve long since conceded as true, yet you keep bringing them up again and again. 


    My reply .....Because you keep bringing up moral equivalency without justification you continue to do so 


    You say .....I agree that animal mistreatment is bad. I’m not talking about animal mistreatment. I’m talking about the value of an animal life vs. that of a plant life. That’s different because we’re talking not about the way they were treated prior to their death, but the values of the lives themselves, yet you continually conflate the two.


    My reply ....I actually don’t your use of terminology regarding plants as in the use of terms like sentience is without basis and I am indeed talking about their treatment right up to death and how little value we place on animal life , this is yet another strawman and is totally irrelevant to the argument as it’s nonsense. 


    You do not nor does anyone place the same value on , an animal , plant and human life , if I kicked your dog you would object if I chopped up a head of lettuce in your kitchen no doubt you would also object as you place equal value on both their lives.


    Plants are qualitatively different from humans and sentient non humans in that plants are certainly alive but they are not sentient. Plants do-not have interests. ... Plants do not have nervous systems, benzodiazepine receptors, or any of the characteristics that we identify with sentience.


    Plants do not feel pain despite your denial of such , Evolution has not provided plants with the ability to flee from threats the opposite in fact in most cases 



    My reply ......Your argument has been repeatedly shot down but you persist 

    Your point this post starts, in a minimal way, to explain the value separate from mistreatment. Yet the 6 bullet points you use apply all apply to plants. Plants do not naturally live in cultivated fields, receiving their nutrients from massive amounts of fertilizer. Plants usually have unconstrained growth, but are kept in neat rows and forced to grow in specific directions. We can argue about fear and pain (though, honestly, freedom from either of those does not exist in any environment, so I don’t know why that’s here), but I have argued that plants could experience the latter in some form. 


    My reply ......Absolute Nonsense .You never had an argument.Plants are qualitatively different from humans and sentient nonhumans in that plants are certainly alive but they are not sentient. Plants do not have interests. There is nothing that a plant desires, or wants, or prefers because there is no mind there to engage in these cognitive activities. When we say that a plant “needs” or “wants” water, we are no more making a statement about the mental status of the plant than we are when we say that a car engine “needs” or “wants” oil. It may be in my interest to put oil in my car. But it is not in my car’s interest; my car has no interests.

    A plant may react to sunlight and other stimuli but that does not mean the plant is sentient. If I run an electrical current through a wire attached to a bell, the bell rings. But that does not mean that the bell is sentient. Plants do not have nervous systems, benzodiazepine receptors, or any of the characteristics that we identify with sentience. And this all makes scientific sense. Why would plants evolve the ability to be sentient when they cannot do anything in reaction to an act that damages them? If you touch a flame to a plant, the plant cannot run away; it stays right where it is and burns. If you touch a flame to a dog, the dog does exactly what you would do—cries in pain and tries to get away from the flame. Sentience is a characteristic that has evolved in certain beings to enable them to survive by escaping from a noxious stimulus. Sentience would serve no purpose for a plant; plants cannot “escape.”


    You say ......The same is true of medical interventions, as plants have plenty of those. Diet is related to natural conditions for plants, and the community life of a plant grown among clones is very different from the wildlife they normally experience. All these points do is provide more reasons why the two lives should be valued the same.


    My reply .....But they’re not valued the same most plants 80 percent in fact are used to sustain the beef industry which mostly are slaughtered for mass consumption , so it’s all very well talking about value and lecturing others on it but totally ignoring it yourself as your pragmatism doesn’t allow it , this is another glaring example of your cognitive dissonance 


    You say .....It’s entirely up to you if you don’t want to justify your opinion to me or anyone else. Your opinion requires support if you plan to convince others. 


    My reply .....Your ability to ignore and side step arguments is astonishing maybe start by convincing the world of science that a plant is sentient and experiences pain just to start , it’s funny you haven’t claimed a plant has a brain 


    You say ......You try to do that with your point on increasing the amount of goodness, but your bullet points are somewhat confusing. I’m still not clear how the act of raising and killing animals, without the cruelty that (admittedly) often accompanies these acts, reduces total goodness in the world. 


    My reply .......Maybe you need to read the bullet points again 


    My reply ......Honestly, not totally sure what “goodness” is in this context or how you’re weighing it against human desire. Everyone becoming vegetarian would only happen under duress, so there would still be demand for meat, it would just be unsatiated. That would decrease happiness among many humans. 


    My reply .....I’ve no wish to force vegetarianism on others but most like you deny that billions of animals are bred yearly in barbaric conditions and slaughtered just so you and others can enjoy the taste of them because maybe you’re all “pragmatists” as you put it


    You say ......So that would have to be compared with the (presumably) increased happiness among animals (though, to be clear, I’m not sure that’s true – these animals would not suddenly be released into the wild, and if they were, they would die out rapidly in an environment they are not suited towards). Beyond that, you’ve left out what this means to plants and whether they would be happy with this outcome. 


    My reply ....Plant “happiness” oh dear.......maybe start by not breeding animals for mass consumption or are you doing them a favour by doing so?


    You say .....Assuming plants don’t feel pain, we would still need a lot more farmland to feed all those humans who would no longer be eating meat


    My reply .......We wouldn’t because we would stop breeding billions a year for slaughter 


    . You say......That means a lot more forests chopped down, a lot more animals without homes in the wild, and more damage to the general environment. I’m not sure that’s supportive of your reasoning.


    My reply .....Your argument is a non starter read  above 


    You say .......I’m the only one who’s provided actual evidence to support my point here. I pointed to evidence that plants have electrical impulses and that they respond to physical stimuli. It’s reasonable to assume that those, in combination with the multitude of responses that they have to physical damage, produce a response akin to physical pain. 


    My reply ......Your appeal to an article saying plants don’t feel pain has you still clutching to yet another of your fallacious arguments as in apples and oranges , again you compare non pain with pain which is nonsense 


    Saying this is evidence is more nonsense 


    You say ......You didn’t address that. 


    My reply .....Its important to note that responding to damage does not mean the plant is in pain. 


    You say ......You also didn’t address the fact that your position assumes no physical pain response and claims it to be scientifically proven, yet you’ve provided no proof for that position.


    My reply .....Your constant repetition of nonsense doesn’t make it fact , plants still don’t feel pain they still have no pain receptors or a brain , you admit this than deny it you say that stimuli they experience is similar to pain it’s not and it’s more nonsense 



    You say ......This is the first time you’ve provided any logical reasoning to support it, and your basis, once again, functions based on two wrong assumptions. The first is that a plant cannot move. All plants grow. They cannot uproot themselves and move away from a given stimulus, but they can grow in a given direction, away from or towards a given stimulus. Slow as that process may be, it still exists, and provides them a means of escape. 


    My reply .....Logic is beyond you as you keep utttering the same tripe as in non pain is pain etc , etc 


    So a plant growing towards the sun is movement and they have evolved this way as a means of escape .....right got ya........yet a lot plants need to be eaten to survive as I’ve demonstrated so why are they not also escaping or attempting to?


    Tell me do the tomatoes you chop at home attempt to flee the knife?


    Typically you’ve descended into absurdities to try and back up your nonsense 


    You say .....The second is that pain has only one function. Pain is a motivator, certainly, but not just to remove oneself from a situation. It draws the organism’s attention to the damaged body part. That can result in a withdrawal, but it can also cause the organism to protect the damaged body part and learn from this experience in the future. The link I sent earlier says they can do the last of these three, and there is plenty of evidence for the second as well. Plants direct a variety of responses to damage, including shedding a damaged leaf and killing cells in the surrounding site. It’s protecting itself from further injury in both cases. As for your case with the fruit, the fruit by itself is not a plant. It’s a receptacle for seeds, as you’ve pointed out. The purpose of that receptacle is to be damaged. I don’t see how this says anything in support of either of our positions.

    What I’m challenging you on (it’s not a condemnation, don’t put words in my mouth) at a basic level is why you choose to elevate the value of animal life over plants. 


    My reply .....Because as I’ve said from the very start pain and suffering of the creature is immoral , you put humans on an even keel with plants and animals so you say but that’s utter nonsense and you only say so because otherwise your whole argument is defeated from the off..


    So to be consistent would you support cannibalism if not why not?   


    It also was a condemnation whether you deny it or not.



    You say .....I’m not challenging you on the notion that you should care more for animals due to basic empathy; I believe many humans do, and we should, because we are capable of and regularly do inflict tremendous pain on animals for our own self-interest. That is a problem, and I’ve said (now several times) that it’s worth our consideration. That point is separate from the value point, and I’ve explained this multiple times, but I’ll try again. We’re talking about life and how much each individual life is morally valued. When a life is snuffed out, when it is killed, does it morally matter if that life was a dog or a cabbage? You would argue that it does and point me to all the things that make a dog more like a human than a cabbage is like a human, including its consciousness and capacity for suffering. I would argue that that statement imposes human values on what makes a life morally valuable, and thereby imposes bias in our assessment of what is morally valuable. Even if I consider consciousness and the capacity for suffering to make a life more valuable, why is only our conception of these capacities valuable? 


    My reply .....Because living animals have brains and feelings and interests plants do not  


    You say ......If they existed in a very different form in plants, would they be as valuable? 


    My reply .....They wouldn’t be a plant them would they , tell me how a plant in a “different form “ is still a plant?


    You say ......My view is that these lives have equal moral value. I take myself – my personal feelings about what I should empathize with – out of the equation. I look at it solely logically. What makes a life morally valuable? The fact that it lives. The fact that it experiences and interacts with the world. That makes it valuable. I may not be able to empathize with a plant, but that doesn’t reduce its value, even if it changes my personal calculations for which I would favor.


    My reply .....Right , so a rat carrying the bubonic plague is morally valuable or a mosquito carrying a vicious strain of maleria because it’s a fact the live as you put it ....right? 



    You say ......Last thing: when you say I’m using Gish Gallop, I would say that that’s an extremely negative view. 


    My reply .....It’s an accurate view therefore an honest appraisal 


    You say .....You may not view it as a nefarious or malicious, but I take the term seriously. It’s a tactic aimed at winning a debate, nothing more. I view its usage as either gaming the system (if it’s a debate tournament) or nefarious and malicious (if it’s in an online system where no one stands to gain anything meaningful by having done it). So, if you want to accuse me of engaging in Gish Gallop, I treat it as slanderous of my character. 


    My reply ....Yet it’s accurate so slander is merely your hurt feelings 


    You say ......You might not, but I do; it matters to me, and I meet accusations like this head on. You might not like my choice of words, but I haven’t levied any such accusations at you. What I said is not an accusation at you


    My reply .....I didn’t like your choice of words you accused me of several  things it’s back at you now and you don’t like it 



    You say ......It's a statement of how I view your accusation, one which I still very much feel in spite of your response. It's not fallacious or nefarious of me to seek answers to basic questions that underpin your whole argument, yet that's how you treat it. 


    My reply .....I treat you on the responses you gave , you get all hurt and resort to over the top terminology in response to your hurt feelings .....tough , mu assessment was and is accurate 


    You say ......So if you want to stop this because I'm identifying hostility in some of your responses, that's your choice. 


    My reply .....Kettle , pot 


  • @all4actt ;

    Is this the type of farm you are referring too?  In your mind is this really hunting?  

    You did not understand the principle the word farmed was used in, an animal which is farmed is simply stating bread to be killed, harvested with no other purpose. An animal in the wild is bread to prosper as a life to perpetuate a species naturally without human intervention.

    In basic principle a Vegan vegetarian was a symbolic gesture in changing the natural state of humanity in the evolutionary food chain. To make them better humans, superior in body health and mind it had little to do with cruelty of the treatment of animals. The Vegan is dedicated to a non-animal product supported lifestyle, milk, eggs, and fish are all a from animal so are not recognized as a nutrient supply or life supporting sources of use. A Vegan will not wear, buy, or barrow some clothing, soap, cosmetics, or even medications as they are all in some class as an animal bi product. Thus unhealthy.

    Oddly enough we had covered part of topic partially in cooking school part of an ethic awareness along with other things, though a greater understanding was given when researching martial arts and its tie as part of several religion, the details are not all hear but this was the just of the points made on why a Vegan does not use animal products. A dedicated Vegan is not participating in a protest, it is all about the self-improvement of themselves by diet. Some of the First Vegan people had been believed to be Taoist monk, or Hindu. The principle goes back before the record of human writing.


  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Alright, frankly, I’m done with responding to you on this. These long, list-like responses have been a pain to read through, and at this point, you’re just repeating yourself in response to my arguments. If your goal here is to claim that plants have no form of consciousness and are fundamentally worth less on the moral value scale because of it, then you’ve accomplished that, largely by assuming that anything that experiences the world in a way that is fundamentally different from humans has less moral value than anything that experiences it like we do. It’s inherently anthropocentric: life has greater value because it’s capable of suffering like we are, and any other form of suffering is not important and can be dismissed. You can accurately claim that plant life doesn’t experience the world as we do, but I don’t see that as a valid excuse to diminish the value of that life, nor to claim that that life has no form of consciousness whatsoever, which is also your claim. That’s the claim I’ve been challenging from the start, yet you continue to provide no proof of your assertions and ignore the support I’ve provided. You clearly did not notice that I responded to the notion that my view allows for cannibalism (it doesn’t - life value isn’t the sole means by which we determine whether an act is either moral or reasonable), and many of my other responses seem to either be dismissed off hand or ignored entirely. I mean, hell, you managed to absolutely ignore the fact that a plant only generates a fruit to be eaten (in the same way that animals often generate their own food sources, mind you) - no plant is eaten wholesale for the betterment of the plant, yet you treat them as though they are. If that’s how you want to debate, then I’ll gladly stop it here. 

    The same is true of getting wrapped up in two terms I used that, I think accurately, describe how you viewed my tactics. Somehow, you view their usage as slanderous to you, ignoring the point I was making about how Gish Gallop in this context would necessarily be nefarious and malicious. You don’t like those terms, yet you accept that the accusation is extremely negative. You made that accusation, yet now you treat me as though I accused you of something. Hard to believe, but somehow true.

    You don’t seem interested in engaging with what I’m saying, but rather with reading between the lines to find something that isn’t there. Maybe that’s because you find my position so distasteful. I’ll save you the further displeasure of our continued discussion.
    Dee
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    Your complete collapse was anticipated , your cognitive dissonance is astonishing , you’ve typed up from the start novels of monotonous gibberish to answer a two sentence answer to a question.You have now descended to a Deepak Chopra level of gobbledygook regarding plant “sentience” and “pain “ that’s pseudoscientific nonsense . Thankfully you’re posting no more which is a relief as I think anymore from you would put me into a coma 
    whiteflame
  • @Dee ;

    My reply .....Obviously to be consistent you would have no objection to humans eating other humans? 

    If so why?

    There is an answer to this question that is truthful but not popular, inappropriate, and concerning. Cannibalism is in basic principle a reaction to a force to face woman in aggressive combat, whereas as it is believed rape is the primary threat as weapon predominantly used against woman in combat, the threat a woman creates in the mind by their context of aggression against a male is of set by the action of cannibalism. The exception to the rule of aggression in all mating by law of nature is that a female is a reliable food source equal to all male counterpart as united state, the basic idea of guilt in having to end the life of a woman in combat is the more easily understandable truth eat them is overall acceptable by standards of nature.

    Cows, Bull, Chicken, Rooster, fish, and pig in the food chain are not the argument of reason to eat or not eat a type of food, the gender of the animal is not a  Form of vegetarian. Some plants have female gender or male identifications to the plant this to makes no difference in the choices made to consume them.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @CYDdharta

    Right , if someone stabbed your dog to death or your prize cabbage you would feel the very same as in you value  them equally? 
    This is one of the instances where I actually agree with @CYDdharta's point, so allow me to respond.

    I don't think that our ability to empathize with a given life should define the value of that life. Don't get me wrong, we can all personally value many lives simply because they're close to us and we have grown attached to them over the course of time, but I don't think personal attachments have anything to do with the moral turpitude involved in taking a life. Our capacity to understand and thereby experience by proxy the suffering of a living organism shouldn't become the basis, either. Assuming that the capacity to suffer is an essential facet of what makes a life have value seems more than a little problematic to me (there are conditions that prevent people from feeling pain, and complete loss of consciousness doesn't obviate our value as humans), but even if we do assume it, I don't see how that supports the point that ending the life of an animal isn't justifiable. If the animal experiences absolutely no suffering (i.e. the end to their life is sudden, without pain, and they live well up to that point), is its loss morally justifiable?

    Beyond that, though, your argument functions on the assumption that suffering is directly related to our ability to feel pain. The notion that other life forms, simply because they lack the same kind of nervous system we have, do not suffer in any way, shape or form is problematic. I think it's more than reasonable to assume that all life can suffer in a multitude of ways, many of which may be foreign to us as non-plant-based life forms. A plant deprived of sunlight or nutrients, or one that is stabbed repeatedly (as you've suggested) is almost certainly experiencing a form of suffering. Why do you discount that suffering as having minimal value? Or is your goal to argue that the loss itself is more meaningful? If so, why is the loss more meaningful? Because we can make more cabbages? Because the dog had a personality that we could perceive, while the cabbage did not? Is it that you value the suffering by association more because the dog was more likely to be loved and appreciated, and therefore its loss deeper felt? What about someone who values their cabbages very much? What if the dog was a terror that caused nothing but harm to those around it? 

    I feel like your scenario invites more questions than it answers. You're establishing a claim, but providing none of the actual reasoning to support it. If you think it's so obvious, then explain it: what makes an animal's life more valuable than a plant's life?
    I feel this is a rather trite and self defeating argument that only carries weight if you assume that either all suffering is equal even when occurring to a non-sentient plant with no central nervous system to feel pain or or that all suffering should be treated the same regardless of whether it is equal.

    For some very distorted and stretched meaning of the word suffering it's possible to claim that plants suffer. Only by being completely blind to context however can that suffering be said to be equivalent to all other instances of suffering. 

    In fact we assume that suffering is different and should be treated differently on a daily basis. look at your own reactions to the thought of a man stubbing his toe and a child losing both their legs. Do you feel more sympathy for one hypothetical situation than another? Or looks to the laws we enforce which give different punishments depending on the type of suffering an individual has caused.

    Simply put, how much value and importance we place on suffering does vary massively depending on the context. It is entirely reasonable to look at two vastly different types of suffering and assign them different worth based on the situation and assigning vastly more importance to the death of a pet dog than a cabbage you've grown is so entirely consistent switch normal human behaviour and social norms that there's no point arguing over it than sheer pedantic.

    Not only that but as your overall point is that you reject the idea of an animal's life being sacrosanct and presumably you're not a sociopath who thinks that all people can be killed under any circumstances, you must yourself hold to the view that whether it is right to kill someone or something depends on the context of the situation - implicitly agreeing with the concept being presented.

    In fact I don't give much worth myself to the value of life in and of itself as if you consider the amount of animals killed to produce vegetables (mice chopped to pieces by farm equipment, insects killed by pesticides, etc) there are a lot of deaths associated with producing food as well - potentially more although i don't think a reliable estimate has ever been made. Some academics have given it a go but they all seem to be a shot in the dark.

    For me the main argument for veganism is environmental and wanting to stop climate change before it has a chance to literally destroy all of human civilisation.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    Double post :p
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    One of the problems here is that we can only very loosely related to the suffering of other animals. We have never been in their shoes, we have never thought as they think, never felt as they feel, so we lack the frame of reference to compare different types of suffering. 

    Who suffers more: an adult woman who gets pinched with a needle, or an adult woman who gets shot with a rifle? This is an easy one.
    But who suffers more: an adult human woman who gets hit with another human's fist, or an adult gazelle female who gets hit with another gazelle's leg? There is no way to answer this question.

    Comparing levels of suffering between different species makes little sense. We can do it only to a very minor extent: it is obvious that a life-threatening injury hurts a creature more than a barely noticeable scratch hurts another creature. But in general, it is impossible to make such judgements.
    One could say that a tree does not hurt at all when you chop it, while someone else could say that it hurts a lot. What does "hurt" even mean, for that matter? It is just a response of our neural system to external conditions. It in itself does not matter on a grand scale. However much anyone suffers, we all die in the end, and at that point the amount of suffering we have undertaken is irrelevant.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand

    I did not argue that we cannot compare suffering between two separate situations in which someone is being physically harmed (though, as @MayCaesar states, that's not always so simple). I argued, and continue to argue, that our understanding (or lack thereof) of an organism's capacity for suffering should not establish the value of said organism, whether it be a plant or animal. I agree with you that we aren't aware of whether a plant can suffer and to what degree. I'm saying that that uncertainty shouldn't lead us to an answer that relegates one form of life to a lesser status. Our better understanding of animal suffering as it relates to human suffering, at least to me, does not seem to be a reasonable way to define what life has greater value and what has lesser value. 
    piloteer
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @whiteflame

    You say .......I'm saying that that uncertainty shouldn't lead us to an answer that relegates one form of life to a lesser status. Our better understanding of animal suffering as it relates to human suffering, at least to me, does not seem to be a reasonable way to define what life has greater value and what has lesser value. 


    My reply ......The question was  and remains ......Can you morally justify killing animals for food when it’s not a necessity?

    Your hypocrisy and double  standards are appalling , you justify your eat meaning as you claim to be a “pragmatist” you couldn’t  give a flying fig about animal or plant suffering in the slightest but you attempt to claim they’re equivalent did you know that entire forests—which absorb greenhouse gases—are cut down in order to supply pastureland and grow crops for animals on farms? You’ve already decided by your meat eating  “pragmatism” which one has less value. 

    And you hold forth about plant value and how upset you are at people not seeing the equivalency




    whiteflame
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch