On Apr 16, 2009, at 12:54 AM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Ravi writes:
>
>> Most vegetarians are so because they want suffering to be minimised.
>
> I don't get that at all. I think there are at least three distinct
> "kinds" of vegetarians:
>
> - Political: "Eating meat is wrong"
> - Health "Eating meat is unhealthy"
Wrong for what reason? Actually my claim (above) is probably wrong, but for reasons other than you list: most vegetarians, I believe, live in India and a good number of them (the majority?) are so because they were born vegetarian.
>>> I don't recall the argument that meat was a necessity being put
>>> forth. When did I miss that?
>>
>> It has been in the general argument against the vegetarian position.
>
> Strawman. The "general argument" (if there is one) is not that
> eating meat is *necessary* but rather that it's "normal" and
> "common" ... so it's not like it's sociopathic to do so.
By general argument, I meant the argument outside this specific thread here on LBO. And there is definitely an argument against vegetarianism based on necessity out there. Here, on the list, I think (I have not been following it closely) Carrol is currently involved in a discussion with Gar which started with Carrol's doubt on whether vegetarianism provides necessary protein.
>>>> In the practice of industrial animal farming we in fact hold
>>>> microbial life in higher esteem over bovine.
>>>
>>> So I suppose that vegetarians would be okay with meat that's
>>> produced using non-industrial methods? I mentioned this before,
>>> but Niman Ranch is just one of a group of folks who know that
>>> tasty meat doesn't come from factories.
>>
>> Which vegetarians?
>
> Exactly the ones you claimed to speak for above :-)
>
If at all I do so, I claim to speak for vegetarians who are so because they believe it helps lower the suffering of other beings. For my type of vegetarians, then, meat that is produced using non-industrial methods is definitely a great advance of our cause.
> Regardless, I hold porcine life in higher esteem over most humans.
> And in death I celebrate it by eating it respectfully.
I applaud you for that. But remember the words of House of Pain:
I'm the cream of the crop, I rise to the top I never eat a pig cause a pig is a cop
;-)
On Apr 16, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Eubulides wrote:
> Understanding ourselves as talking ecosystems is better than science
> fiction, it makes for great biopolitics. A biopolitics that takes
> the work of not only Donna Haraway seriously as Alan suggested, but
> Lynn Margulis, Marjorie Profet, Gerald Edelman and Francisco Varela
> as well A biopolitics we need to make it to 2100.
That's the bizarre factor of this whole thread for me... where we started from.
On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:39 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Humans get a pass from me, even if they can't speak. Unless they're,
> say, trying to hurt my wife or kid.
That's fine, but we are, I thought, not having a specific conversation about your priorities and preferences?
On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
> At 1:07 PM -0700 15/4/09, Chris Doss wrote:
>
>> Try "brain, consciousness, and ability to suffer." Unless your
>> criterion for valuing human life is based on something else, such
>> as an immortal soul that you don't believe in, or resembling you,
>> which is a bit arbitrary.
>
> My "criteria" (I assume you mean basis) for valuing human life is
> that I am human life and I value my life. So as other people will
> tend to also value human life and incidentally they will value my
> life, I selfishly espouse that as a moral principle. I'm quite
> certain that this is the material basis of this moral principle and
> that all moral principles have a material basis.
Perhaps, but we can disagree on the material basis, and yet carry out a meaningful debate on higher ground. i.e., to repeat, I see no reason for reductionism based on a consilience principle. But if we must: moral principles could arise independent of individual reflection and take root due to survival fitness.
On Apr 16, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Chris Doss wrote:
>
> Aren't moral superiority and misanthropy standard charges against
> leftists?
Yes, but in those cases they are wrong. But when I do the same hand- waving, I am right. ;-)
On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:39 PM, Matt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:20:17PM -0400, ravi wrote:
>
>> You are trying to be clever, yes?
>
> I want to know whether we are discussing eating meat, or something
> else. Both you and Chris seemed to go back and forth between the
> topic of eating meat and the topic of causing suffering, with little
> more than some hand-waving in between.
>
Eh wot? I have offered detailed arguments. The answer to your question is: we are discussing not eating meat as a means to reduce animal suffering. We are not "going back and forth" between two disparate topics.
>> Well, in many instances these killings are justifiable (except when
>> they are not: like the people in New Jersey who want yet another
>> cookie-cutter mansion "overlooking the woods" but don't want to have
>> to deal with the danger of bears, so there is a bear hunt organised
>> each year).
>
> You are describing my question, not answering it. If it is
> unethical for me to eat the free-range chicken I bought Saturday at
> the market, why is it ethical to bulldoze a family of groundhogs to
> erect a building? The death of the chicken was swift and deliberately
> done to minimize its suffering; the family of groundhogs faces a
> worse fate.
My answer above (including the parts from my message not quoted) addresses this. Housing (or office space) in many cases (exceptions noted above) is a necessity for human survival. Assuming that your chicken was free-range the purchase of it is indeed an act of reducing the suffering of some animal (provided free-range makes sense). Does this mean we have dispensed with vegetarianism? Not at all. If you can make the choice to not take the life of the creature, then all the better.
>
>> Also the animals tortured and killed for eating is not
>> small. It runs into the billions each year.
>
> This is the hand-waving I referred to. "Tortured and killed". Who
> here specifically favors torturing animals?
>
Nobody does. That it happens (and this fact is made known) does not imply that someone favours it.
>> These are not arbitrary. They are justified at multiple levels: (1)
>> need vs choice: you need to kill a mosquito else it will kill you
>> (unintentionally). We find people (other than little boys) who
>> torture
>> insects, especially without reason (reason = say medical research),
>> problematic.
>
> Another hand-wave here from "killing" to "torture". This is why I
> said based on what I am reading about what "vegetarian" is said to
> mean, the opposite of it ought to be "psychopath".
I see no hand-waving above. I note two issues: one of taking the life of a creature, second on reducing the suffering of an animal. Both are issues that are of concern for many who advocate animal welfare issues, and both are problems that can be addressed through vegetarianism.
>> (2) extension of reasoning: awareness and avoidance of
>> suffering, etc.
>
> This does not help me sort animal killing into your justified and
> not-justified categories.
No it doesn't (though it can inform such classification), and hence (1).
>>> I would also not lump vegetarianism together with advocacy for
>>> animal
>>> welfare. In fact, doing so distracts from the goal of ensuring
>>> that animals raised for food are treated as humanely as possible.
>>> The
>>> former is viewed as an extreme movement with the appearance of a
>>> secular religion, while the latter reduces animal suffering and
>>> improves the health of the humans who consume them.
>>
>> Viewed as?
>
> s/viewed as// :)
>
;-)
> This is my concluding, and most important, point. And if I may mock
> you, **revealing** that you did not directly address it.
>
> When you promote vegetarianism - the practice of not eating meat - as
> the morally superior diet, you should expect people to respond
> defensively to your judgement. Specifically, stop equivocating not
> being a vegetarian to torturing animals.
>
> There are sound arguments for replacing the factory farming of animals
> with a humane system. Since, like you, most humans see killing animals
> as often justifable, discussing the killing practice instead of the
> eating practice allows us to focus on ensuring that when killing is
> justified, it is done in the most sustainable, humane way possible.
>
Sure you can mock me ;-), but note that I did not respond with mere puns. You might find my arguments insufficient but that doesn't make them non-existent!
Look, my posts are littered with the subtle gradations of the recommended actions in favour of my goals of animal welfare. But it would be wrong of me to give you the idea that I think that adoption of a vegetarian (or some would argue, vegan) diet is not the more humane thing to do. Again, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The arguments against my position are I think more guilty of the jumps and hand-waving that worry you so. They vascillate between personal animosity towards vegetarians (their attitude) to radical doubt.
Your last paragraph concerns tactics. That is not my motivation here on this list. If I were arguing with a bunch of centrist meat-eaters, I would indeed employ the techniques you suggest. Of course that would also entail the use of cuteness and cuddliness of creatures.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself ;-) PeTA => http://peta.org/ Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/