[lbo-talk] good morning my fellow ecosystems

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Wed Apr 15 16:14:34 PDT 2009


ravi wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Chris Doss wrote:
>>
>> I think it's silly. Bad things should be minimized. Causing pain and
>> suffering is bad. Killing animals causes pain and suffering.
>> Therefore...
>>
>> It's not exactly a complicated logical argument, or one with
>> controversial premises (unless you're one of those epistmological
>> jackasses who only believes in Cartesian doubt only when it comes to
>> a premise he doesn't want to accept).
>>
>> Why should the burden of proof be on the advocator of vegetarianism
>> anyway? It's not like meat-eating is a universal human practice.
>>
>
> To some extent it is. Very few purely vegetarian communities have
> existed in human history, AFAIK. However, as you imply, large numbers
> of human beings live a healthy vegetarian life (I would estimate a 100
> million or more, just in India), and the argument that meat is a
> necessity, generally speaking, does not seem to hold much water.
>
> You are quite on target I think w.r.t the opportunistic use of
> Cartesian doubt. Ignoring the revealing attempts at humour here on the
> list, there are some serious arguments that have been offered against
> many of the positions of animal rights/welfare. A while ago I posted
> something from Bernard Williams here on LBO. I will try to find it
> again on the Internets.
>
> --ravi

Very few? What were they? Is none "very few"?

I don't recall the argument that meat was a necessity being put forth. When did I miss that?

I have the same need to reduce human suffering yet not buying Nike's won't bring that about so why should not eating meat be any different?

I agree with Chris that the idea that animals don't suffer is beyond silly. We have no reason to assume that animals can't suffer. They are evolutionarily similar to us, have similar brain chemistry and structure, and engage in behaviors that can more readily support than deny the idea that they suffer. What reason do we have for claiming that humans underwent some amazing change that is so significant it separates us from animals in a fundamental way yet cannot be shown to exist in any physical or behavioral manner? I don't know that when I adult human claims something hurts they aren't engaging in anything more than the same conditioned response some claim for animals yet no one here would ever make that claim in any seriousness would they?. The differences between humans and other animals are ones of degrees. Animals eating each other is part of a completely natural cycle. Some anti-vegetarians like to claim that humans alone suffer or have consciousness but vegetarians put forth a similar claim when they say humans alone should remove themselves from the hunting/eating life-cycle. It's wrong for a human to kill a gazelle and eat it but it's alright for a lion for what reason exactly? That humans alone can suffer and/or have consciousness? How can the same argument, that humans alone have special cognitive abilities that are different in kind rather than degree from other animals, be used simultaneously to support conflicting arguments?

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list