The time has come for animal welfare campaigners and abolitionists to put aside their differences and speak one message: veganism, writes Cameron Blewett.
Welfarism can be typically defined as a philosophy or practice where the way animals are used is questioned. Most proponents of welfarism want to see a particular practice changed, such as a move away from cage-laid eggs to cage free, or the removal of gestation crates from breeding sows. The focus is always placed on improving the conditions in which these animals are raised and kept in. Yet the most critical question of why we use animals in the first place is never asked.
The animal rights movement and veganism in general have come to an important cross-road, where its future rests on the decisions that are made today. The time has come for those in both camps to put aside their differences and stand up, speak with one voice, and shout one message.
And veganism is that message.
The welfarist position and vegetarian agenda have long passed their expiry date, and neither message is relevant within the animal rights arena. If you talk to the majority of those who promote welfarism, they will tell you that they have the abolition of all animal use as their ultimate goal. Yet the welfarist model has failed the animals miserably.
In the past month or so, we have seen the undercover footage from Mercy For Animals of cruelty on an Ohio Dairy Farm. (For those that haven’t seen it, the undercover footage contains some of the most barbaric treatment of animals I have seen in recent times. Scenes like calves being kicked and punched because they made noise whilst being fed, cows being kicked and stabbed with pitchforks, and individuals gloating about the damage that they had done to a cows face).
And the NZ dairy giant Fonterra has recently unveiled plans to create a huge battery environment for 6000 cows to be milked 3 times a day. Both of these atrocities relate to the dairy industry – an industry where the mistreatment of animals is equal to, if not worse than the meat industry itself.
Yet unfortunately, dairy products seem to be the items that most vegetarians say they have trouble ‘giving up’.
To say that the Ohio incident is a one off case is delusional, the fact that it happened at all should be enough to rid the vegetarians of the world of their cheese and milk addictions.
There are those in the welfarist camp that view abolition as an extreme ideology and something that will never happen. They usually won’t use the term vegan because it is seen as too confronting.
Though answer this for me, how many of us thought that we would ever see the day where milk is produced from cows on a battery dairy farm, being milked three times a day?
If you have seen the Mercy For Animals footage from the dairy farm, was that not a little extreme and confronting?
In all honesty, it amazes me that society has been blind to these types of things and that these incidents are not more prominently reported by the media. Now I am not saying that all dairy farms treat their cows like this, I just wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t an isolated incident. Remember that this is an industry that treats cows as property.
An industry that has no reservations about mechanically raping cows to get them pregnant, tearing new born calves away from their howling mothers when they are days even hours old to be sent to slaughter, mechanically milking cows twice a day so that their bones become brittle and weak (often leaving them crippled) from lack of calcium, and finally, sending them off to slaughter once their milk production drops below a profitable level.
Welfarism has and continues to fail these animals miserably. After 30 years of campaigning and protesting about battery hens, there have only been token improvements. And the majority of hens are still in cages. Now is the time to take a stance and drive home the vegan message before we see the same thing happen to dairy cows.
It is up to all of us as passionate animal rights activists to draw a line in the sand and say that we won’t accept anything less than abolition and the easiest way to do this is to go vegan.
Every time that an animal rights activist promotes vegetarianism and condones someone making a transition from factory farmed to organic/free range meat or eggs, we continue to let the animals down and most importantly we are carrying on the work of an industry that we despise.
Will it not be harder to eat a slice of cheese or drink a glass of milk knowing that you are supporting an industry that is heading towards battery pens for dairy cows?
There are a growing number of ‘mock’ products that are available these days; it is far easier today to go vegan than it was 10 or 15 years ago. There is also a huge amount of information generated on the internet about nutrition and recipes for vegans. It has become increasingly easy for those that want to make a stance to do so.
So what is your excuse for not going vegan today? It is the only option.
Cameron Blewett is an associate editor at The Scavenger.
Add to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (33)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Alex Melonas, 18 June 2010
@Russell: The only way to test the reasonableness of outcomes is by presupposing some normative test of "reasonableness". Indeed, racists and sexists all believe the outcomes of their moral prescriptions are more than reasonable, while mine, the non-racist and non-sexist, are utterly unreasonable and irrational. As I've shown in my refutation of your appeal to "nature" and the "inherent good" of ecosystems, your "axioms" are unreasonable in the sense of not rationally defensible.
So here again we see that you, Russell Edwards, has just defended racism and sexism. Unless (and here we are again) you offer reasons, any reasons at all, for your "axioms", and allow critical engagement. Leave "objectivity" and "subjectivity" aside, you can be a moral "skeptic" to your hearts content, all I AM asking for are reasons for your position that go beyond mere assertions like "axioms" (because the racist can "reasonably" do that too).
I gave you reasons for my position, and instead of engaging them you merely asked for "proof", as if this were biology. But in this discussion of racism we see that you are uncomfortable with the conclusions of YOUR OWN "skeptical" argument (you can't let the racist be right, too), so let's move beyond the sophism.
Or, concede you've lost the debate and move on Russell.
So here again we see that you, Russell Edwards, has just defended racism and sexism. Unless (and here we are again) you offer reasons, any reasons at all, for your "axioms", and allow critical engagement. Leave "objectivity" and "subjectivity" aside, you can be a moral "skeptic" to your hearts content, all I AM asking for are reasons for your position that go beyond mere assertions like "axioms" (because the racist can "reasonably" do that too).
I gave you reasons for my position, and instead of engaging them you merely asked for "proof", as if this were biology. But in this discussion of racism we see that you are uncomfortable with the conclusions of YOUR OWN "skeptical" argument (you can't let the racist be right, too), so let's move beyond the sophism.
Or, concede you've lost the debate and move on Russell.
written by Russell Edwards, 18 June 2010
That's right, Alex, that's the whole problem with normative moral philosophies. You can cook up any axiom you want -- after all, they're all unprovable -- in order to produce the outcome you like. Then you just tweak them and tweak them until they are are reasonable representation of your own personal prejudices and emotionally-derived positions. Then you claim special privilege for those premises above any others, and declare the moral judgements that follow them as having presscriptive power.
You are correct that this is what some racists and sexists do. It's also what animal rightsists do, and most other moralists. Religions are great at it, the difference is that whereas the animal rightsist just expects his axioms to be taken as given, and believed in unquetioningly. The religious fundamentalist claims the premises were handed down from God. Either way you end up with an arbitrary position being elevated to a supposedly authoritative moral framework through faith in unprovable propositions.
You can have morals without such a framework. Just recognise that values are arbitrary, and if you need to judge the morals, do so on the basis of the reasonableness of their outcomes. On this test, racism, sexism and animal rightsism all fail.
You are correct that this is what some racists and sexists do. It's also what animal rightsists do, and most other moralists. Religions are great at it, the difference is that whereas the animal rightsist just expects his axioms to be taken as given, and believed in unquetioningly. The religious fundamentalist claims the premises were handed down from God. Either way you end up with an arbitrary position being elevated to a supposedly authoritative moral framework through faith in unprovable propositions.
You can have morals without such a framework. Just recognise that values are arbitrary, and if you need to judge the morals, do so on the basis of the reasonableness of their outcomes. On this test, racism, sexism and animal rightsism all fail.
written by Alex Melonas, 18 June 2010
@Russell: My second paragraph is quite clear: since you refuse to engage morality rationally, or at least give reasons for YOUR own position, extending that kind of (non)-reasoning we see that the racist or sexist are on EQUAL moral grounds as the non-racist and non-sexist; both sides merely assert as "axioms" their fundamental principles, and then allow their moral "skepticism" to take over.
In other words, you have lost this debate because you cannot provide any reasons at all for your own position. However, you, like the racist, has “won” the “skeptic” debate because both sides are by definition “equal”, which is to say, throw reasons out the door, assert whatever as an “axiom” and move on believing you are a moral person. But you aren't Russell.
In other words, you have lost this debate because you cannot provide any reasons at all for your own position. However, you, like the racist, has “won” the “skeptic” debate because both sides are by definition “equal”, which is to say, throw reasons out the door, assert whatever as an “axiom” and move on believing you are a moral person. But you aren't Russell.
written by Gordon, 18 June 2010
"And what of the animal impacts of horticulture? Should we not, as a matter of urgency, introduce Soylent Green to reduce our reliance on horticulture? And try to develop vat-cultured microbial foods, with a view to an eventual ban on horticulture? Or do we then have to worry about microbial suffering?"
I really shouldn't respond, because I know you're basically laughing at what you consider absurd consequences, but I will anyway. I support things like soylent green, vitamin and mineral fortified foods, and GMO's. I remember, about 6 months ago, a news story about an Australian kid (perhaps 5 years old) who was allergic to almost everything. To nourish him, he had some sort of bag with tube connected to his gut or something. I thought that was really interesting. While I don't take multivitamins, I think they're a really cool idea. Taking multivitamins and eating a minimal amount of food/calories seems like the way forward. I think it's safe to assume microorganisms cannot suffer.
"(As an aside, many people do in fact report not being able to "thrive" on a vegan diet. I wasn't one of them, but I am convinced of the sincerity of those who do have that problem, and also of the lengths to which they have gone to try to intervene without introducing animal products to their diet, before ultimately resigning themselves to that necessessity.)"
I think nutritionists should study these people and experiment to find out why they can't easily be vegan. Once enough people have been studied, the American Dietetic Association should update their position paper and adjust their conclusion. Ideally, we don't want to cause harm. So eating "soylent green" or some other ethical animal product would seem like a good solution. Next would be eating a hunted carnivorous animal, or eating a hunted animal that was essentially "euthanatised".
"Would you be morally justified in killing me in my sleep to make use of my body? No, because as a human you are bound by social contract."
So if someone is not bound by a social contract (infants, the severely intellectually disabled, and the senile), is it okay to kill them? Or is it just not immoral for them to kill you and others? I'll be honest: social contract, smocial smontract
"Prove that a) all animals suffer and b) animal suffering is bad.
a) is unknowable and b) is a statement of personal preference. How can you prove them?"
What do you mean by all animals suffer? Do you mean we must prove all animals are sentient, or that all animals in the wild suffer? In Australia, there exists anti-cruel legislation. The point of this legislation is to prevent the intentional infliction of suffering to animals. Just ignore the fact that the NSW POCTA is a pile of crap for now. The fact that such legislation exists proves that animal suffering is bad, or it at least proves that enough people believe that to be true. Would you like to see anti-legislation removed because you cannot prove "b)"?
"Do you think a mosquito suffers in the same way as a human? What about a zooplankton? Secondly, where's your proof that what is bad for an individual is bad in a universal sense?"
I don't know. But we shouldn't exclude cows, pigs, chickens, salmon, etc from our moral community just because we don't know for sure if mosquitoes are sentient or not. What do you mean bad in a universal sense?
Russell, being a biology teacher, why is it that people generally conclude invertebrates aren’t sentient? Why is this?
"How can individual suffering be bad when universally stopping it would induce the ultimate in universally bad consequences, universal death."
Universal death meaning what? A planet, or better yet, the universe, without the existence of sentient species?
I really shouldn't respond, because I know you're basically laughing at what you consider absurd consequences, but I will anyway. I support things like soylent green, vitamin and mineral fortified foods, and GMO's. I remember, about 6 months ago, a news story about an Australian kid (perhaps 5 years old) who was allergic to almost everything. To nourish him, he had some sort of bag with tube connected to his gut or something. I thought that was really interesting. While I don't take multivitamins, I think they're a really cool idea. Taking multivitamins and eating a minimal amount of food/calories seems like the way forward. I think it's safe to assume microorganisms cannot suffer.
"(As an aside, many people do in fact report not being able to "thrive" on a vegan diet. I wasn't one of them, but I am convinced of the sincerity of those who do have that problem, and also of the lengths to which they have gone to try to intervene without introducing animal products to their diet, before ultimately resigning themselves to that necessessity.)"
I think nutritionists should study these people and experiment to find out why they can't easily be vegan. Once enough people have been studied, the American Dietetic Association should update their position paper and adjust their conclusion. Ideally, we don't want to cause harm. So eating "soylent green" or some other ethical animal product would seem like a good solution. Next would be eating a hunted carnivorous animal, or eating a hunted animal that was essentially "euthanatised".
"Would you be morally justified in killing me in my sleep to make use of my body? No, because as a human you are bound by social contract."
So if someone is not bound by a social contract (infants, the severely intellectually disabled, and the senile), is it okay to kill them? Or is it just not immoral for them to kill you and others? I'll be honest: social contract, smocial smontract
"Prove that a) all animals suffer and b) animal suffering is bad.
a) is unknowable and b) is a statement of personal preference. How can you prove them?"
What do you mean by all animals suffer? Do you mean we must prove all animals are sentient, or that all animals in the wild suffer? In Australia, there exists anti-cruel legislation. The point of this legislation is to prevent the intentional infliction of suffering to animals. Just ignore the fact that the NSW POCTA is a pile of crap for now. The fact that such legislation exists proves that animal suffering is bad, or it at least proves that enough people believe that to be true. Would you like to see anti-legislation removed because you cannot prove "b)"?
"Do you think a mosquito suffers in the same way as a human? What about a zooplankton? Secondly, where's your proof that what is bad for an individual is bad in a universal sense?"
I don't know. But we shouldn't exclude cows, pigs, chickens, salmon, etc from our moral community just because we don't know for sure if mosquitoes are sentient or not. What do you mean bad in a universal sense?
Russell, being a biology teacher, why is it that people generally conclude invertebrates aren’t sentient? Why is this?
"How can individual suffering be bad when universally stopping it would induce the ultimate in universally bad consequences, universal death."
Universal death meaning what? A planet, or better yet, the universe, without the existence of sentient species?
written by Gordon, 18 June 2010
"I believe in actual fact that the death and suffering toll of my existence is probably dominated by the production of cereal crops and vegetables, through habitat destruction and pest control."
We should research and develop ways to reduce moralities in the production of crops, vegetables, fruits, etc. In the meantime we can use freegan strategies such as dumpster diving, urban foraging, and even plate scraping to reduce the demand we place on crop production, etc. It's also important to recognise feeding crops to animals is inherently inefficient, so eating farmed animal products inevitably results in even more suffering and death.
"Can you not see the arrogance in that statement? Appalling."
Complacency is appalling.
"Gordon: "When you are suffering, is it not the case that your number one priority is to have it stop?" Yes. Does that mean it should be everybody else's? No. Humans are bound by social contract to have that priority but other species recognise no such contract. So it's no more morally wrong for a tiger to kill me as it is for me to kill a tiger. (Species conservation concerns excepted.)"
I never said humans were under an obligation to prevent harm from occurring (i.e. preventing wild animals from eating others). Rather, we have an obligation to avoid harming others. What do you mean by "Species conservation concerns excepted"? :S
"Gordon: "The suffering an individual experiences is completely independent of others." Correct. My argument is that an individual's suffering is not significant compared to the sum total of all suffering."
What? That argument is irrelevant, and you appeared to admit that when you agreed with me ("Correct."). You're position became even more incoherent when you said you support less-cruel production systems for animal products. Why would you support that when, as a consequence, the reduction of net suffering would be insignificant?
"My argument is that any moral system that assumes animal suffering is inherently bad concludes that the world is an incomprehensibly bad place. Yes, incomprehensible as in our mind cannot possibly be fully aware of the true magnitude of "badness"."
How is that even an argument? You might consider that to be absurd, but I, as an atheist, am comfortable accepting it as the reality (read: I'm a realist not in denial).
"Any attempt to do so is bound to induce severe anxiety and depression. It's also a nihlist position. Since the axioms of your moral system are a choice, suffering=bad does not make sense as a practical choice of axiom."
Of course, I think it is unfortunate. But that doesn't mean I suffer from severe exiety or depression. It certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying my life. Obviously I am not a nihilist, and accepting the existence of suffering inherent in nature doesn't make me one, either. Ugh! When considering morality, including over the past 1.5 years, I am NOT trying to design it to be perfect and practical. Doing so is irrational and somewhat self-serving. I don't deny there are situations where it would be impractical to avoid incidental harm. But should we seriously use this as an excuse to intentionally harm animals? No.
"you make an argument based on need, but this is irrelevant. Should we only do what we need to do? When we have perfect IVF and in-vitro gestation, will you advocate banning sex and pregnancy? After all, both cause untold suffering the world over. If they are unnecessary, why do them?"
Russell, we've argued this previously on Whirlpool. If I recall correctly, my counter-argument was valid. People should be educated about the risks involved with everything. Everybody should have the freedom to do whatever they want to the extent that they don't harm innocents. The suffering and discomfort experienced by breeding animals (particularly sows
) is generally overlooked. I often wonder about birds: does it hurt to lay an egg (be it fertilised or not)? Ignoring the side effects of having hens lay an unusual number of eggs, if laying an egg does involve suffering, the existence of selectively bred birds that lay eggs frequently is particularly immoral. It's just like broiler chickens and how they grow too fast.
We should research and develop ways to reduce moralities in the production of crops, vegetables, fruits, etc. In the meantime we can use freegan strategies such as dumpster diving, urban foraging, and even plate scraping to reduce the demand we place on crop production, etc. It's also important to recognise feeding crops to animals is inherently inefficient, so eating farmed animal products inevitably results in even more suffering and death.
"Can you not see the arrogance in that statement? Appalling."
Complacency is appalling.
"Gordon: "When you are suffering, is it not the case that your number one priority is to have it stop?" Yes. Does that mean it should be everybody else's? No. Humans are bound by social contract to have that priority but other species recognise no such contract. So it's no more morally wrong for a tiger to kill me as it is for me to kill a tiger. (Species conservation concerns excepted.)"
I never said humans were under an obligation to prevent harm from occurring (i.e. preventing wild animals from eating others). Rather, we have an obligation to avoid harming others. What do you mean by "Species conservation concerns excepted"? :S
"Gordon: "The suffering an individual experiences is completely independent of others." Correct. My argument is that an individual's suffering is not significant compared to the sum total of all suffering."
What? That argument is irrelevant, and you appeared to admit that when you agreed with me ("Correct."). You're position became even more incoherent when you said you support less-cruel production systems for animal products. Why would you support that when, as a consequence, the reduction of net suffering would be insignificant?
"My argument is that any moral system that assumes animal suffering is inherently bad concludes that the world is an incomprehensibly bad place. Yes, incomprehensible as in our mind cannot possibly be fully aware of the true magnitude of "badness"."
How is that even an argument? You might consider that to be absurd, but I, as an atheist, am comfortable accepting it as the reality (read: I'm a realist not in denial).
"Any attempt to do so is bound to induce severe anxiety and depression. It's also a nihlist position. Since the axioms of your moral system are a choice, suffering=bad does not make sense as a practical choice of axiom."
Of course, I think it is unfortunate. But that doesn't mean I suffer from severe exiety or depression. It certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying my life. Obviously I am not a nihilist, and accepting the existence of suffering inherent in nature doesn't make me one, either. Ugh! When considering morality, including over the past 1.5 years, I am NOT trying to design it to be perfect and practical. Doing so is irrational and somewhat self-serving. I don't deny there are situations where it would be impractical to avoid incidental harm. But should we seriously use this as an excuse to intentionally harm animals? No.
"you make an argument based on need, but this is irrelevant. Should we only do what we need to do? When we have perfect IVF and in-vitro gestation, will you advocate banning sex and pregnancy? After all, both cause untold suffering the world over. If they are unnecessary, why do them?"
Russell, we've argued this previously on Whirlpool. If I recall correctly, my counter-argument was valid. People should be educated about the risks involved with everything. Everybody should have the freedom to do whatever they want to the extent that they don't harm innocents. The suffering and discomfort experienced by breeding animals (particularly sows
) is generally overlooked. I often wonder about birds: does it hurt to lay an egg (be it fertilised or not)? Ignoring the side effects of having hens lay an unusual number of eggs, if laying an egg does involve suffering, the existence of selectively bred birds that lay eggs frequently is particularly immoral. It's just like broiler chickens and how they grow too fast.
written by Gordon, 18 June 2010
""I place almost zero value on biodiversity." well good for you, good luck selling that to the general public. Most now recognise it as an intrinsic good in the same way that you believe non-"suffering" is an intrinsic good."
Can you please explain to me why it is an intrinsic good? I honestly have never figured out why species extinction (animal or non-animal) is undesirable.
"Either one is a belief you make a choice to take on. The difference is, your belief yields absurd logical consequences, whereas a belief in the value of biodiversity does not."
Not true. Trying to not harm animals doesn't mean we have an obligation to prevent harm from occurring (i.e. lion eating their prey). My belief, however, does require us to consider the consequences of our actions before we go through with them. For example, undertaking terraforming may result in increased suffering. Releasing non-herbivorous animals back into the wild may also increase suffering. We shouldn't do these things if they result in more suffering than not doing them.
""Why accept nature for what it is when it is non-moral?" it's only non-moral when you have a reasonable moral system that does not yield the absurd conclusion that life on earth consists of millions of gross moral transgressions every second."
What are you talking about? This is the point you seem to be missing... Life/nature/eco systems weren't designed by a god. It is therefore non-moral. It's non-moral regardless of what we consider morally right or wrong. The premise people seem to accept is that because something is natural, it is therefore okay. I strongly disagree, and think we need to move away from this archaic notion.
"Neither immoral nor moral, just itself."
Exactly. So why do you point towards "the existence of natural exploitative interspecies relationships" to justify your exploitation of animals (be it hunting animals or consuming farmed animal flesh and secretions)? I can understand a religious person using that logic, but surely you're not religious. After all, you are a biology teacher.
"Also for what it's worth I make an effort within reason to support production systems that cause less suffering, e.g. free range eggs and chicken. I realise these are not perfect, nor do they meet the standards I would prefer. I aim to improve it when possible -- soon I will keep my own chickens -- but I also accept the need for pragmatism."
Why do any production systems still exist? Nearly all (if not all) can lead a healthy life without non-human animal products (see American Dietetic Association's position paper on vegetarian (including vegan) diets: http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357). Once we recognise this, we are forced to admit our justifications for exploiting and killing more animals for the production of flesh, dairy, and eggs are frivolous: pleasure, convenience, and/or habit. Honestly, why do you eat flesh? Why eggs? Why get your own chickens when you don't need to consume their eggs to lead a healthy life? (What will they be? The Inghams Hisex Brown Layer, or perhaps the Hy-Line W-36? (I find this sort of commodification morally repugnant) Where will they come from? Alas, I suspect a commercial hatchery. Furthermore, what will happen to the cockerels and the hens once their reproductive cycles stop?)
"As far as I know, apart from cage hens and possible stall sows, domestic animals suffer much less than they would in the wild on average and that is the minimal benchmark for me."
That's probably true. But, again, why are you comparing their existence to wild animals? Just ignore nature. Nature "just is", and cannot be used as to make comparisons.
Can you please explain to me why it is an intrinsic good? I honestly have never figured out why species extinction (animal or non-animal) is undesirable.
"Either one is a belief you make a choice to take on. The difference is, your belief yields absurd logical consequences, whereas a belief in the value of biodiversity does not."
Not true. Trying to not harm animals doesn't mean we have an obligation to prevent harm from occurring (i.e. lion eating their prey). My belief, however, does require us to consider the consequences of our actions before we go through with them. For example, undertaking terraforming may result in increased suffering. Releasing non-herbivorous animals back into the wild may also increase suffering. We shouldn't do these things if they result in more suffering than not doing them.
""Why accept nature for what it is when it is non-moral?" it's only non-moral when you have a reasonable moral system that does not yield the absurd conclusion that life on earth consists of millions of gross moral transgressions every second."
What are you talking about? This is the point you seem to be missing... Life/nature/eco systems weren't designed by a god. It is therefore non-moral. It's non-moral regardless of what we consider morally right or wrong. The premise people seem to accept is that because something is natural, it is therefore okay. I strongly disagree, and think we need to move away from this archaic notion.
"Neither immoral nor moral, just itself."
Exactly. So why do you point towards "the existence of natural exploitative interspecies relationships" to justify your exploitation of animals (be it hunting animals or consuming farmed animal flesh and secretions)? I can understand a religious person using that logic, but surely you're not religious. After all, you are a biology teacher.
"Also for what it's worth I make an effort within reason to support production systems that cause less suffering, e.g. free range eggs and chicken. I realise these are not perfect, nor do they meet the standards I would prefer. I aim to improve it when possible -- soon I will keep my own chickens -- but I also accept the need for pragmatism."
Why do any production systems still exist? Nearly all (if not all) can lead a healthy life without non-human animal products (see American Dietetic Association's position paper on vegetarian (including vegan) diets: http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357). Once we recognise this, we are forced to admit our justifications for exploiting and killing more animals for the production of flesh, dairy, and eggs are frivolous: pleasure, convenience, and/or habit. Honestly, why do you eat flesh? Why eggs? Why get your own chickens when you don't need to consume their eggs to lead a healthy life? (What will they be? The Inghams Hisex Brown Layer, or perhaps the Hy-Line W-36? (I find this sort of commodification morally repugnant) Where will they come from? Alas, I suspect a commercial hatchery. Furthermore, what will happen to the cockerels and the hens once their reproductive cycles stop?)
"As far as I know, apart from cage hens and possible stall sows, domestic animals suffer much less than they would in the wild on average and that is the minimal benchmark for me."
That's probably true. But, again, why are you comparing their existence to wild animals? Just ignore nature. Nature "just is", and cannot be used as to make comparisons.
written by Russell Edwards, 18 June 2010
Alex, I give up, you're crazy and cannot be reasoned with. I cannot make head nor tail of your second paragraph.
written by Alex Melonas, 17 June 2010
@Russell: So, in other words, you have absolutely NO argument justifying your exploitation of animals? That is a stunning admission, but I appreciate your honesty.
If I thought (read: I simply cannot defend it reasonably) that, say, "human rights" isn't worth a rational defense, just my assumptions and "axioms" so you are on EQUAL moral footing with me all you racists and sexists, I would likewise be suspicious of "moral prescriptivism".
If I thought (read: I simply cannot defend it reasonably) that, say, "human rights" isn't worth a rational defense, just my assumptions and "axioms" so you are on EQUAL moral footing with me all you racists and sexists, I would likewise be suspicious of "moral prescriptivism".
written by Russell Edwards, 17 June 2010
Alex, you keep on referring to appeal to nature when that it not the essence of my argument. I am rejecting the very notion of a normative moral philosophy on the basis of the arbitrariness of the premises upon which it is founded. Numerous published philosophers take a similar position and the general public, too, is usually highly suspicious of normative moralists. It's not my position to write an entire treatise to convince you of this. I suggest you spend some time reading the greats. On this basis, I do not put forth "nature=good" as an ideal and construct a normative moral philosophy on that basis, as you claim. My moral engagement with humans is based around an informal notion of social contract (again, read the body of literature, it's very well fleshed out) and my attitude to animals is based on a personal value system I freely admit does not derive from a formal logical normative moral philosophy.
If you're going to cling to the idea of prescriptive moral legislature flowing from your basic assumptions, then you still need to prove the things I asked you to before. Prove that the suffering of an individual nonhuman animal is a universally bad event.
If you're going to cling to the idea of prescriptive moral legislature flowing from your basic assumptions, then you still need to prove the things I asked you to before. Prove that the suffering of an individual nonhuman animal is a universally bad event.
written by DJ, 17 June 2010
C'mon people... seriously?! Do animal rights activists and abolitionists visit the congregations at State Fairs and backwoods America to preach the vegan gospel, and how successful are they? If the abolitionists win over modern day redneck, backwoods America, then I will ditch welfarism and choose an Abolitionist approach. If the author claims that animal welfare has failed, well, then the abolitionist approach has been a big flop as well since it has co-existed since the term "vegan" was first coined! And if welfare fails, then how did the Prop 2 initiative pass in california? I didn't think there were that many vegans voting!
But we are all abolitionists at heart, that is certainly true.
I am an abolitionist, as I wish that all domesticated animals and livestock, including cats, dogs, and other animal friends we call pets did not exist. I'd prefer a domesticated-animal free world because keeping animals is a huge waste of resources, time, and money! I'd love to live in a world with people not eating meat, and it would also be great to not step in dog crap at a public park or enter someone's house that stinks like a litterbox, or hear the exhaustive pleas of animal shelters desperate for money and volunteers (a very worthwhile cause, don't get me wrong, as we need to attend to the animal's WELFARE in the current world we live).
But we are all abolitionists at heart, that is certainly true.
I am an abolitionist, as I wish that all domesticated animals and livestock, including cats, dogs, and other animal friends we call pets did not exist. I'd prefer a domesticated-animal free world because keeping animals is a huge waste of resources, time, and money! I'd love to live in a world with people not eating meat, and it would also be great to not step in dog crap at a public park or enter someone's house that stinks like a litterbox, or hear the exhaustive pleas of animal shelters desperate for money and volunteers (a very worthwhile cause, don't get me wrong, as we need to attend to the animal's WELFARE in the current world we live).
written by Alex Melonas, 16 June 2010
@Russell:
One: Of course you've appealed to "nature" to justify exploiting animals (i.e., infringing on your "liberties"). I appreciate that you are now moving away from that premise, because it is clearly a fallacy. We are progressing here.
Two: Of course any discussion of experiencing harm lies on a continuum; however, it is a non sequitur to argue that, therefore, a mosquito suffers "in the same way" as a human. I would say No, but also I would say No, I don't suffer "in the same way" as you. Your question is nonsensical on its face. However, that premise does not have to be true for my parsimonious argument that animals clearly suffer to be true.
Three: You ask for "proof" of the premise that suffering is bad but all I've asked YOU for is reasons, any reason at all, for why an arbitrary result like "nature" is inherently good or why YOU can appeal to "nature" to justify eating flesh but I CAN'T appeal to "nature" to justify rape. Refute MY reasons, or at least tell me why I might be wrong, JUST AS I HAVE refuted all the reasons people, not you of course because it is just an "axiom" like all humans are not equal, have given for that absurd premise about "nature" being inherently good.
Fourth: Your little rant at the end (re: the practical difficulties of realizing a philosophical conclusion) is fully supportive of MY conclusion. Thank you. However, to correct YOUR straw man of my argument: the exploitation I'm concerned about here is carnivorism and omnivorism because it causes harm and death.
Russell, you have clearly lost this debate because you cannot A) defend consuming flesh by appeal to "nature" -- I've refuted that -and B) you can't provide even a single argument for WHY "nature" is inherently good. So I'm confused about why you are still arguing?
One: Of course you've appealed to "nature" to justify exploiting animals (i.e., infringing on your "liberties"). I appreciate that you are now moving away from that premise, because it is clearly a fallacy. We are progressing here.
Two: Of course any discussion of experiencing harm lies on a continuum; however, it is a non sequitur to argue that, therefore, a mosquito suffers "in the same way" as a human. I would say No, but also I would say No, I don't suffer "in the same way" as you. Your question is nonsensical on its face. However, that premise does not have to be true for my parsimonious argument that animals clearly suffer to be true.
Three: You ask for "proof" of the premise that suffering is bad but all I've asked YOU for is reasons, any reason at all, for why an arbitrary result like "nature" is inherently good or why YOU can appeal to "nature" to justify eating flesh but I CAN'T appeal to "nature" to justify rape. Refute MY reasons, or at least tell me why I might be wrong, JUST AS I HAVE refuted all the reasons people, not you of course because it is just an "axiom" like all humans are not equal, have given for that absurd premise about "nature" being inherently good.
Fourth: Your little rant at the end (re: the practical difficulties of realizing a philosophical conclusion) is fully supportive of MY conclusion. Thank you. However, to correct YOUR straw man of my argument: the exploitation I'm concerned about here is carnivorism and omnivorism because it causes harm and death.
Russell, you have clearly lost this debate because you cannot A) defend consuming flesh by appeal to "nature" -- I've refuted that -and B) you can't provide even a single argument for WHY "nature" is inherently good. So I'm confused about why you are still arguing?
written by Russell Edwards, 16 June 2010
Alex, I have not offered an argument for it, because it is unprovable, as are the assumptions of your moral framework. I have not appealed to nature, I have shown that your propositions lead to impractical conclusions. Since yours and all axioms are unproven, unprovable and unknowable, you are free to choose them, yours is a poor choice owing to its failure to yield practical conclusions.
Normative ethics would be like normative physics to me -- a crazy idea akin to the antics of the catholics in persecuting early scientists who dared alter assumptions to match evidence.
Getting back to your specific arguments, one how do you cope with the fact that the genetic and biological similarities lie on a continuum? Do you think a mosquito suffers in the same way as a human? What about a zooplankton? Secondly, where's your proof that what is bad for an individual is bad in a universal sense? The non-existence of any natural ecosystem without exploitative states is suggestive that the latter is not true-- NOT by appeal to nature, but by the fact that no organism could exist at all without an ecosystem to inhabit. How can individual suffering be bad when universally stopping it would induce the ultimate in universally bad consequences, universal death.
Normative ethics would be like normative physics to me -- a crazy idea akin to the antics of the catholics in persecuting early scientists who dared alter assumptions to match evidence.
Getting back to your specific arguments, one how do you cope with the fact that the genetic and biological similarities lie on a continuum? Do you think a mosquito suffers in the same way as a human? What about a zooplankton? Secondly, where's your proof that what is bad for an individual is bad in a universal sense? The non-existence of any natural ecosystem without exploitative states is suggestive that the latter is not true-- NOT by appeal to nature, but by the fact that no organism could exist at all without an ecosystem to inhabit. How can individual suffering be bad when universally stopping it would induce the ultimate in universally bad consequences, universal death.
written by Alex Melonas, 16 June 2010
@Russell: My practical conclusion is distinct from my philosophical conclusion (re: suffering). The philosophical conclusion is that causing harm and death is bad; from this premise, and combined with my CLEARLY LOGICAL argument regarding "nature", the philosophical conclusion follows. However, as I've argued, the practical reality does not warrant an attempt to realize that conclusion and so NON-INTERFERENCE is the only option.
To your first question, the issue of parsimony militates in favor of the proposition that animals suffer. This is the overwhelming evidence point: evolutionary continuity; physiological similarity; and behavioral patterns. Indeed, IF I can argue that YOU suffer Russell, I can SIMILARLY argue that my dog suffers.
To your second question, the reasons are: self-interest militates in favor of the premise that suffering is bad (i.e. because I THINK when I suffer it is bad); the basic biological reality that suffering is a negative response to noxious stimuli; suffering is "bad", by definition, which suggests a general and overwhelming repugnance to suffering; our immediate empathetic response to suffering suggests its "badness"; and so on.
Russell, you have NOT responded to a single point I've made to challenge your silly and vapid position. The appeal to “nature” IS A logical fallacy, as I’ve shown. And YOU have not offered a single argument as to WHY an arbitrary evolutionary result like “nature” is inherently good. You should ENGAGE your own argument or move on.
To your first question, the issue of parsimony militates in favor of the proposition that animals suffer. This is the overwhelming evidence point: evolutionary continuity; physiological similarity; and behavioral patterns. Indeed, IF I can argue that YOU suffer Russell, I can SIMILARLY argue that my dog suffers.
To your second question, the reasons are: self-interest militates in favor of the premise that suffering is bad (i.e. because I THINK when I suffer it is bad); the basic biological reality that suffering is a negative response to noxious stimuli; suffering is "bad", by definition, which suggests a general and overwhelming repugnance to suffering; our immediate empathetic response to suffering suggests its "badness"; and so on.
Russell, you have NOT responded to a single point I've made to challenge your silly and vapid position. The appeal to “nature” IS A logical fallacy, as I’ve shown. And YOU have not offered a single argument as to WHY an arbitrary evolutionary result like “nature” is inherently good. You should ENGAGE your own argument or move on.
written by Russell Edwards, 15 June 2010
Alex, you are the one with the philosophy with absurd conclusions you are trying to force upon an entire species or ultimately all life on Earth. The onus is on you to justify your axioms.
Prove that a) all animals suffer and b) animal suffering is bad.
a) is unknowable and b) is a statement of personal preference. How can you prove them?
Prove that a) all animals suffer and b) animal suffering is bad.
a) is unknowable and b) is a statement of personal preference. How can you prove them?
written by Alex Melonas, 15 June 2010
@Russell: Here again we see that your argument is erroneous. What you take as "axiomatic" I am challenging YOU to defend with reasons. I have offered REASONS against that position that you simply cannot refute. This is to say that you are asserting a philosophical conclusion as "axiomatic" because you cannot reason your way to that conclusion, which is intellectually dishonesty. Could you imagine a racist asserting as "axiomatic" that all humans ARE NOT morally/ethically equal. I would give REASONS to refute that position, and him, the racist, like you are doing here, would simply re-assert his position as "axiomatic". That is a ridiculous argument.
You cannot escape the conclusion that violence, rape, bigotry (or "out-grouping") are equally justified because they are genetically programmed, "natural", and so on. IF you reject this conclusion then YOUR reasoning begs the question. Just concede that it is a fallacy to appeal to "nature" to justify anything Russell. (Do you feel outraged because your "liberty" to rape and cause harm is prohibited?)
Your constant appeal to "social contract" begs the question (as all such appeals do) about who is included and the mechanism used to arrive at a "social contract". The practical implication is that those human animals who cannot enter the contract because intellectual impairments are excluded from it unless you ground your claim in a speciesist position, which is not rationally justifiable. Or is this another one of your "axioms"? If you include babies and the mentally impaired you need a rational reason for EXCLUDING nonhuman animals.
So the only rational conclusion here is this: the tiger a) being a carnivore and b) not being a moral agent harming you would not be "immoral", it would be AMORAL; however, YOU a) being an omnivore (and thus it is a CHOICE) and b) being a moral agent harming a tiger WOULD be open to questions of morality. No appeal to "nature" (because that is a FALLACY) can escape that conclusion.
You cannot escape the conclusion that violence, rape, bigotry (or "out-grouping") are equally justified because they are genetically programmed, "natural", and so on. IF you reject this conclusion then YOUR reasoning begs the question. Just concede that it is a fallacy to appeal to "nature" to justify anything Russell. (Do you feel outraged because your "liberty" to rape and cause harm is prohibited?)
Your constant appeal to "social contract" begs the question (as all such appeals do) about who is included and the mechanism used to arrive at a "social contract". The practical implication is that those human animals who cannot enter the contract because intellectual impairments are excluded from it unless you ground your claim in a speciesist position, which is not rationally justifiable. Or is this another one of your "axioms"? If you include babies and the mentally impaired you need a rational reason for EXCLUDING nonhuman animals.
So the only rational conclusion here is this: the tiger a) being a carnivore and b) not being a moral agent harming you would not be "immoral", it would be AMORAL; however, YOU a) being an omnivore (and thus it is a CHOICE) and b) being a moral agent harming a tiger WOULD be open to questions of morality. No appeal to "nature" (because that is a FALLACY) can escape that conclusion.
written by Russell Edwards, 15 June 2010
Alex: genetically altering the entire biosphere to produce an artificial world that satisfies the particular demands of your chosen ideology. Can you not see the arrogance in that statement? Appalling. I just wish all vegans were so open about their aims, so that legislators and the general public would dismiss them off-hand instead of allowing themselves to be influenced into restricting the my liberties.
"There is no inherent value in “nature” ". That is a statement of opinion. Most people take that as axiomatic. You choose to take the value of non-suffering as axiomatic. Neither are provable. Each is a choice. Yours yields impractical and absurd consequences. Everyone else's doesn't. The sane choice is obvious.
Gordon: "When you are suffering, is it not the case that your number one priority is to have it stop?" Yes. Does that mean it should be everybody else's? No. Humans are bound by social contract to have that priority but other species recognise no such contract. So it's no more morally wrong for a tiger to kill me as it is for me to kill a tiger. (Species conservation concerns excepted.)
Gordon: "The suffering an individual experiences is completely independent of others." Correct. My argument is that an individual's suffering is not significant compared to the sum total of all suffering. My argument is that any moral system that assumes animal suffering is inherently bad concludes that the world is an incomprehensibly bad place. Yes, incomprehensible as in our mind cannot possibly be fully aware of the true magnitude of "badness". Any attempt to do so is bound to induce severe anxiety and depression. It's also a nihlist position. Since the axioms of your moral system are a choice, suffering=bad does not make sense as a practical choice of axiom.
Elizabeth: you make an argument based on need, but this is irrelevant. Should we only do what we need to do? When we have perfect IVF and in-vitro gestation, will you advocate banning sex and pregnancy? After all, both cause untold suffering the world over. If they are unnecessary, why do them? And what of the animal impacts of horticulture? Should we not, as a matter of urgency, introduce Soylent Green to reduce our reliance on horticulture? And try to develop vat-cultured microbial foods, with a view to an eventual ban on horticulture? Or do we then have to worry about microbial suffering?
(As an aside, many people do in fact report not being able to "thrive" on a vegan diet. I wasn't one of them, but I am convinced of the sincerity of those who do have that problem, and also of the lengths to which they have gone to try to intervene without introducing animal products to their diet, before ultimately resigning themselves to that necessessity.)
Would you be morally justified in killing me in my sleep to make use of my body? No, because as a human you are bound by social contract. If a tiger came in an ate me on the other hand it would not be immoral. Of course I'd do my best to prevent it, but not out of moral outrage!
Am I familiar with speciesism? You bet! I happen to be a member of the single, solitary unlucky species you have chosen to try to prevent from engaging in its natural, genetically programmed ecological role. That's speciesism.
As for your rape analogy, last I checked, rape was not the foundation of natural ecosystems in the way that predation is. Some species practise it although for the vast majority of species the concept of "consent" is vastly different to how it applies to humans.
And yes, sigh, I know what abolitionist veganism is-- I was one myself for many years.
"There is no inherent value in “nature” ". That is a statement of opinion. Most people take that as axiomatic. You choose to take the value of non-suffering as axiomatic. Neither are provable. Each is a choice. Yours yields impractical and absurd consequences. Everyone else's doesn't. The sane choice is obvious.
Gordon: "When you are suffering, is it not the case that your number one priority is to have it stop?" Yes. Does that mean it should be everybody else's? No. Humans are bound by social contract to have that priority but other species recognise no such contract. So it's no more morally wrong for a tiger to kill me as it is for me to kill a tiger. (Species conservation concerns excepted.)
Gordon: "The suffering an individual experiences is completely independent of others." Correct. My argument is that an individual's suffering is not significant compared to the sum total of all suffering. My argument is that any moral system that assumes animal suffering is inherently bad concludes that the world is an incomprehensibly bad place. Yes, incomprehensible as in our mind cannot possibly be fully aware of the true magnitude of "badness". Any attempt to do so is bound to induce severe anxiety and depression. It's also a nihlist position. Since the axioms of your moral system are a choice, suffering=bad does not make sense as a practical choice of axiom.
Elizabeth: you make an argument based on need, but this is irrelevant. Should we only do what we need to do? When we have perfect IVF and in-vitro gestation, will you advocate banning sex and pregnancy? After all, both cause untold suffering the world over. If they are unnecessary, why do them? And what of the animal impacts of horticulture? Should we not, as a matter of urgency, introduce Soylent Green to reduce our reliance on horticulture? And try to develop vat-cultured microbial foods, with a view to an eventual ban on horticulture? Or do we then have to worry about microbial suffering?
(As an aside, many people do in fact report not being able to "thrive" on a vegan diet. I wasn't one of them, but I am convinced of the sincerity of those who do have that problem, and also of the lengths to which they have gone to try to intervene without introducing animal products to their diet, before ultimately resigning themselves to that necessessity.)
Would you be morally justified in killing me in my sleep to make use of my body? No, because as a human you are bound by social contract. If a tiger came in an ate me on the other hand it would not be immoral. Of course I'd do my best to prevent it, but not out of moral outrage!
Am I familiar with speciesism? You bet! I happen to be a member of the single, solitary unlucky species you have chosen to try to prevent from engaging in its natural, genetically programmed ecological role. That's speciesism.
As for your rape analogy, last I checked, rape was not the foundation of natural ecosystems in the way that predation is. Some species practise it although for the vast majority of species the concept of "consent" is vastly different to how it applies to humans.
And yes, sigh, I know what abolitionist veganism is-- I was one myself for many years.
written by Russell Edwards, 15 June 2010
Gordon: "suffering" is in quotes because the term as we know it relates to human experience, and animals experience it differently. So the analogous phenomenon in animals can be referred to with the same word but we should be careful to acknowledge we are using the word in a less specific sense that refers to all animals or at least some subset of them that is broader than just our species.
"I place almost zero value on biodiversity." well good for you, good luck selling that to the general public. Most now recognise it as an intrinsic good in the same way that you believe non-"suffering" is an intrinsic good.
Either one is a belief you make a choice to take on. The difference is, your belief yields absurd logical consequences, whereas a belief in the value of biodiversity does not.
"Why accept nature for what it is when it is non-moral?" it's only non-moral when you have a reasonable moral system that does not yield the absurd conclusion that life on earth consists of millions of gross moral transgressions every second. If you modify the axioms of your moral framework to allow it to accurately account for the existence of natural exploitative interspecies relationships without casting them as some kind of evil aberration, then that is accepting nature for what it is. Neither immoral nor moral, just itself.
"For example, what do you eat? Do you go hunting?..." Yes, I do go hunting. I decided to take up hunting as part of my transition out of vegetarianism. Unfortunately given my family commitments I cannot feed myself and my family entirely on produce I have hunted, gathered or grown myself, so I do purchase food, too. Farming and also markets are technological innovations of humans, and technology has always been part of our make-up and our ecological role -- we could not be effective hunters without it -- so I don't feel this invalidates my claim of being an ecosystem participant. However I do see the direct, hands-on production methods as being a vital part of remaining fully cognizant of my ecosystem roles, and also as a check to ensure I'm not lapsing back into the world of denial inhabited by people who do not hunt or farm. Also for what it's worth I make an effort within reason to support production systems that cause less suffering, e.g. free range eggs and chicken. I realise these are not perfect, nor do they meet the standards I would prefer. I aim to improve it when possible -- soon I will keep my own chickens -- but I also accept the need for pragmatism. As far as I know, apart from cage hens and possible stall sows, domestic animals suffer much less than they would in the wild on average and that is the minimal benchmark for me. I believe in actual fact that the death and suffering toll of my existence is probably dominated by the production of cereal crops and vegetables, through habitat destruction and pest control.
(to be continued)
"I place almost zero value on biodiversity." well good for you, good luck selling that to the general public. Most now recognise it as an intrinsic good in the same way that you believe non-"suffering" is an intrinsic good.
Either one is a belief you make a choice to take on. The difference is, your belief yields absurd logical consequences, whereas a belief in the value of biodiversity does not.
"Why accept nature for what it is when it is non-moral?" it's only non-moral when you have a reasonable moral system that does not yield the absurd conclusion that life on earth consists of millions of gross moral transgressions every second. If you modify the axioms of your moral framework to allow it to accurately account for the existence of natural exploitative interspecies relationships without casting them as some kind of evil aberration, then that is accepting nature for what it is. Neither immoral nor moral, just itself.
"For example, what do you eat? Do you go hunting?..." Yes, I do go hunting. I decided to take up hunting as part of my transition out of vegetarianism. Unfortunately given my family commitments I cannot feed myself and my family entirely on produce I have hunted, gathered or grown myself, so I do purchase food, too. Farming and also markets are technological innovations of humans, and technology has always been part of our make-up and our ecological role -- we could not be effective hunters without it -- so I don't feel this invalidates my claim of being an ecosystem participant. However I do see the direct, hands-on production methods as being a vital part of remaining fully cognizant of my ecosystem roles, and also as a check to ensure I'm not lapsing back into the world of denial inhabited by people who do not hunt or farm. Also for what it's worth I make an effort within reason to support production systems that cause less suffering, e.g. free range eggs and chicken. I realise these are not perfect, nor do they meet the standards I would prefer. I aim to improve it when possible -- soon I will keep my own chickens -- but I also accept the need for pragmatism. As far as I know, apart from cage hens and possible stall sows, domestic animals suffer much less than they would in the wild on average and that is the minimal benchmark for me. I believe in actual fact that the death and suffering toll of my existence is probably dominated by the production of cereal crops and vegetables, through habitat destruction and pest control.
(to be continued)
written by Elilzabeth Collins, 14 June 2010
Thanks Eric.
Good points!
I just want to correct a typo I made (I get all worked up when talking about this and don't proof read enough *sigh*)
"That renders irrelevant your (unfounded in my opinion) claim that our UNnecessary use of nonhuman animals is in any way a "valid and proper part of nature."
so insert and replace "unnecessary" with "necessary" in the above sentence from my comment. I will stay off this thread for a while, give others a chance now. Hope to hear back from Russell though, and I hope to hear a more direct addressing of the question...
Great article.
Good points!
I just want to correct a typo I made (I get all worked up when talking about this and don't proof read enough *sigh*)
"That renders irrelevant your (unfounded in my opinion) claim that our UNnecessary use of nonhuman animals is in any way a "valid and proper part of nature."
so insert and replace "unnecessary" with "necessary" in the above sentence from my comment. I will stay off this thread for a while, give others a chance now. Hope to hear back from Russell though, and I hope to hear a more direct addressing of the question...
Great article.
written by Eric, 14 June 2010
I think you're starting to get at the core of it, Elizabeth. What we're looking at here with Russell is an anthropocentric view, speciesism. There is not enough discussion of domination in this thread, I fear, but you allude to it when you say we harm other animals because we can. However, as we have seen in various past instances, our ability to overpower someone else and make them do as we please is no valid moral justification for causing that harm to conscious, sentient beings. All of us animals desire autonomy, freedom to just be. Institutional animal exploitation unjustly violates this fundamental interest.
Abolition demands that we stop using animals for our own benefit, that we stop using them as property. This will necessitate the cessation of all animal breeding, but it also necessitates respecting the interests of free-living animals, who also have an interest in being left alone. When we hunt them, despoil or take over their habitat, and make them ours for labor or experimentation, we are infringing upon their basic moral right to be left alone, free to live on their own terms.
None of this necessitates that we insert ourselves into conflicts between free-living animals. On the contrary, leaving them alone and protecting their spaces is showing them the respect they deserve, and it is quite compatible with environmentalism (to me, the entire point of environmentalism is to protect the earth's spaces for all its inhabitants, not to have certain numbers of animals of given species to be able to show our children's children).
Abolition demands that we stop using animals for our own benefit, that we stop using them as property. This will necessitate the cessation of all animal breeding, but it also necessitates respecting the interests of free-living animals, who also have an interest in being left alone. When we hunt them, despoil or take over their habitat, and make them ours for labor or experimentation, we are infringing upon their basic moral right to be left alone, free to live on their own terms.
None of this necessitates that we insert ourselves into conflicts between free-living animals. On the contrary, leaving them alone and protecting their spaces is showing them the respect they deserve, and it is quite compatible with environmentalism (to me, the entire point of environmentalism is to protect the earth's spaces for all its inhabitants, not to have certain numbers of animals of given species to be able to show our children's children).
written by Elilzabeth Collins, 14 June 2010
Russell. you didn't answer the question! We don't need to do it. We do it because we want to. We continue to do it to them because we can. However, we can thrive on plant based diet, and we can live without all other animal products and animal entertainment, animal experimentation, etc etc etc.
Huge difference from what you are trying to say when comparing the natural order of predator/prey relationship. Also, your position that death is not a harm is not a moral position I agree with. (when you said we can kill without suffering. Btw, where in our use of animals do you see that? It really is a pipe dream, but even if it were not, I still would be morally opposed because I think causing the death of a healthy animal for reasons of pleasure, amusement or convenience etc, is immoral, and is a harm If I were to kill you painlessly in your sleep, just because I had a trivial use I wanted to make of your body, would I be morally justified in your position, based on your statement? (Before you answer: are you familiar with the word speciesism?)
You did not address my question! Please try again. Please stay focused on the factor of the lack of the necessity this time. Thanks!
That renders irrelevant your (unfounded in my opinion) claim that our necessary use of nonhuman animals is in any way a "valid and proper part of nature." I think you are the one burying your head in the sand.
If a rapist were to say to you: "I would stop raping, but all these other people are raping, so my stopping raping, in the grand scheme of things is not going to "make a dent" in the amount of suffering occurring"? Then he went on to rape your sister.
"Moral emergencies are happening millions of times per second. How is that a practical philsophy? How is one supposed to be conscious of the moral implications of what is occurring in the world when moral emergencies are occurring with such mind-numbing frequency, such that even if every person all worked together at once (=global veganism) only a tiny, insignificant dent would be made in the rate? "
Where did I talk about practical philosophy? You are the one talking about that. Also, it is astonishing to me that you think the global veganism, in other words the abolition of the torture, suffering and death of possibly over a hundred billion animals a year (which if you consider we torture and slaughter 56 billion land animals just for food alone is a likely figure) is "insignificant".
Also, this blog is about abolitionist veganism. I recommend you research our position. Maybe start with this article:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/human-rights-and-animal-rights-perfect-together/
Huge difference from what you are trying to say when comparing the natural order of predator/prey relationship. Also, your position that death is not a harm is not a moral position I agree with. (when you said we can kill without suffering. Btw, where in our use of animals do you see that? It really is a pipe dream, but even if it were not, I still would be morally opposed because I think causing the death of a healthy animal for reasons of pleasure, amusement or convenience etc, is immoral, and is a harm If I were to kill you painlessly in your sleep, just because I had a trivial use I wanted to make of your body, would I be morally justified in your position, based on your statement? (Before you answer: are you familiar with the word speciesism?)
You did not address my question! Please try again. Please stay focused on the factor of the lack of the necessity this time. Thanks!
That renders irrelevant your (unfounded in my opinion) claim that our necessary use of nonhuman animals is in any way a "valid and proper part of nature." I think you are the one burying your head in the sand.
If a rapist were to say to you: "I would stop raping, but all these other people are raping, so my stopping raping, in the grand scheme of things is not going to "make a dent" in the amount of suffering occurring"? Then he went on to rape your sister.
"Moral emergencies are happening millions of times per second. How is that a practical philsophy? How is one supposed to be conscious of the moral implications of what is occurring in the world when moral emergencies are occurring with such mind-numbing frequency, such that even if every person all worked together at once (=global veganism) only a tiny, insignificant dent would be made in the rate? "
Where did I talk about practical philosophy? You are the one talking about that. Also, it is astonishing to me that you think the global veganism, in other words the abolition of the torture, suffering and death of possibly over a hundred billion animals a year (which if you consider we torture and slaughter 56 billion land animals just for food alone is a likely figure) is "insignificant".
Also, this blog is about abolitionist veganism. I recommend you research our position. Maybe start with this article:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/human-rights-and-animal-rights-perfect-together/
written by Gordon, 14 June 2010
"The real answer is that the proposition that an animal experiencing suffering is a moral emergency is unproven, and is in fact unprovable."
Explain how it is unproven? When you are suffering, is it not the case that your number one priority is to have it stop?
"And this proposition fails that test. According to this proposition, the exploitative interspecies relationships upon which the functioning of nature is founded are fundamentally wrong. Moral emergencies are happening millions of times per second. How is that a practical philsophy?"
Did you read my last post? I addressed this. Sure, solving the problem of suffering in nature is next to impossible, but solving the problem of suffering of domestic animals is extremely easy: stop bringing them into existence. We don't need to bring them into existence.
"How is one supposed to be conscious of the moral implications of what is occurring in the world when moral emergencies are occurring with such mind-numbing frequency, such that even if every person all worked together at once (=global veganism) only a tiny, insignificant dent would be made in the rate?"
Intentionally harming animals when it can be avoided can be, for the most part, be easily avoided: veganism. No one is suggesting we "police" wild animals. We have no obligation to do so, and even if we did there is no practical way to do so (as you pointed out).
A quote from my previous post:
"It appears you're thinking the 50+ billion animals humans slaughter each year is insignificant to the number of animals suffering in the wild. Sure, it is, but so what? Never forget: Every individual matters. If a cruise ship sinks with 20,000 people aboard, is it not better to save 5 humans than 0?"
We agree that the overwhelming majority of suffering occurs in nature, but so what? Your argument is fallacious. The suffering an individual experiences is completely independent of others. The suffering is the same, whether 1 trillion others are suffering in a similar way, or no one else is.
"Point 1) is not the choice for me. Rejecting option 1 is why I went vegetarian, then vegan, and then, still not satisfied ultimately found myself forced towards option 2."
I don't understand your logic. Anyway, what you've presented in a false dichotomy. We can be vegan, and consider the suffering that occurs in nature to be undesirable. This means we shouldn't further contribute to the suffering that occurs in nature. For example, we shouldn't release carnivorous animals into the wild if it will result in more suffering than if we didn't. Furthermore, we shouldn't undertake terraforming that allows species' populations to further increase.
To be honest, I can only see a theist going for option 2. Why? Because they think the universe, nature, and life were created by an all powerful, all-loving compassionate god. How could gods creation be "wrong"? As an atheist, I am confident with my thoughts.
"In a nutshell, I accept the way nature works, and so, if I am at peace with the idea that nature maims and kills squillions of animals per second, then I am not going to beat myself up about killing one (directly or indirectly) every few days myself-- particularly when that animal is guaranteed to die and be eaten by something one day, anyway."
A consequentialist argument may exist for the hunting of some wild animals. But don't forget: Humans bring into existence over 50+ billion animals each year. This can be avoided by simply not breeding them.
I understand what you're saying: killing a couple animals a year (per person) is insignificant compared with the billions that are killed in the wild in very horrible ways. Do you still feel only a couple of animals are insignificant if the animal is a human? Like I was saying before, every individual matters.
Hunting other animals makes sense, as you consider yourself apart of an ecosystem, but eating farmed animals and their secretions? Nah-ah... Can you expand on your thoughts regarding my comments I made in my previous post about toiletry products, etc.
Alex Melonas, I found your comments interesting and correct
Explain how it is unproven? When you are suffering, is it not the case that your number one priority is to have it stop?
"And this proposition fails that test. According to this proposition, the exploitative interspecies relationships upon which the functioning of nature is founded are fundamentally wrong. Moral emergencies are happening millions of times per second. How is that a practical philsophy?"
Did you read my last post? I addressed this. Sure, solving the problem of suffering in nature is next to impossible, but solving the problem of suffering of domestic animals is extremely easy: stop bringing them into existence. We don't need to bring them into existence.
"How is one supposed to be conscious of the moral implications of what is occurring in the world when moral emergencies are occurring with such mind-numbing frequency, such that even if every person all worked together at once (=global veganism) only a tiny, insignificant dent would be made in the rate?"
Intentionally harming animals when it can be avoided can be, for the most part, be easily avoided: veganism. No one is suggesting we "police" wild animals. We have no obligation to do so, and even if we did there is no practical way to do so (as you pointed out).
A quote from my previous post:
"It appears you're thinking the 50+ billion animals humans slaughter each year is insignificant to the number of animals suffering in the wild. Sure, it is, but so what? Never forget: Every individual matters. If a cruise ship sinks with 20,000 people aboard, is it not better to save 5 humans than 0?"
We agree that the overwhelming majority of suffering occurs in nature, but so what? Your argument is fallacious. The suffering an individual experiences is completely independent of others. The suffering is the same, whether 1 trillion others are suffering in a similar way, or no one else is.
"Point 1) is not the choice for me. Rejecting option 1 is why I went vegetarian, then vegan, and then, still not satisfied ultimately found myself forced towards option 2."
I don't understand your logic. Anyway, what you've presented in a false dichotomy. We can be vegan, and consider the suffering that occurs in nature to be undesirable. This means we shouldn't further contribute to the suffering that occurs in nature. For example, we shouldn't release carnivorous animals into the wild if it will result in more suffering than if we didn't. Furthermore, we shouldn't undertake terraforming that allows species' populations to further increase.
To be honest, I can only see a theist going for option 2. Why? Because they think the universe, nature, and life were created by an all powerful, all-loving compassionate god. How could gods creation be "wrong"? As an atheist, I am confident with my thoughts.
"In a nutshell, I accept the way nature works, and so, if I am at peace with the idea that nature maims and kills squillions of animals per second, then I am not going to beat myself up about killing one (directly or indirectly) every few days myself-- particularly when that animal is guaranteed to die and be eaten by something one day, anyway."
A consequentialist argument may exist for the hunting of some wild animals. But don't forget: Humans bring into existence over 50+ billion animals each year. This can be avoided by simply not breeding them.
I understand what you're saying: killing a couple animals a year (per person) is insignificant compared with the billions that are killed in the wild in very horrible ways. Do you still feel only a couple of animals are insignificant if the animal is a human? Like I was saying before, every individual matters.
Hunting other animals makes sense, as you consider yourself apart of an ecosystem, but eating farmed animals and their secretions? Nah-ah... Can you expand on your thoughts regarding my comments I made in my previous post about toiletry products, etc.
Alex Melonas, I found your comments interesting and correct
written by Alex Melonas, 14 June 2010
@Russell: This is why your argument is erroneous. If it were practically feasible, genetic alteration would be the “right” choice. My reasoning runs like this.
There isn’t anything inherently “good” about “nature”; “nature” is merely, and I mean merely, the “is” in the is/ought fallacy. The existence of carnivores and omnivores and herbivores is the arbitrary result of ongoing genetic mutation in response to external stimuli. “Nature”, the product of this process, is a capricious, chance phenomenon. In other words, “nature” is devoid of all moral/ethical content, and any attempt to connect an ethical/moral claim to “nature” is bound to be an is/ought or naturalistic fallacy.
The relevant ethical/moral concern, then, for me, is the harm and death that occurs in “nature”. Hypothetically, therefore, if genetic tinkering could result in the end of predation then that would be ethically/morally better, in the final analysis, than the alternative (e.g. allowing the lion to continue preying on a gazelle).
Because harm and death concern me, the practical limitations to this kind of evaluative argument, however, are impossible to overcome. The complexity or too many variable problem and human fallibility arise and such genetic tampering would no doubt result in more harm and death. Therefore, a strong policy of non-intervention is appropriate.
But I do hasten to add in response to those who appeal to the “self-evident” value of bio-diversity, or “nature” more generally, that your reasoning is predicated on a basic philosophical confusion. There is no inherent value in “nature” (for the reasons I mentioned above) and therefore altering “nature” (and hypothetically eliminating carnivores and omnivores) is not an unreasoned position.
There isn’t anything inherently “good” about “nature”; “nature” is merely, and I mean merely, the “is” in the is/ought fallacy. The existence of carnivores and omnivores and herbivores is the arbitrary result of ongoing genetic mutation in response to external stimuli. “Nature”, the product of this process, is a capricious, chance phenomenon. In other words, “nature” is devoid of all moral/ethical content, and any attempt to connect an ethical/moral claim to “nature” is bound to be an is/ought or naturalistic fallacy.
The relevant ethical/moral concern, then, for me, is the harm and death that occurs in “nature”. Hypothetically, therefore, if genetic tinkering could result in the end of predation then that would be ethically/morally better, in the final analysis, than the alternative (e.g. allowing the lion to continue preying on a gazelle).
Because harm and death concern me, the practical limitations to this kind of evaluative argument, however, are impossible to overcome. The complexity or too many variable problem and human fallibility arise and such genetic tampering would no doubt result in more harm and death. Therefore, a strong policy of non-intervention is appropriate.
But I do hasten to add in response to those who appeal to the “self-evident” value of bio-diversity, or “nature” more generally, that your reasoning is predicated on a basic philosophical confusion. There is no inherent value in “nature” (for the reasons I mentioned above) and therefore altering “nature” (and hypothetically eliminating carnivores and omnivores) is not an unreasoned position.
written by Russell Edwards, 14 June 2010
Elizabeth, in a nutshell, I accept that animal suffering is a fundamental part of the operation of nature. I am part of nature. As a human I am different to other species in that I am able to empathise with other animals, and have a greater level of intellect and technology at my disposal. Because I can empathise, I recognise that suffering is unpleasant, and because of our powers of intellect and technology, we have at our disposal the means to extract the same benefit from our interactions from animals whilst reducing the suffering this causes, at little or no extra cost compared to doing things the hard/dumb way as a wild nonhuman predator would. (In actual fact, without our intellect and technology we as a species would not be effective predators or farmers at all.) So, in this sense I am pretty much aligned with the "welfarist" position.
How can I empathise with suffering and still justify consuming animal products? Well for one thing, it is possible to do so without inflicting any suffering, for example scavenging or ideally head-shot animals. But that's kind of besides the point. I accept that my choice to use animals will at times cause some suffering.
The real answer is that the proposition that an animal experiencing suffering is a moral emergency is unproven, and is in fact unprovable. It's something you can choose to believe but if it's not proven then, like any unproven model it at least should be subject to a practicality test. And this proposition fails that test. According to this proposition, the exploitative interspecies relationships upon which the functioning of nature is founded are fundamentally wrong. Moral emergencies are happening millions of times per second. How is that a practical philsophy? How is one supposed to be conscious of the moral implications of what is occurring in the world when moral emergencies are occurring with such mind-numbing frequency, such that even if every person all worked together at once (=global veganism) only a tiny, insignificant dent would be made in the rate?
There are two solutions to that. 1) Bury one's head in the sand and live in denial of what your philosophy labels as gross moral outrages, or 2) reject the proposition that animal suffering is a moral emergency.
Point 1) is not the choice for me. Rejecting option 1 is why I went vegetarian, then vegan, and then, still not satisfied ultimately found myself forced towards option 2.
It simply must be accepted that is normal, natural, and acceptable for organisms to eat eachother. In a nutshell, I accept the way nature works, and so, if I am at peace with the idea that nature maims and kills squillions of animals per second, then I am not going to beat myself up about killing one (directly or indirectly) every few days myself-- particularly when that animal is guaranteed to die and be eaten by something one day, anyway. It may as well be me. I can still empathise and will not inflict suffering beyond what is necessary to extract the value I seek to extract from the animal. For me personally this extends to passing up questionable shots when hunting -- yes I took up hunting, such is my objection to living in denial of the consequences of one's actions and with the way of ecosystems -- and to paying the extra dollars for free range food. It does NOT extend to abstaining from exploiting animals completely, because as I said, I accept that exploitative interspecies relationships are a valid and proper part of nature.
How can I empathise with suffering and still justify consuming animal products? Well for one thing, it is possible to do so without inflicting any suffering, for example scavenging or ideally head-shot animals. But that's kind of besides the point. I accept that my choice to use animals will at times cause some suffering.
The real answer is that the proposition that an animal experiencing suffering is a moral emergency is unproven, and is in fact unprovable. It's something you can choose to believe but if it's not proven then, like any unproven model it at least should be subject to a practicality test. And this proposition fails that test. According to this proposition, the exploitative interspecies relationships upon which the functioning of nature is founded are fundamentally wrong. Moral emergencies are happening millions of times per second. How is that a practical philsophy? How is one supposed to be conscious of the moral implications of what is occurring in the world when moral emergencies are occurring with such mind-numbing frequency, such that even if every person all worked together at once (=global veganism) only a tiny, insignificant dent would be made in the rate?
There are two solutions to that. 1) Bury one's head in the sand and live in denial of what your philosophy labels as gross moral outrages, or 2) reject the proposition that animal suffering is a moral emergency.
Point 1) is not the choice for me. Rejecting option 1 is why I went vegetarian, then vegan, and then, still not satisfied ultimately found myself forced towards option 2.
It simply must be accepted that is normal, natural, and acceptable for organisms to eat eachother. In a nutshell, I accept the way nature works, and so, if I am at peace with the idea that nature maims and kills squillions of animals per second, then I am not going to beat myself up about killing one (directly or indirectly) every few days myself-- particularly when that animal is guaranteed to die and be eaten by something one day, anyway. It may as well be me. I can still empathise and will not inflict suffering beyond what is necessary to extract the value I seek to extract from the animal. For me personally this extends to passing up questionable shots when hunting -- yes I took up hunting, such is my objection to living in denial of the consequences of one's actions and with the way of ecosystems -- and to paying the extra dollars for free range food. It does NOT extend to abstaining from exploiting animals completely, because as I said, I accept that exploitative interspecies relationships are a valid and proper part of nature.
written by Gordon, 14 June 2010
// Continued from before...
"The rest relates to coming to terms with reality, accepting nature for what it is, and embracing my role as a legitimate participant in natural ecosystems."
This is exactly what I was talking about before. Why accept nature for what it is when it is non-moral? How can that be an ethical decision? Though can you explain how considering yourself "a legitimate participant in natural ecosystems" has effected the way you live your life? For example, what do you eat? Do you go hunting? Do you buy off companies that continue (needlessly, recognising nothing is wrong with the current generation of products) to create new ingredients for toiletry and personal-care products that require testing on animals? What about the farming of animals? What has farming animals got to do with the food-chain? You're not reducing the population of a species when you eat farmed animals or their secretions. BTW this isn't an attack, I'm genuinely curious.
"You say you intend not to contribute to animal suffering, and it's as simple as that-- but how do you cope with the fact that the natural world, through the lenses you impose on yourself, is such an unfathomably cruel, horrible, evil place? How can anyone cope with that? I'd say by living in denial. That's what all vegans I've ever known do--that's what I did when I was one, too. Buried my head in the sand."
I know this wasn't directed at me, but anyway... If you recognise the natural world contains a significant amount of suffering, and you also recognise suffering is wrong and undesirable, how did you come to the conclusion that you would "join" nature and see yourself as "a legitimate participant in natural ecosystems"? I consider nature to be non-moral (amoral?), and to "embrace" is immoral.
"Secondly Bea, are you happy not to contribute to it yourself or are you intent forcing other humans to stop contributing to it, too? Why do you pick on humans, specifically? Why not also coerce nonhuman organisms to conform to your value system?"
Again, I know you weren't asking me, but anyway... I believe the argument for NOT imposing suffering or premature death upon innocent sentient beings [without a legitimate excuse, such as provocation] is valid and strong. Coercing non-humans animals would be as successful as coercing mentally ill humans. It's important to recognise how easily we could prevent the suffering and premature death of over 50 billion animals each year - simply stop breeding them. People will continue to breed them if the demand is there. Compare that solution, to the solution for the suffering of wild animals... You know, the one you scoffed at, at the start of your reply.
It should be noted that I am not a Francione abolitionist. Still, the farming of non-human animals must be abolished, not regulated.
Elilzabeth Collins brings up an interesting point: "I mean, there a hundreds or thousands of herbivorous creatures out there, why are you not trying to emulate them?"
Indeed. It appears you're thinking the 50+ billion animals humans slaughter each year is insignificant to the number of animals suffering in the wild. Sure, it is, but so what? Never forget: Every individual matters. If a cruise ship sinks with 20,000 people aboard, is it not better to save 5 humans than 0?
"The rest relates to coming to terms with reality, accepting nature for what it is, and embracing my role as a legitimate participant in natural ecosystems."
This is exactly what I was talking about before. Why accept nature for what it is when it is non-moral? How can that be an ethical decision? Though can you explain how considering yourself "a legitimate participant in natural ecosystems" has effected the way you live your life? For example, what do you eat? Do you go hunting? Do you buy off companies that continue (needlessly, recognising nothing is wrong with the current generation of products) to create new ingredients for toiletry and personal-care products that require testing on animals? What about the farming of animals? What has farming animals got to do with the food-chain? You're not reducing the population of a species when you eat farmed animals or their secretions. BTW this isn't an attack, I'm genuinely curious.
"You say you intend not to contribute to animal suffering, and it's as simple as that-- but how do you cope with the fact that the natural world, through the lenses you impose on yourself, is such an unfathomably cruel, horrible, evil place? How can anyone cope with that? I'd say by living in denial. That's what all vegans I've ever known do--that's what I did when I was one, too. Buried my head in the sand."
I know this wasn't directed at me, but anyway... If you recognise the natural world contains a significant amount of suffering, and you also recognise suffering is wrong and undesirable, how did you come to the conclusion that you would "join" nature and see yourself as "a legitimate participant in natural ecosystems"? I consider nature to be non-moral (amoral?), and to "embrace" is immoral.
"Secondly Bea, are you happy not to contribute to it yourself or are you intent forcing other humans to stop contributing to it, too? Why do you pick on humans, specifically? Why not also coerce nonhuman organisms to conform to your value system?"
Again, I know you weren't asking me, but anyway... I believe the argument for NOT imposing suffering or premature death upon innocent sentient beings [without a legitimate excuse, such as provocation] is valid and strong. Coercing non-humans animals would be as successful as coercing mentally ill humans. It's important to recognise how easily we could prevent the suffering and premature death of over 50 billion animals each year - simply stop breeding them. People will continue to breed them if the demand is there. Compare that solution, to the solution for the suffering of wild animals... You know, the one you scoffed at, at the start of your reply.
It should be noted that I am not a Francione abolitionist. Still, the farming of non-human animals must be abolished, not regulated.
Elilzabeth Collins brings up an interesting point: "I mean, there a hundreds or thousands of herbivorous creatures out there, why are you not trying to emulate them?"
Indeed. It appears you're thinking the 50+ billion animals humans slaughter each year is insignificant to the number of animals suffering in the wild. Sure, it is, but so what? Never forget: Every individual matters. If a cruise ship sinks with 20,000 people aboard, is it not better to save 5 humans than 0?
written by Gordon, 14 June 2010
"Gordon, thanks for sharing that essay, which clearly articulates the logical corollaries of a value system based on negative "suffering" of individual organisms."
Why do you have the word suffering in quotation marks, just like with your original post with the word misery? It's almost as if you don't consider their suffering and misery to be real.
"Nearly all people nowadays place a very high value on the conservation of nature, and biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems are probably the pinnacle of all environmental values. These people would find the animal rights notion that natural ecosystems are inherently flawed and of great negative value to be extremely absurd, even perverse."
Does it really matter if "nearly all people nowadays place a very high value on the conservation of nature"? As an atheist, I place almost zero value on biodiversity. I would only defend biodiversity if, for example, the consequences of a species going extinct resulted in more suffering than before. Only individual sentient beings have inherent value.
"These people would find the animal rights notion that natural ecosystems are inherently flawed and of great negative value to be extremely absurd, even perverse."
Again, what's it matter what "these" people think. When you recognise suffering - be it prolonged and intense, or something as tame as an electric shock - to be absolutely wrong and undesirable, how can you seriously want to conserve natural ecosystems? It shouldn't surprise you that they are flawed, unless you are religious and believe they were designed by an all-powerful, all-loving compassionate god. It merely exists by chance. The objective of the game is to pass on your genes, not to lead an enjoyable and easy life.
I think it's extremely important for us to reject the premise "it's natural, therefore okay". What is natural, happens in nature, and the behaviour of non-human animals cannot be used as a justification, or a basis of our morality.
It's also important to recognise environmentalism has very little in common with animal ethics (as you pointed out). I think you'll enjoy this interview with Angus Taylor - http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows/angus_taylor. The prevention of suffering is far more important than species conservation, unless as a consequence of an extinction it results in more suffering. I care about the individual, not the species. I think it's irrational to think the reverse.
"Secondly, you argue we should simply not bring farm animals into existence, so I take it you see no intrinsic value in the life of a sentient organism. On this I neither agree nor disagree but simply point out that if you believe that, you should have no issue with the instant painless death of an animal? So in theory, a vegan diet is not necessary to satisfy your value system?"
I believe individual sentient beings have inherent value. Individual, not species. I see nothing wrong with the extinct of domestic animals (such as cows and dogs) by simply not breeding them. Imposing suffering or premature death upon individual animals raises an issue. Unlike Peter Singer, I believe most sentient animals do indeed have an interest in their continued existence, and killing them prematurely is a harm.
// To be continued, as my post is too long to fit in one post.
Why do you have the word suffering in quotation marks, just like with your original post with the word misery? It's almost as if you don't consider their suffering and misery to be real.
"Nearly all people nowadays place a very high value on the conservation of nature, and biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems are probably the pinnacle of all environmental values. These people would find the animal rights notion that natural ecosystems are inherently flawed and of great negative value to be extremely absurd, even perverse."
Does it really matter if "nearly all people nowadays place a very high value on the conservation of nature"? As an atheist, I place almost zero value on biodiversity. I would only defend biodiversity if, for example, the consequences of a species going extinct resulted in more suffering than before. Only individual sentient beings have inherent value.
"These people would find the animal rights notion that natural ecosystems are inherently flawed and of great negative value to be extremely absurd, even perverse."
Again, what's it matter what "these" people think. When you recognise suffering - be it prolonged and intense, or something as tame as an electric shock - to be absolutely wrong and undesirable, how can you seriously want to conserve natural ecosystems? It shouldn't surprise you that they are flawed, unless you are religious and believe they were designed by an all-powerful, all-loving compassionate god. It merely exists by chance. The objective of the game is to pass on your genes, not to lead an enjoyable and easy life.
I think it's extremely important for us to reject the premise "it's natural, therefore okay". What is natural, happens in nature, and the behaviour of non-human animals cannot be used as a justification, or a basis of our morality.
It's also important to recognise environmentalism has very little in common with animal ethics (as you pointed out). I think you'll enjoy this interview with Angus Taylor - http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows/angus_taylor. The prevention of suffering is far more important than species conservation, unless as a consequence of an extinction it results in more suffering. I care about the individual, not the species. I think it's irrational to think the reverse.
"Secondly, you argue we should simply not bring farm animals into existence, so I take it you see no intrinsic value in the life of a sentient organism. On this I neither agree nor disagree but simply point out that if you believe that, you should have no issue with the instant painless death of an animal? So in theory, a vegan diet is not necessary to satisfy your value system?"
I believe individual sentient beings have inherent value. Individual, not species. I see nothing wrong with the extinct of domestic animals (such as cows and dogs) by simply not breeding them. Imposing suffering or premature death upon individual animals raises an issue. Unlike Peter Singer, I believe most sentient animals do indeed have an interest in their continued existence, and killing them prematurely is a harm.
// To be continued, as my post is too long to fit in one post.
written by Elilzabeth Collins, 14 June 2010
Russell
with all due respect, please forgive me, but you are making no sense to me at all. Firstly, this issue being discussed here has nothing but nothing to do with what wild animals do to each other in nature. So please leave them out of it, that is not related. I mean, there a hundreds or thousands of herbivorous creatures out there, why are you not trying to emulate them?
This issue is about what we, the human species, are doing to animals. So let's turn it around for a bit: how do you justify morally our species use of nonhuman animals, given that we a.) don't need to eat them or their secretions in order to be optimally healthy; b.)don't need to wear their skin or fur c.) don't need to use them in entertainment d.) don't need to test yet another brand of lipstick or perfume or household cleaner etc etc on them. For all our sakes I will leave medical experimentation and guide dogs etc etc out of it for now when engaging with you, so let's talk about the above. I am opposed to all animal use, including medical experimentation, guide dogs, transportation, work etc etc, HOWEVER, I ask you to consider the above, for now. Let's start there OK?
In short: given that we have no need to use animals in the ways I have described (NEED is the operative word in this sentence) in any way; in other words we cause their torture and death for transparently trivial reasons such as taste, preference, amusement, pleasure etc, I am curious to know how you justify it, if you do at all. (If you are amoral then we probably won't get anywhere, so please just state that up front if that is the case...)
Please leave the wild animals out of it. This is about what we humans are doing. Thanks
with all due respect, please forgive me, but you are making no sense to me at all. Firstly, this issue being discussed here has nothing but nothing to do with what wild animals do to each other in nature. So please leave them out of it, that is not related. I mean, there a hundreds or thousands of herbivorous creatures out there, why are you not trying to emulate them?
This issue is about what we, the human species, are doing to animals. So let's turn it around for a bit: how do you justify morally our species use of nonhuman animals, given that we a.) don't need to eat them or their secretions in order to be optimally healthy; b.)don't need to wear their skin or fur c.) don't need to use them in entertainment d.) don't need to test yet another brand of lipstick or perfume or household cleaner etc etc on them. For all our sakes I will leave medical experimentation and guide dogs etc etc out of it for now when engaging with you, so let's talk about the above. I am opposed to all animal use, including medical experimentation, guide dogs, transportation, work etc etc, HOWEVER, I ask you to consider the above, for now. Let's start there OK?
In short: given that we have no need to use animals in the ways I have described (NEED is the operative word in this sentence) in any way; in other words we cause their torture and death for transparently trivial reasons such as taste, preference, amusement, pleasure etc, I am curious to know how you justify it, if you do at all. (If you are amoral then we probably won't get anywhere, so please just state that up front if that is the case...)
Please leave the wild animals out of it. This is about what we humans are doing. Thanks
written by Russell Edwards, 13 June 2010
Gordon, thanks for sharing that essay, which clearly articulates the logical corollaries of a value system based on negative "suffering" of individual organisms. I often point out these consequences and vegans typically try to refute them, so it's refreshing to have them acknowledged. (And there are some great references and quotes there I can make use of.) Unfortunately it fails to convey the absurd nature of those consequences, but I think they almost speak for themselves.
The idea that natural ecosystems should be replaced with artificial cruelty-free ones is probably the most absurd of those consequences. The result would be a disaster for biodiversity and of course for the ecosystems that have been "phased out". Nearly all people nowadays place a very high value on the conservation of nature, and biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems are probably the pinnacle of all environmental values. These people would find the animal rights notion that natural ecosystems are inherently flawed and of great negative value to be extremely absurd, even perverse.
This is why it frustrates me so much to see the animal rights movement sneaking itself in to the environmental movement when in fact their aims are fundamentally opposed.
Secondly, you argue we should simply not bring farm animals into existence, so I take it you see no intrinsic value in the life of a sentient organism. On this I neither agree nor disagree but simply point out that if you believe that, you should have no issue with the instant painless death of an animal? So in theory, a vegan diet is not necessary to satisfy your value system?
Bea, yes I did grow out of it. For me it was simultaneously an emotional, spiritual and intellectual journey. The intellectual side of it is covered in large part in the essay Gordon linked to (thanks again Gordan). The rest relates to coming to terms with reality, accepting nature for what it is, and embracing my role as a legitimate participant in natural ecosystems.
You say you intend not to contribute to animal suffering, and it's as simple as that-- but how do you cope with the fact that the natural world, through the lenses you impose on yourself, is such an unfathomably cruel, horrible, evil place? How can anyone cope with that? I'd say by living in denial. That's what all vegans I've ever known do--that's what I did when I was one, too. Buried my head in the sand.
Secondly Bea, are you happy not to contribute to it yourself or are you intent forcing other humans to stop contributing to it, too? Why do you pick on humans, specifically? Why not also coerce nonhuman organisms to conform to your value system?
The idea that natural ecosystems should be replaced with artificial cruelty-free ones is probably the most absurd of those consequences. The result would be a disaster for biodiversity and of course for the ecosystems that have been "phased out". Nearly all people nowadays place a very high value on the conservation of nature, and biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems are probably the pinnacle of all environmental values. These people would find the animal rights notion that natural ecosystems are inherently flawed and of great negative value to be extremely absurd, even perverse.
This is why it frustrates me so much to see the animal rights movement sneaking itself in to the environmental movement when in fact their aims are fundamentally opposed.
Secondly, you argue we should simply not bring farm animals into existence, so I take it you see no intrinsic value in the life of a sentient organism. On this I neither agree nor disagree but simply point out that if you believe that, you should have no issue with the instant painless death of an animal? So in theory, a vegan diet is not necessary to satisfy your value system?
Bea, yes I did grow out of it. For me it was simultaneously an emotional, spiritual and intellectual journey. The intellectual side of it is covered in large part in the essay Gordon linked to (thanks again Gordan). The rest relates to coming to terms with reality, accepting nature for what it is, and embracing my role as a legitimate participant in natural ecosystems.
You say you intend not to contribute to animal suffering, and it's as simple as that-- but how do you cope with the fact that the natural world, through the lenses you impose on yourself, is such an unfathomably cruel, horrible, evil place? How can anyone cope with that? I'd say by living in denial. That's what all vegans I've ever known do--that's what I did when I was one, too. Buried my head in the sand.
Secondly Bea, are you happy not to contribute to it yourself or are you intent forcing other humans to stop contributing to it, too? Why do you pick on humans, specifically? Why not also coerce nonhuman organisms to conform to your value system?
written by Alex Melonas, 13 June 2010
@Russell: In response to your question, as I stated again and again on a previous thread, to quote Peter Singer:
"[...] for practical purposes I am fairly sure, judging from man's past record of attempts to mold nature to his own aims, that we would be more likely to increase the net amount of animal suffering if we interfered with wildlife, than to decrease it. Lions play a role in the ecology of their habitat, and we cannot be sure what the long-term consequences would be if we were to prevent them from killing gazelles. [...] So, in practice, I would definitely say that wildlife should be left alone."
"[...] for practical purposes I am fairly sure, judging from man's past record of attempts to mold nature to his own aims, that we would be more likely to increase the net amount of animal suffering if we interfered with wildlife, than to decrease it. Lions play a role in the ecology of their habitat, and we cannot be sure what the long-term consequences would be if we were to prevent them from killing gazelles. [...] So, in practice, I would definitely say that wildlife should be left alone."
written by Bea Elliott, 13 June 2010
Russell - Do you really mean to say you "grew" out of veganism? What - to revert back to the archaic and self-centered "enlightement" of carnism? If that's emotional or intellectual "growth" I'll definately "pass".
"Tell me, what do you plan to do about all the "misery" wild animals inflict upon eachother in billions upon billions of natural acts of predation every day?" Very simple... I intend to NOT contribute to it...
"Tell me, what do you plan to do about all the "misery" wild animals inflict upon eachother in billions upon billions of natural acts of predation every day?" Very simple... I intend to NOT contribute to it...
written by Gordon, 13 June 2010
"The animal rights movement and veganism in general have come to an important cross-road, where its future rests on the decisions that are made today. The time has come for those in both camps to put aside their differences and stand up, speak with one voice, and shout one message.
And veganism is that message."
What are you talking about? Welfarists - i.e. RSPCA Australia and their members - do not consider veganism an obligation. I'd go as far to say that they despise vegans, because we "try to force our beliefs onto others". What makes you think welfarists will start promoting veganism (or even ovo-lacto vegetarianism)? They will continue to promote "higher welfare" animal products.
Take for example: http://www.facebook.com/notes/...6209140647
You may find my comment on that note interesting, yet familar. (it's about the 20th comment, so you'll need to click to show all comments)
"If you talk to the majority of those who promote welfarism, they will tell you that they have the abolition of all animal use as their ultimate goal. Yet the welfarist model has failed the animals miserably."
Who are these welfarists? Definitely nobody I have spoken to. Indeed, welfarism produces woeful results.
And veganism is that message."
What are you talking about? Welfarists - i.e. RSPCA Australia and their members - do not consider veganism an obligation. I'd go as far to say that they despise vegans, because we "try to force our beliefs onto others". What makes you think welfarists will start promoting veganism (or even ovo-lacto vegetarianism)? They will continue to promote "higher welfare" animal products.
Take for example: http://www.facebook.com/notes/...6209140647
You may find my comment on that note interesting, yet familar. (it's about the 20th comment, so you'll need to click to show all comments)
"If you talk to the majority of those who promote welfarism, they will tell you that they have the abolition of all animal use as their ultimate goal. Yet the welfarist model has failed the animals miserably."
Who are these welfarists? Definitely nobody I have spoken to. Indeed, welfarism produces woeful results.
written by Gordon, 13 June 2010
Russell Edwards,
How is "been there, done that" an argument for not being a vegan? If you once though imposing suffering and premature death upon non-human animals needlessly was wrong, how did you come to the conclusion that it is okay now? You appear to be totally irrational.
As for wild animals, perhaps you will enjoy reading this essay: http://www.utilitarian-essays....ature.html
The only problem is that there is no obvious or easy way to end their suffering. But we can easy end the suffering of the 50+ billion animals we exploit on farms and labs each year -- simply stop bringing them into existence.
How is "been there, done that" an argument for not being a vegan? If you once though imposing suffering and premature death upon non-human animals needlessly was wrong, how did you come to the conclusion that it is okay now? You appear to be totally irrational.
As for wild animals, perhaps you will enjoy reading this essay: http://www.utilitarian-essays....ature.html
The only problem is that there is no obvious or easy way to end their suffering. But we can easy end the suffering of the 50+ billion animals we exploit on farms and labs each year -- simply stop bringing them into existence.
Write comment
Thus accepted norms including morality and beliefs cannot escape the ideology that seeks to continue the perpetuation of that social order. In capitalism, that social order is accumulation of surplus value at the expense of the majority (who are obviously led to believe they aren't being exploited - thus the importance of ideology and liberal conceptions such as 'social contract'). The very nature of capitalism is a process of perpetual cycles of expansion and destruction of markets which necessarily leads to commodification of virtually everything. Of course, labour power is the key constituent of driving this process of extraction of surplus value at the expense of the working class. The commodification of labour power and the need to reproduce this exploitative social relation (via manufacturing needs and consent) leads to the erosion of the human being in the form of alienation.
Given the inherent exploitative nature of capitalism, the oppressive social order it creates and how it manufactures and breeds unnatural processes in human beings, namely alienation and the internalisation of the norms and ideology of the ruling class - its fairly clear that the social relations are neither just, natural nor in our interests.
With regard to sentient (capacity for some form of consciousness) nonhuman animals and certainly the 50 billion+ brought into existence as commodities, tho not the same experience in every form and degree of exploitation - the mechanism of extracting surplus value from the individual and social group and the alienation that entails are very similar. More importantly its unnatural.
Although pointing out the similarities in the exploitation of sentient beings and the effects it has on them is useful, a fundamental difference must be pointed out that humans are firstly responsible for the alienation of nonhuman animals (easily avoided) and that humans possess the unique capacity to create their material conditions. They create history. Indeed, naturally racism and sexism and even speciesism cannot exist without material conditions. Racism, sexism and even speciesism exist to maintain a set of concrete conditions and oppressive social relations. They are not natural and they are reinforced through unnatural means.
That said, I dont think morality is absolute. However, in relation to class society and the period of history we are in, its becoming ever more apparent that racism and sexism are immoral. Abolitionism is fundamentally about abolishing the property status and instrumentalisation process that HUMANS impose upon NONHUMAN ANIMALS. It is not an absolutist morality doctrine, rather, applying equal consideration for similar interests where practicable.