By becoming a vegetarian . . . at least right now . . . at least that’s what I’m thinking.
Let’s start by supposing that eating factory farmed meat is morally wrong (shouldn’t be too hard, but if you need help you can watch The Meatrix), and that eating meat is not itself morally wrong. One response is to become a vegetarian, but it seems that a better response would be to eat free range meat (and not just because you would still get to enjoy meat). By eating free range meat you would be keeping your ‘meat money’ in the market and affecting the market for the better. You would be giving incentive to increase the number free range farms and the availability of free range animal products, and would be taking action to have a larger share of the meat market be occupied by free range farms.
Free range farms, I take it, could not satisfy the current level of meat demand, so at some point in the future (when the free range farms are at or near their market capacity) it might be time to become a vegetarian, but that time is at least not now.
I think I have to agree with you (until at some point someone else offers an opinion that changes my mind).
I eat fish and dairy products and eggs. I realize I should be more conscientious about the farms that produce those products.
And it seems (while we’re at it), I also think I should be more conscientious about the factories where I buy other products. Are the humans treated fairly? Are the humans paid an adequate wage?
I saw a movie about Temple Grandin. Here is an excerpt from wiki about her:
Grandin is considered a philosophical leader of both the animal welfare …… Her business web site has entire sections on how to improve standards in slaughter plants and livestock farms.
Kant would say “no problem here man”.
My main problem with free range meat (and other organic and green products) is that they are, disgustingly, charitable capitalism. Which, incidentally, is unrelated entirely to the morality of eating factory farm meat.
Noah, I don’t think that your point (“charitable capitalism”) is entirely tangential to this discussion to the extent that the original poster writes that:
“. . . it seems that a better response would be to eat free range meat (and not just because you would still get to enjoy meat). By eating free range meat you would be keeping your ‘meat money’ in the market and affecting the market for the better. You would be giving incentive to increase the number free range farms and the availability of free range animal products, and would be taking action to have a larger share of the meat market be occupied by free range farms.”
…and your point, Noah, if true, seems to speak against choosing (what I will contain within the catch-all of) “green products” . . .
-IF-
. . . that choice is selected because it is taken to be more morally justifiable than vegetarianism as an alternative to “I don’t care and I am going to eat anything and everything…at the absolutely cheapest possible price points.” Yes?
Paul,
Vegetarianism is probably equally morally justifiable to buying free range meat which are both better than buying “the cheapest stuff”. The reason I brought up charitable capitalism, however, is because of the way people use it:
Companies sometimes sell mislabelled “green” products that are exactly the same as regular products designed to either (1) sell for a higher price or (2) be preferable over “non-green” products and gain market share through deception.
Consumers sometimes use “green” products to do good for society (“I’m saving the rainforest by buying this mop!”) without having to actually DO any good. That is, it provides an easy out for self-worth
I don’t think this case in particular is an example of misuse of charitable capitalism.
Assuming it’s wrong, I would say we should go with growing muscle tissue in a lab, or using animals that have been genetically modified to be without higher order brain functions. If we had strains of animals that are close to plants that animals, then many of the ethical problems might be solved.
That hits me with the “yuck” factor. I keep thinking of those chickens that they genetically modified to fatten up but the chickens became so big that they couldn’t walk…it seems so sad.
Another idea is to upload the information in the human brain to an intelligent computer that doesn’t actually need to eat but can simulate the pleasure of eating via virtual computer games. I just finished reading a book called ‘Science Fiction and Philosophy.’
Until now, I had never heard the term “charitable capitalism.” I googled it and didn’t find much. IF I understand it correctly, it means that a company sells us a bundle—one product that we want to consume and the other is something that is considered charitable. I don’t see anything wrong with that if it is a company that we trust.
The problem with “free range” meats are that the animals have to be killed in the end. They still meet a very cruel fate at the slaughterhouses. Also, the oversight on “free range” is very, very deceptive.
http://www.humanemyth.org/
http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html
I too was once a vegetarian because I knew none of the issues surrounding eggs and dairy. But once I learned about eggs: How the male chicks are ground (live) within a day or two because they are “worthless” to the egg industry… How hens are confined their entire lives (even in “open housing”) and how they two suffer horrific deaths once they are no longer “productive” it was an easy choice to find substitutes for eggs…
Dairy cows as well suffer horrific lives… They are artificially inseminated, because like all mammals they only lactate after giving birth. Their babies are taken from them almost immediately. The male calves go to a very early slaughter. Some with their umbilical cords still attached. All this so that humans may have the milk intended for the calf. Does not seem like a good choice if one wishes to extend compassion to the innocent.
I’ve been meat free for 8 years and vegan for 3… I’ve never felt better. This is a great time to eschew animal products, there are so many tasty and nutritious options in stores now… Of course it’s better for the environment, our health and the animals too.
Finally, good point on the treatment to workers who are involved in animal “production”. Most become callous and desensitized – They have the highest incidents of depression, suicide, domestic violence and crime… Is this really the way towards a more enlightened society?
Thanks for inviting comment. I encourage anyone who is interested in animal issues to watch Earthlings:
http://www.earthlings.com/
Relevant data on suicide rate per occupation: http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/sh20040126ar01p1.htm
Farmers (in which category animal farmers are placed) do not possess the highest rates of suicide.
I suspect a cursory investigation into domestic violence and other crime figures will further reveal that you are wrong.
That makes sense, then, Noah. Thanks for the response
beaelliot Said:
Just wondering, is there a source you can cite for this claim? Also, highest rates of depression, etc. among whom? Workers in general? American workers? Factory workers? Seems vague.
Beaelliott,
Why, exactly, is it immoral to kill an animal for food? I suspect, like many, that you have a ‘yuk’ feeling and end it there, no?
In my assessment, if we are to ground morality on anything which approximates a rational foundation, we must exclude non-human animals from the domain of moral constraint. This is not to say that one may not seek and be awarded social accolades for evincing certain behaviors with respect to non-human animals. For instance, I find gratuitous acts of violence towards non-human animals tasteless and would not respond well to those who commit them. However, I would not hold that those acts are immoral (with the caveat that they would be immoral * if * they prevented one from maximizing one’s considered preferences in the long run).
Regarding your claim that ‘Most [factory farm workers] become callous and desensitized – They have the highest incidents of depression, suicide, domestic violence and crime (…),’ I have not found data which are substantiating. I have, however, found much anecdotal evidence (in which category I place your testimony) which supports your claim.
In fact, the non-anecdotal evidence which I have found shows that your claim is false. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services produced a report (2007) which, among other things, breaks down the rates of depression among full-time employed adults by occupation which you if you like read here: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k7/depression/occupation.htm
The category in which farm workers were placed was ranked (a modest) 16th, lower than, e.g., those employed in community and social services, education, sports and media, and the legal profession.
Granted, I spent only 20-minutes in my investigation, but it does appear that your claim is inaccurate.
This may seem tangential, but I think it has some applicability to your comment. I am a great Sherlock Holmes fan (I have read almost all of his stories and short books). Holmes often counsels Watson that it is wise first to gather evidence before forming a theory lest he makes his evidence fit his theory rather than his theory fit his evidence. In brief, Holmes warns Watson of falling prey to confirmation bias. It is easy to want to think animal farm workers are overall unhappy because of their profession and that animal farming is environmentally destructive, but it is quite another to provide evidence for that position; and certainly quite another to base one’s belief on the evidence rather than making the evidence substantiate your belief.
Well, Aaron, morality may not have much of a rational function. Yuk and the processes that lead to that feeling-state may be one of the necessary foundations of ethics. To exclude feelings from rational functions could be to kill ethics. For instance, consider that if you took pain away then you could never have a moral wrong, for you could never cause harm, and many of the pains we have are purely emotional. Ethics needs feelings in this respect. It also needs feelings on the part of the moral subject, the actor, because if he had no feelings of yuk, respect/love of order or compassion/empathy, then he would have nothing that is even remotely ethical to drive him to ethical action or ethical inaction. You might say that need and interaction would drive him, but if this is all ethics is then it loses something vital, for it wouldn’t just be egocentric it would narcissistic. And, there definitely seems to be more to ethics than that. Beaelliott’s ethical perspective may be untempered with anything but decent grammar, but Beaelliott may be functioning on the foundation of morals. Sometimes by trying to keep ethics rational, you may destroy the reason for it the first place.
I couldn’t live as a vegetarian, but there seems to be something very revealing about morals, natural ethics, in the perpectives of vegans, vegetarians and pescatarians. They’re rational in their perspective because they are operating out of an unmixed foundation of pure ethics. They are driven by compassion and empathy that has broken the boundaries of just humans and spread to envelope other feeling creatures, creatures whose pain has no effect on them, but does affect them. I am beginning to think that if more people were this irrational, this compassionately driven, our world would be a much more rational place.
I think the lack of evidence, and the pure emotional appeals may not take into account the necessities of meat. Killing the meat industry may have devastating effects on people’s lives, and it may be that it provides an easier source of protein, micro nutrients and pleasure to people who are limited in their abilities and intelligence to organize their diets around the vegan/vegetarian life-style.
Joel Said:
I find it interesting that, by your account in other threads, religion can have no solace in faith without rational reason and yet somehow morality can find safety behind unreasoned “feelings.” I think there is certainly an avenue open to saying that such feelings, either moral intuitions or faith-based beliefs, can be the basis for a rational investigation into why those feelings/beliefs exist, but I am not sure that this is your position.
Jared:
There is a difference, Jared, between feelings states as a necessary condition of overal ethics, and using it as a way to ground religion. We know we feel sadness, compassion, anger, pain, happiness, suffering and flourishing. And these have intrinsic motivations towards pro-social action, they have the neural underpinnings to promote or necessitate actions and the phenomenological quality of valence to give importance. I’m not saying that there is anything metaphysical aside from a motivating concern; I’m not saying there is an objective morality. I’m simply stating that the phenomenal gives value, a valence, to morality, and that the underlying processes giving rise to those feelings states motivate action as a moral synthesis of subjective value and objective necessity. Without those we loose something significan in the moral concept. Saying that somehow these give you God, a non-apparent metaphysical entity, would be a stretch and give you many many counter examples. It may make you able to believe and still be rational, but it won’t allow you have a rational belief in God.
Joel,
I believe some clarification in the way of my initial response is in order, since I believe I was somewhat vague in my critique. You said initially:
I took this to mean that feelings across the board should not be removed from the set of rational functions by which we can evaluate theories and ideas for rationality, within the realm of ethics or otherwise. I see nothing in your second response that excludes this reading. If this does not logically follow, I suppose I would like to know why ethical feelings are the exception to the rule, or conversely why religious feelings should be discounted.
In your second response you said:
I have no a priori issue with this statement, though if I read you right it seems you are saying that religious feelings do NOT (1) have neural underpinnings to promote or necessitate actions, (2) motivate pro-social actions, and (3) possess valence, thereby importance. I think it should be clear that there is no a priori reason to claim religious feelings do not include most, if not all, of these qualities. With respect to (1), I would like to point to the studies that religious feelings are, to a certain degree, hard-wired into the structure of our brain: http://www.mindpowernews.com/BrainGod.htm. With respect to (2), I think there are plenty of examples of pro-social action motivated by religious feelings (volunteering with a church group, group prayer, etc.) and (3) clearly religious experiences possess valence as a manner of lending them importance, and I do not feel the need immediately to cite sources demonstrating the positive/negative classifications of religious experiences, though I will if you would like.
Following this, you said:
Religious feelings need not contain metaphysical import; they must only provide one rational reason for a person to foster that belief out of the set of rational functions. This is where I believe I may have been vague – I did not mean to indicate that a religious feeling should form the basis for making a claim for the existence of one or more metaphysical entities. Rather, as I state earlier in this post, that if feelings can be called tools within the set of rational functions we possess for evaluation, then they must exist accross disciplines unless there is some reason for excluding them in certain cases. If you believe there is adequate reason to reject them for religious inquiry but not ethical, then I would like to know why that is. Otherwise all I was pointing out was a seeming incongruity between your position in posts on the “Parsimonious” thread and this one. Hope the clarification helps!
Joel,
I believe my original criticism was not expressed well, and so I’d like to clarify based on your initial post and your subsequent response to mine. Originally you said:
I took this statement to entail that feelings ought to be included in the set of rational functions which we use to evaluate ideas and theories for rationality, not simply for ethics but in general. I do not see any a priori reason why religious feelings should be excluded, but if you believe they should be or that ethical feelings are the only ones that ought to be included, I would like to hear why.
Again, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, it would appear that religious feelings fit these criteria as well. Since it would seem to be the most contentious claim, here is a link to an article that discusses the neurological underpinnings of religious experience as being hard-wired into us: http://www.mindpowernews.com/BrainGod.htm. There are many other studies that confirm religious feelings can be recreated in the brain, which would lend credence to your acceptance that they are, at the very least, similar to ethical feelings. For example, http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-argument-from-religious-experience/artificial-religious-experiences/. While you may see this as proof that, because they can be replicated, they must be seen as not referring to the actual existence of a metaphysical entity, this is not my argument. See below.
This is where I believe I was unclear. I did not intend to argue that religious feelings hold metaphysical import with regard to the existence of one or more deities. Rather, including feelings as rational tools must take place accross disciplines or areas, unless you can demonstrate why this is inappropriate or is only appropriate in the case of the ethical realm. The purpose of my post was to point out a seeming incongruity between the content of your posts on “Parsimonious” and here; it would seem in the former you were quite skeptical of the rationality of religious feelings, and here it would seem necessary to include religious feelings as one tool in our rational set used for evaluation, thereby calling into question your former skepticism of religious feelings AND the rationality of religious belief stemming from religious feelings.
This position may stem from my misunderstanding of your former posts or of this one, but I do not see any prima facie reasons in your posts in this thread that would necessitate religious feelings being excluded or ethical feelings being the exception to the rule. Hope the clarification helps!
Jared:
How do you propose that feelings should be used in rationality? I don’t quite understand what you mean. Feelings are. In that sense, they can be used for something. You can assert things about feelings, like they exist. Although, there would be an access problem in certain areas. I don’t think that feelings are omitted as an entity that can be talked about. They obviously exist.
I’m not skeptical of feelings; I’m skeptical of the content associated with them. I’m skeptical of the way a feeling of certainty has attached itself to certain ideas. I’m skeptical because humans can feel doubt about what is in fact certain; and be certain of what is positively in doubt. Feelings can attach themselves to almost anything—it’s just classical conditioning of the qualitative.
The way I am using feeling here is just analytic with feeling and as nothing else. It is analytic of feelings they have quality. Two of the most intrinsic features of feelings is a primal ascent or feeling of Good; or a primal revulsion or feeling of bad. There is a natural valence in feelings. Ethics, with or without the idea of a transcendent, human independent morality, needs that general concept of valence to work. A severe limited “bad” valence would be suffering or pain. You need pain or suffering to have a wrong or injustice so a wrong can be done—or there would be no need of ethics. You need a valence of good to feel “right” and a valence of “bad” to feel something is wrong. Feelings can be used like this to prove something, but notice I have been very careful not to go any further than what is already found in a very limited use of feelings or emotions.
I did not say they should be – you did:
I don’t want to belabor this, but my point remains that to include feelings with rational functions within the realm of ethics means they ought to be included in other realms (e.g. religion), unless there is a reason for excluding them in certain instances. As far as I can see you still have not addressed this point except to say the ‘feeling’ you are referring to is a primal sense of good/bad, which is entailed in the word “feeling” itself. So? It seems you still have not resolved whether feelings are to be valued as tools for rational inquiry (in whatever sense you wish) or whether they are not.
Looking past the fact that in your response to Aaron, as I have previously mentioned twice now, you appear to lend a little more weight to feelings than you are willing to now, I suppose my question should be rephrased:
So, such a primitive, stripped-down conception of feelings can be useful in ethics and morality in forming the base upon which rationalization can occur regarding pleasant/negative, good/bad, good/evil and subsequently the formation of some sort of moral or ethical system? If I understand you correctly, this creates the opportunity for my original critique:
Your original statements appear to require that we lend the same courtesy to feelings in creating the base for religious systems in much the same way.
If I am misunderstanding you, I again apologize. I do not think this is a point worth paying special attention to; it was merely an aside. Nevertheless, I am still curious what your position is.
Jared:
Yes, Ok, I was being a little funny. Aaron is skirting the issue. I don’t believe he believes in morals, at all. His conception seems to be merely pragmatic: morals are functional. However, in his functional theory, which looks less like anything ethical and more like something that promotes order, he has lost something vital in the common definition and conception of ethics or morals—which is only vital in that context (not as anything real). I’m saying that our current conception has feelings involved. Those feelings aren’t saying anything, but “good” or “bad”, “owww” or “MMMnnn”. They don’t say anything rational, and have no bearing upon truth except that we have them.
That being said, “feelings” are human interest. And, those interest may promote us to rationalize around them—we rationalize to make us feel better. Ethical theories are to rationalize the non-rational, and, for many people, if you take away the non-rational feeling, it would steal the power of the rational because you only rationalized for the purpose of those feelings. Ethics and religion are like this. If you take away the emotion by making something purely pragmatic, or as a tool for organizing people, you have taken it out of the definition that most people call moral or ethical.
I don’t believe in objective morality, so I am not saying anything about the truth of feeling. However, I do believe that Aaron isn’t giving as much credit to feeling’s place in his theories as it needs. I don’t think he is acknowledging how much feeling motivates his theory. Because human interest or human feelings are the only reason we need “ethical theories” or anything pragmatic. I was provoking something which he seems to avoid: he’s not talking about ethics; he’s talking about order; and, if he’s talking about order then he needs feelings; if he needs feelings, he needs to say more about them. He has taken himself outside of common definition of ethics while still clinging to it. He’s dressed up his words to disguise their meaning–but in his disguise, he’s lost the fact that even his theory has the same motivator, which would change his theory. At least that’s my hunch.
So in short: Yes, you can use feelings as motivating value; And, NO, you cannot use them as part of the rational. I’m sorry I was confusing. It was being facetious. And, honestly, I was struggling to make a hard distinction—to you—that is more complicated than I can work out here or in short, both because I’m not yet skilled enough to make it so short, and because it requires context. I will probably write about it later as a full post, so I can clarify, and so I can find a way to make it real short.
Hi Jared – In her book “Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry” Gail Eisnitz conducted an eleven year investigation inside American packing plants. Her research found common place neglect and poor oversight to “humane” regulations on animals. Workers (most immigrants, many illegal) would be fired if they turned “whistle blowers”.
http://www.exploreveg.org/issues/farmtofork.html
“Management does not care any more about workers than animals. The slaughterhouses employ the economically desperate, including many immigrants, legal and illegal. Working in a slaughterhouse is among the most dangerous jobs one can work. Workers often are badly cut as they try to kill an animal improperly stunned; their hands or arms are cut off in the machinery; hoisted animals fall on them; they suffer various kinds of repetitive motion syndrome. They have little break time, and often are forced to urinate on the floor rather than leave their station. The routinization of death has dehumanized them, although some privately admit concern for the animals. Many are alcoholics and drug abusers, and bring their violence home to their families.”
http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/Slaughterhouse.htm
Eisnitz documents alcoholism, anger, misery, murder, fear, family violence, callousness, sadism, compassion, jail time, prison sentences–the slaughterhouse milieu including the “good times.”
http://www.upc-online.org/fall98/slaughter_review.html
“Esinitz interviewed dozens of workers and inspectors from all over the country. They consistently told her of skinning live, conscious cows, lowering live hogs into tanks of scalding water, beating animals to death with lead pipes, and whipping, kicking, strangling, and repeatedly shocking the animals. They also tell of the dangers presented by the struggling animals, who break the workers’ bones, cut them, and even trample them. Workers are very reluctant to complain about these and other dangerous conditions, though, because they know they’ll lose their jobs if they speak up. When they do complain, nothing at all is done about the problems.
In one of the most nauseating moments, a worker tells of taking out his frustrations on a pig by cutting part of its nose off and rubbing salt into the bloody stump. Another worker tells of having “fun” by beating the hogs with a led pipe or forcing them to jump into the scalding tanks”.
http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1511/pg1/index.html
The Shame of Meatpacking: “the companies are especially intent on keeping labor costs as low as possible and volume as high as possible–which translates into hiring cheap labor, discouraging unions and maintaining intolerably high chain speeds, even if those things contribute to the industry’s astronomical turnover rates”.
http://www.thenation.com/article/shame-meatpacking
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the animal slaughtering and processing industry employed a total of 506,000 people at the close of 2005. The average earnings of production workers that year was $11.47 an hour, about 30 percent less than the average wage for all manufacturing jobs in the U.S. According to REAP, a union-affiliated group, union membership among meat packing employees has plunged from 80 percent in 1980 to less than 50 percent today.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html
“Meatpacking is the most dangerous job in America. In 1998, the latest available statistics, at least 29.3 percent of meatworkers suffered injury or illness, compared to 9.7 percent for the rest of manufacturing, the Labor Department reported”.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/slaughterworkers.cfm
AND
“…the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data report that 30 out of every 100 employees were injured or sickened on the job in 1996″.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer785/aer785d.pdf
“Meatpacking Industry Immigrant workers hold 80% of jobs. Slaughterhouse workers, because of low pay & monotony of work most work only a short time—leave & move on to other low paying jobs… Creating rural ghettos—crime, poverty, drug abuse, homelessness…”.
http://alturl.com/du8yo
One would almost have to be oblivious to not see how this type of daily routine manifests itself in alcholism, drug abuse and crime outside the work place as well.
BLOOD, SWEAT, AND FEAR Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants
Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/01/24/blood-sweat-and-fear
Probing the Link Between Slaughterhouses and Violent Crime
Criminology professor Amy Fitzgerald says statistics show the link between slaughterhouses and brutal crime is empirical fact.
“I have a graph that shows that as the number of slaughterhouse workers in a community increases, the crime rate also increases,”
Fitzgerald carefully weighed the figures in order to see whether a link really existed. She found that an average-sized slaughterhouse with 175 employees would annually increase the number of arrests by 2.24 and the number of reports by 4.69. The larger the abattoir, the worse the local crime problem.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.animalstudies.msu.edu/Slaughterhouses_and_Increased_Crime_Rates.pdf
I have no reason to believe that this information would not hold true for foreign slaughterhouses as well.
The point is, anyone using just a bit of sense could see that these jobs are anything but desirable. The lowliest people do them… It is all of course so people may continue to blindly consume “cheap” and “humane” meat.
Aaron said:
In my assessment, if we are to ground morality on anything which approximates a rational foundation, we must exclude non-human animals from the domain of moral constraint.
end quote
Joel said:
They are driven by compassion and empathy that has broken the boundaries of just humans and spread to envelope other feeling creatures, creatures whose pain has no effect on them, but does affect them.
end quote
Soooooooooo certainly Joel is disagreeing with Aaron, yes? I see no reason why we need to exclude nonhumans when we make rules about what is humane and ethical. I thought that Temple Gradin had an interesting perspective. She developed techniques to accomplish her ideals, ie that animals should be treated humanely. That doesn’t mean that we couldn’t kill them and eat them. According to the movie, there is a quick and easy way to kill an animail. I think (but I could be wrong) that is also part of required rules to label meat kosher. The animal has to be killed fast.
I fear suffering more than I fear death.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/slaughter/slaughterhouse.html
quote from above link:
You describe it as this difficult environment for the animal, to some degree. What about for the worker? I understand that the Bureau of Labor Statistics says it’s the most dangerous job in America.
Certainly worker safety historically not been as good as it should have been in the packing industry. It is becoming better and better — both humanely driven by the management of the packing companies, and very selfishly driven by the fact that the lack of safe practices can become an incredibly expensive thing. So packers have continued to develop better safety practices, individual automation of individual acts that reduce the stress on the individuals working in the packing business. It is still a tough way to make a living; a difficult job.
Hi Aaron… I would say that the most moral course man can
take is to cause as little harm to innocent life whenever
possible.
If you say that gratituous acts of cruelty are reprehensible I
would take it to mean that killing for frivolous wants
would be wrong. If there is no “need” to kill/eat animals for
our sustainance. And I do claim that… Then we are slaughtering 10 billion land animals/year in the U.S. for
taste and habit alone. Please define exactly what you find
“necessity” to be, especially in regards to taking life? And
if you were to say “survival” of course I would agree. But
we are not bushmen or Inuits – We all in this “modern” world have thousands of nutritious and delicious alternatives. Yes?
As far as the statistics pointing to depression in workers – Your site does say that “food preparation and serving related occupations” are at 10.3 percent. Which would
be the second highest. So your information bears me out.
Furthermore, most slaughterhouse workers, because
they are low paid workers (many illegal) – They do not have
access to medical treatments, and are therefore “invisible”
in this study…
But really, common sense would tell anyone that slitting throats, chopping off hooves and eviscerating once living beings all day would have extreme negative impacts emotionally to those tasked to do such.
Now… You took me out of context – I did not say “animal
farm workers” were suicidal or prone to crime/drug use… I’m speaking of the workers who “process” the animals that the farmers raise. The farmers for the most part are quite removed from what happens to the animals. With the exception of having to “cull” “runt” piglets. But even that burden is left to the menial workers… Same as the destruction of baby male chicks in hatcheries – conveyor belts and machines perform that task – So workers (farmers) can remain distanced from the killing.
But in all consideration, I do not need studies or graphs, or
anyone elses conclusion to know that the destruction of life is repugnant to most decent people. We are brought up with an understanding that life is precious to each one who possesses it. All are equal in that they value their lives. Surely stealing that life only supports a belief that “might makes right”. And is that truly a course that an enlightened culture pursues?
The game is afoot.
Hi Susan… I’d just like to clarify what the word “humane” means. It means to be concerned with alleviating suffering. These animals are not ill or in aging pain. They are quite healthy and “fit” for life… So there is no “suffering” to end – Only suffering to cause.
Granted, Grandin’s system has improved the process of killing and the dis-assembly of cows considerably – But there is still an 18% variable in most slaughterhouses. She does audits… Suggests recommendations – Many times there is no follow through and no oversight.
See The Washington Post “They Die Piece by Piece”.
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=nature-health/livestock/they-die-piece-by-piece.txt
And finally – of the 10 billion land animals that are killed every year for food – 9.5 billion are chickens, turkeys and ducks. All “poultry” is excluded from the “humane” slaughter act. You’ll find with just a bit of investigation, these birds live and die in the most horrible ways.
http://www.upc-online.org/slaughter/
And of course, no fish — is ever killed with the concern to his “suffering”. There is a myth of “humane slaughter” – It is what we want to believe to make the matter easier to ignore:
Sorry, meant to say fishes are “never” killed with concern to suffering.
I think we can all agree that the meat industry has a vested interest in sanitizing the process. The footage that they show has usually been carefully edited to keep away the most egregious scenes. It is only by under-cover investigations that any of us really gets an inside look into farms and slaughterhouses. This most recent one from Mercy for Animals has revealed what is all too often hidden:
http://www.meatvideo.com/
The point is that we can thrive on a plant based diet – Which makes this cost in lives for “meat”, seem very cruel and excessive. Isn’t it better to be compassionate instead?
Killing animals who have a face, movement in warmth should naturally stimulate a feeling of protectiveness and some level of empathy. I think it is very plausible that slaughter houses and certain farms promote a kind of callousness to empathetic function which could generalize to humans. It is not an indifference that we want in a human society for sure. However, people are not going to give up meat anytime soon.
We should work on ways to reduce/eliminate suffering and the direct link between meat and killing a feeling entity with a face. We have the tech to genetically modify animals, so they don’t have higher order brain functions, so it literally would be a warehouse of meat rather than of feeling animals. We could then breed these animals with only lower functions associated with “life”, like breathing, heartbeat and balance, and keep pain out of the equation. It is just a matter phasing out conscious meat and allowing greater acceptance of genetically modified livestock. What else does an animal who spends in a tiny crate need for a higher order brain. I have a particular problem with pork because of this. Pigs have elaborate, highly associative brains, and we keep them in these tiny pens. If we took this function away, we would have this problem.
It isn’t a pie in the sky solution; it is one we have now. There is fairly large body of literature on Cerebral proteins and modifying them generically in animals. We have given higher order brains and taken them away. We should do it with our food so we’re growing animals that are more akin to plants; rather than treating feeling animals less like feeling creatures and more like plants.
Hi Joel – You’re absolutely right… Our animal “kin” and their interests should stimulate our empathy.
There is technology now that is working hard to create “vat meat”… This would help with the environmental issues from factory farms and the flesh could be made with human health benefits (?) instead of hazards. But that even brings up issues of cannibalism because in essence we could create vat meat from humans (our mothers or even ourselves) but that’s another topic entirely.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/invitro_meat
Your idea is to remove the “feeling” part of the animals correct? On the technical end of that is this causes many problems in “livestock” handling. Pain sensors are there for a reason, they keep all living beings from harming themselves. In theory if a living being could not feel pain, they could “damage” themselves and become totally “unprofitable” to the industries making money from their flesh. We could also say what do cows, pigs and chickens need eyes for… What do they need to see in a warehouse? You see as we go down that road our “use” of animals only becomes more “inhumane”.
The second point here is… If we could do this: raise beings without sensory feelings – Would it be okay to do this with humans so we could harvest blood and organs from them? I hope you say “no”. Part of life is the *right* to feel the full range of experiences possible to that body you possess. Yes, even the pain that comes from age… Of course if human individuals choose to opt out of these experiences, it is their *right* to pursue means to do so… With nonhumans, it entails “us” to intervene and interpret what’s in their best interest. I hardly think an animal would opt to have their pain receptors eliminated so that we could slaughter them more “kindly”. Empathy and compassion don’t require that we do *the very least* in our efforts to be kind… But the very most. Not breeding or killing animals to eat (as an unnecessary food) is a great step in that direction!
Your observations on pigs is keen… I can also say, in caring for a small flock of rescued factory farmed “egg hens” that they are precious, unique and autonomous beings themselves. People don’t often get to interact with birds – especially those designated as “food”… But I assure you, they are just as sentient, aware, interesting and interested as any cat or dog… Or pig.
Besides, if you are to use “intelligence” as justification in using certain beings… What about infants? Or those with limited brain function… Or the comatose? Can we rightfully “use” them for our purposes because they are “less” than us? Granted, everyone can’t write poetry, paint a landscape or compose a symphony — BUT… Is that the criteria for compassion and basic respect to life? If so, I know many “normally” functioning humans that would hardly make the grade either.
Finally you say “We should do it with our food so we’re growing animals that are more akin to plants; rather than treating feeling animals less like feeling creatures and more like plants”. Why not just eat the plants instead? It’s better for you – Better for the planet… More just in food distribution and sustainability.
There is tremendous waste that goes into meat production… We fatten animals 6 times the protein as we get from their bodies. This system demands mono-cropping, soil depletion and is a threat to wildlife as well. Every being from starlings to coyotes, wolves and horses must be “managed” for this system to function.
Manure lagoons seep toxic waste into our water sheds… Meat uses 250 times more fresh water to process than fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts and seeds… It’s just bad news all the way around.
I appreciate it that you are open to alternatives… That you are willing to examine better ways. I really respect that your mind is open to change and discovery. Good on you! Just keep investigating – The truth is out there… If you have the courage to know it.
http://www.nonviolenceunited.org/veganvideo.html
Bea:
First, I admire your empathy and respect for life, and, second, thanks for the article on vat meat!
You say:
I’m not talking about taking out pain receptors as sensors for feedback; I’m talking about taking out the higher order brain functions for integration necessary to have phenomenological pain. We should leave in the aversive responses in because even in cages there could be damage.
You say:
I don’t think raising who humans without higher functions to serve as host for organs is wrong qua raising humans without upper level functions. Because, they wouldn’t be human (except genetically). They would be large scale tissue samples. However, this would be really really disconcerting to people and it could result is several conceptual problems for common people when it comes to the intrinsic value of human life. In other words, it could create serious social problems.
And, on that related point, if we raised an animal human or otherwise without the being able to feel in the phenomenal sense, they wouldn’t really have rights because we could do them no wrong and no right—they don’t feel. They are objects, tissue samples, that we can easily anthropomorphize. Nothing else. You might appeal to the dignity of the animal. But, dignity is only a social figment of imagination and only meaningful to those who are living and have high enough brain functions to conceptualize the content and feeling. Most animals won’t be able to do this about our tissue farms of their genetic kin.
You say:
I’ve had many chickens and when dogs killed my last roost of them, when I was 13, I wept like a baby. However, if you gave me a robot with complicated enough programming and natural movements, I would humanize it in the same way I did the birds. It’s natural to give them sentient features. And, it’s good. We should. Honestly, I think this is one of the problems with butchering animals; it degrades this aspect of human attribution. If it gets easy with an animal, it can get easy with a human or higher level non-human. That aside, they simply can’t process pain in the way we do. They aren’t conscious of themselves. They look like it, though, and we give them our qualities because of inference through similarity.
You say:
No. And, I am not simply using intelligence. I am talking about the ability to process the pain as suffering as many higher organisms might be able to do, like we can do. And, the issue of infants is close to home because its a serious ethical hot topic. What’s the difference between sucking a baby out of a womb with a vacuum to kill it, and doing the same when it’s in its mother’s arms? There are serious ethical problems here. As for the comatose, we pull the plug sometimes and we don’t see that as unethical—well some of us don’t. And, those with limited brain functions, well, I would say that if they are talking and interacting with family, feeding themselves and such, then it’s likely they can phenomenally feel pain. Also, individual, highly variable situations are different from saying this entire species lacks the mechanism to have qualitative pain, rather than just aversive responses.
As for everything else:
You’re right. We should look for better ways. But, I’ve lived with vegans and vegetarians for extended periods, and I’ve lived with poor and middle income families—and it’s hard for vegens and vegetarians to get he right nutrition without being highly organized, knowledgeable and self controlled at a level that many common people cannot function at. I’ve watched people practically starve because of their noble belief in being a vegan. And, for poor families, with limited time and resources, meat offers complex nutrition and pleasure, quick and cheap. The Veg lifestyle simply isn’t practical to them.
If the masses are to move beyond killing, then meat alternatives need to be extremely feasible. Or, the demand is going to keep the killing going. Allot more people would get ethical if being meatless was easy.
Bea Elliott,
It appears that in my haste I placed slaughterhouse workers in the ‘Farmers, Fishing, and Forestry’ category when it turns out that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, abattoirs are categorized under ‘Manufacturing,’ along with steal mills, textile facilities, etc. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cg1002.htm). Since the U.S. Health & Human Services utilizes BLS categories, abattoirs are categorized under ‘Production’ in the data set which I referenced above, which means the rates of depression for factory farm workers approximates 5.9%.
Also, wages for slaughters and meat packers are indeed much lower than other production / manufacturing jobs. However, this is not due to, as you seem to suggest, the ‘unethical’ nature of their occupation or to economic exploitation. Rather, as the BLS points out, “Most production jobs require little formal education or training; many can be learned in a few days,” which means that the supply of labor relative to industry demand is high and thus wages are forced down (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs011.htm). The wage which slaughters and meat packers receive is, per their voluntary consent, proper remuneration for their labor.
There is no ‘just’ wage outside of the wage contracted: wages are determined by supply and demand for labor and labor productivity. Moreover, if one were to impose minimum wage floors below market clearing wages in the food manufacturing industry, then unemployment is the inevitable result.
Also, while the workplace related injuries associated with food manufacturing jobs is high, this alone means nothing. I suspect that managers implement and enforce various safety procedures in order to minimize injuries to employees (it is not in the slaughterhouses’ best interest to have employees injured due to company malfeasance), and the associated risks involved in the job are well known to current and prospective employees and are therefore assumed in accepting employment.
The Fitzgerald et al. research which you cite does not show what you think it shows. In standard hypothesis testing, if the p-value is greater than alpha (the significance level), then do not reject the null hypothesis; if the p-value is less than alpha, then reject the null hypothesis. In all three models, the p-value of slaughterhouse employment was less than alpha, thus it is inferred that it is a significant predictor. The observational context in which the variable evidenced significant predictive power was rural counties with small populations.
Sparsely populated counties, crime will be relatively low, in particular violent crimes (for which Fitzgeraldet al. primarily measured utilizing notoriously unreliable Uniform Crime Reports data), and when a proportionately large influx of population enters the county, average and total crime parameters will increase. In other words, let us say that there were 5 physical assaults in a rural county of a population of 10,000. Now, add two 4,000-person facilities and we should expect that the number of physical assaults will almost double. Not surprisingly, this is what occurs, on average, so statements such as “Particularly telling is the fact that expected arrest and report values in counties with 7,500 slaughterhouse employees are more than double the values where there are no slaughterhouse employees” (11) are almost uninformative.
Nevertheless, Fitzgerald et. al. run a negative binomial regression and come up with an incidence-rate ratio (IRR), separately, for: total arrests, violent arrests, murder arrests, rape arrests, family arrests, sex arrests, assault arrests, index reports, murder reports, rape reports, and assault reports. Even given their own analysis, only the first in the list, total arrests, showed any statistical predictive significance, viz., the p-value < alpha. All the other categories showed a null effect (it should be noted, however, they make great efforts to explain this away and employ some dubious statistical treatments to substantiate their tenuous claims).
That aside, the IRR for total arrests was only 1.000454, which means that each additional meat packer would increase total arrests by about .05%. The proceed to admit that at first blush this seems inconsequential (it is!) but that, when one considers that many facilities employ thousands of people, “the actual effect could be much more substantial” (12). The 'could be' here is of particular interest because they do not possess data on the 'actual effect.' However, we can set that aside as well.
Even if I grant that the IRR for total arrests provides putative evidence for their claim that slaughterhouse practices influence the criminal behavior of workers, the research suffers from a greater difficulty: the p-value fallacy.
The p-value is the probability, given the null hypothesis (the hypothesis which states that the independent variable does not affect the dependent variable), of observing the data actually observed [e.g. Pr(D|H)] but Fitzgerald et al., like many others, interpret the p-value as the probability of the null hypothesis given the data (e.g. Pr(H|D); the two are NOT the same! E.g., the probability of observing a dead man given that they were guillotined is very high, but the probability that the dead man was guillotined is very low.
The problem is that evidence is relative to the hypotheses (below, the null hypothesis H0 and a plausible alternative, probabilistically determined, hypothesis H1) under consideration. To run an hypothesis test with only the null hypothesis is to miss the relative nature of statistical evidence, commit the p-value fallacy, and neglect prior probabilities. In short, there are better tests which incorporate prior probabilities based on prior knowledge bases. One in particular is a Bayesian hypothesis test where the posterior model probability = (prior model probability)(Bayes factor).
In nuce, the change in prior probability Pr(H0|H1) to the posterior probability Pr(H0|D)/Pr(H1|D) is determined by Pr(D|H0)/Pr(D|H1). If Fitzgerald et al. were to run a Bayesian hypothesis test, the null hypothesis would not be rejected. In fact, the minor IFF with respect to total arrests would prove no more than noise in the data (no different than chance), even when controlling for the other explanatory variables!
As for the rest of your sources, I am unimpressed.
Not to add to the turmoil…
P.S. Bea Elliott, I have a longer response to your laundry list of sources cited above.
The response is awaiting moderation due to the inclusion of a few external links.
Bea Elliot,
In short, I do not hold that maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain are the goals of moral actions. In fact, I find the fixation on pleasure and pain per se odd and a bit arbitrary. Indeed, tp give moral consideration to all sentient beings seems as arbitrary as affixing moral worth to, say, human sentience only:
Why should one give primary (or even secondary) moral consideration to sentience per se? Well, because pain is bad and pleasure is good!
Why should one give primary (or even secondary) moral consideration to human sentience and not non-human sentience? Well, because human pain is bad and human pleasure is good!
Moreover, it seems to me that one may possess an inverse evaluation and value pain over pleasure (perhaps a world populated by the most severe masochists) just as cogently as one may value pleasure over pain, and just as arbitrarily.
Furthermore, it seems entirely plausible that while one may weigh sentience in one’s moral calculus, one may ascribe sentience a minimal value, and instead weigh more heavily other factors, such as capacities of reason, the ability to read music, an eye toward Vermeers, the ability to participate in reflective moral reasoning and discourse, evince time preferences and have the ability to constrain the satisfaction of another’s subjectively determined value preferences, etc.
For me, only persons are moral agents and only persons are moral patients. Naturally, here you might wish to run the demarcation argument. That is, press me for a neat and tidy demarcation between persons and non-persons. Your hope, I presume, is that whatever definition I give you can point out a class of types which, on intuitive grounds, I might want to countenance but have not and, conversely, include a class of types which, on my own argument, I wish to exclude but cannot.
My response is twofold:
The demarcation argument possesses, if run consistently, gravely implausible implications, especially if one gives inordinate weight to intuitions. E.g., at some level you will have to assert that the life of an adult, cognitively normal, completely healthy chimpanzee is as valuable, if indeed not more so, than, say, your newborn infant. And, if the appropriate thought experiment were constructed, you would have to assert that the moral course of action is to save the chimpanzee and allow the child to die, perhaps in a horrible manner. Of course, you could bite the bullet, but then so could I upon pressure from you and we could have a beauty contest with our intuitions: I defend the infant and you defend the chimpanzee. In all likelihood, however, your intuitions will contradict your argument.
Moral agents impose moral obligations (either positive or negative) upon other moral agents. Moral agents, ex hypothesi, have the capacity to act morally. That is, they can discern between right and wrong actions, however defined, and enter into moral reasoning and choose to act, or not act, in accordance with their moral obligations. Animals do not evince moral agency; humans do. I extend moral agency to humans, all humans, because humans qua humans evince moral agency. When humans do not, it is either temporary (children) or due to an anomaly (neurological-cognitive disorders, severely injured etc.). Furthermore, as moral agents we must countenance the preferences of other moral agents, and it is a fact that most (myself included) possess value preferences for showing kindness (in a literal sense of the word) and compassion to humans, children or the handicapped.
Furthermore, as an ex-child I am fortunate that others cared for me and as a potential handicap I would want others to care for me if a misfortune were to occur, so consistency demands that I act accordingly. In the end, humans as a species are moral agents, we do not determine moral agency on an individual by individual level.
To close, a quote from Roger Scruton:
“If the apes survive, it will be because we decide (spurred on by Jane Goodall) to save their habitats. And the same will be true, in time, of virtually all the larger animals. And if domestic animals are bred and cared for, it is because we have an interest in their products. In all our dealings with the animals, the inherent mastership of the human race displays itself. And this only goes to show that we alone have the duty to look after the animals, because we alone have duties. The corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights.”
Hi Joel – So you’re talking about taking out the higher order brain functions for integration necessary to have phenomenological pain… I guess you invision a sort of meat “robot”. (?) Or an unresponsive sort of “flesh slave”. (?) All this would fit in line with paradise-engineering or the Hedonistic Imperative. And I do believe eventually the goal of a pain free society will be reached. I think though, that ought to be left to the desires of each individual… And not foisted on beings who would have no say.
Further, there are other issues to consider… We are so far removed from that “pain-free” “food animal” – What happens to the billions of animals in the meanwhile… As they do have full awareness of fear and pain? How will we go about designing this technology… But of course, we will experiment on billions of other animals as well. All this to eat flesh? Seriously?
In addition this kind of system will only accelerate the harms done to our environment through even more aggressive “factory farming”. Resources will still be foolishly wasted fattening animals while leaving humans to starve. And wildlife will be even more endangered as we “protect” livestock. Again, all this to eat flesh? Seriously?
It is all based on man’s goal to not feel guilt about causing an animal harm… What about the prospect of altering man so he becomes indifferent to it? Put that way, it doesn’t seem like such a great idea does it? Perhaps man was meant to care? Perhaps nonhumans have a role in our world beyond just the “uses” we have sentenced them to? Perhaps nonhumans are here to teach us how to live. By that I mean to respect life for the intrinsic worth of that life… Not for benefit “it” may be to us. (?)
In any case, we will probably perfect vat meat well before these questions arise.
You are right that there would be no ethical issues in mistreatment to a human or nonhuman if they had no conceptual capactities. We’d be talking about “zombi” things not beings. Although there still are moral implications to the deliberate destruction of even inanimate property. One must consider the motivation of doing so… What was the purpose of the destructive act? Also what materials did it take to make it or to replace it? In the concept of valuing all materials for they are finite on this planet – There would be questions involving even this shallow act. There is a level of responsibility in everything we do… Just because money buys property – One cannot (or should not) abuse the priviledge of ownership… We are all just borrowing a short place here. Best to leave some to those who follow. Yes?
You say “if you gave me a robot with complicated enough programming and natural movements, I would humanize it in the same way I did the birds.” Perhaps, but on a very superficial level. You might give “it” a name, laugh with/at “it”. But it would still be an “it”. The thing (right now, auto-bots aside) is that we do share a very unique quality with other living beings. We all know we are in the world.
I disagree with you when you say “They aren’t conscious of themselves”. I believe they are totally aware that they exist. Perhaps not in the complex way I know I exist, right now… That I am typing as a means to communicate to Joel on a computer. But they do know “I am. I am here. I’m hungry/thirsty/happy/curious/tired/bored/anxious/afraid, etc.”. To say they aren’t conscious of themselves is to say they don’t have interest in their lives… Which would mean we are free to do with them whatever we please. I disagree with that assumption. I believe even the smallest mouse has the same equal a desire to live as I do.
About processing pain: Even to say that suffering, pain or fear matters less to an animal than to humans fails to see things from the nonhuman’s perspective. If I were held captive – Perhaps I felt my life were threatened… I could do one of many things. I could reason my way out of the situation, even if only in working out “a plan” in my head. I could hope for a rescue – Knowing there were people who cared and who were looking for me. I also could pray… I could look to a higher deity or the chance at “heaven” should my life end. All these activities can lessen man’s level of fear.
Terrorized animals however have fear – And *only* that fear… They are with it (only) and themselves. There is no plotting for escape or hope for justice… No thoughts for an “Other” to help them… No sweet (true or not) thoughts of an afterlife “eternity”. They just have now. And all the moments of terror or joy that they are capable of experiencing. Their lives… Literally their bodies and breath – are the world to them. Seems pitiful to deny them even that little bit while on this earth such a short while.
Finally, I think you’re mistaken about the difficulty in getting proper nutrition as a vegan. Stores (and resturants) have really expanded their lines of veg-foods. There’s also a huge array of legumes, beans and vegetables to be had. Remember, all food has protein… not just “meat”.
I am on a fixed income – Not rich by any means… I am quite a “common person”, really. And I am not starving at all! My meals are not “highly organized”. I eat a variety of food – Most of it takes less than 20 minutes to prepare. All it required was a tiny bit of research. The internet and any library carries a wealth of information for those so inclined to discover a better way of eating.
Finally, you mentioned the desire for “cheap” food… When one adds up the cost to the environment and to human health/life due to our (SAD) Standard American Diet – We really must ask ourselves is this high price okay to pay for “cheap” food?
Hi Aaron… This, the idea of not using animals as “food” or as “clothing” or as “entertainment” does not fit within the “lifeboat” scenario. It isn’t a matter of “us or them”. Only in the way that we remove their habitat or snuff them from life. Other than this, there is no dire need to breed and kill animals for food. It is simply a matter of taste that makes this so.
I have no problem with “farmed animals” going “extinct”. They are not made of nature anyway. To compare their existence to polar bears or elephants is totally off base. Domestic animals were man created and could be removed from the eco-system without regret or loss to the environment. In fact, many rainforests would be preserved if not for having to grow thousands of acres of soy and corn to feed these “food animals”.
And I see in your definition that “looking after animals” necessitates the use and slaughtering of them. I think they’d just want to be left alone…
Yes, we are the ones who are moral agents. We are the only ones with the faculty to distinguish right from wrong… Therefore we do have a “duty” to do what’s right… Not for their sake alone – But for ours. I don’t know that there is anyone who would dispute that causing less harm whenever possible is a righteous way to live… Not killing when there is no “NEED” to fits into this line of thinking.
Why prevent or avoid animal suffering? Because in this one way we are all equal. “The one counts as one; But not more than one”. ~ P Singer
Finally, please do not confuse nonhuman’s inability to do math as an inferior quality. You are judging them by human standards. That would be like saying man was inferior to an eagle because we can’t fly… Each being has unique qualities that make him/her “superior” in their own niche in life. Man’s supreme goal is to find peace and harmony within the structure of life – Killing never furthers this end… It is an obligation to our own species to negotiate nonviolent ways of living. All violence is the same whether the victim has 2 legs or 4.
First it was necessary to civilize man in relation to man. Now it is necessary to civilize man in relation to nature and the animals.
~ Victor Hugo
Oh… and Aaron the youtube link you provided for Tibor’s speech? If you’ll note I watched and rated that video two years ago… With 6 “thumbs up” on my assessment of his lecture. His theory is lame and his delivery was agonizing.
Sorry.
Lastly Aaron – If you’re truly interested in Animal Rights – You might want to view the Abolitionist Approach website owned by Prof. Gary Francione:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
So sorry… This was the video I intended to post: a series of lectures by Prof Francione… By the way, I will re-watch those of Tibor – To make sure I did not over look anything in his theories 2 years ago. Fair enough?
Bea Elliot,
A few clarifications.
First, I am largely unconcerned with the Animal Rights debate because, for me, animals are neither moral agents nor moral patients.
Second, I endorse neither Tibor Machan’s position nor Carl Cohen’s position on this matter. I did not post the videos in an effort to present my position. Instead, I posted the videos to counterbalance, purely for informational purposes, the previous video post about Tom Regan.
Third, the Scruton quote was not an endorsement of his position en bloc. The portion of his quote which I do endorse is this: “(…)because we alone have duties. The corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights.” To clarify further, I differ with Scruton in that I do not believe that we have duties to “look after animals;” I hold we have duties only towards other humans. Moreover, Scruton and I have different notions of moral duties. In fact, even with respect to humans our conceptions of moral duties vary greatly.
Fourth, the so-called ‘Lifeboat’ situation to which I intimated (infant-or-chimp) was presented merely to show that you, at some point, must make ethical distinctions which suffer from the demarcation problem just as much as ethical distinctions which are contrary to your own.
I should at this point emphasize that while you may carry on in your wooden and perfunctory manner about how unethical current human-non-human animal relations are (killing for gustatory satisfaction, using animals as a primary food source, all that stuff), I find you to be doing nothing more than attempting to transform a set of deeply held, quasi-religious subjective value preferences into substantive moral duties, which is for me objectionable.
I will end with a bit of humor but which is directed toward your essential point and which should highlight our differences to some extent. You write:
“There is no dire need to breed and kill animals for food.”
But of course there is dire need to breed and kill animals for food. If we do not breed and kill animals, then meat will be expensive and hard to come by. I do not want meat to be expensive and hard to come by. Therefore, there is a dire need to breed and kill animals. To be sure, breeding and killing animals is perfectly moral, for the human satisfaction derived from consuming such meat justifies it all.
I will end this exchange and leave the last word with you.
P.S.
I should also add that, though this is not the proper topic of the initial post, I do not share your reverence for ‘Nature’ and I could care less if an animal is or is not ‘made of nature.’ In fact, much of what you say suggests to me that you possess something like a religious view towards ‘Nature.’
Apparently I lied about the last word stuff. I wanted to add that your wholesale acceptance of the Fitzgerald et al. study (which is problematic on more grounds than those which I identified) leads me to believe that you are willing to lower your standard of evidence when it comes to information which confirms your preconceptions.
To add to this, the rest of your sources were either as equally (actually more so) bad as the Fitzgerald study and as ideologically (religiously?) biased.
ok, now you have the last words.
“…..because, for me, animals are neither moral agents nor moral patients.”
That sentence caught my eye. That is something I ponder. It is addressed in the book “Science Fiction and Philosophy.”
The question seems to be “what deserves civil rights?”
Only intelligent humans?
Only humans…even stupid humans…even humans in a vegetative state?
Only animals that have some level of intelligence?
Humans and robots that have intelligence?
I have to catch up on all this…I haven’t read it all yet….
I do plan to read these posts. This issue is one I ponder. I do eat dairy and eggs. And based on these posts, I am going to try harder to get my dairy and eggs from farms that treat the animals humanely. And (for now) I will probably define humanely as something that doesn’t hit me as “yuck.” Maybe…someday in the future…the effort to get dairy and eggs from such places may become so burdensome that I will indeed become a vegan.
Aaron – To go back to your earlier post: In regards to slaughterhouse workers “it is not in the slaughterhouses’ best interest to have employees injured due to company malfeasance” – Well not unless the workers were very disposable. I have been in the past been involved in a suit against a very small company due to “malfeasance”. There may be laws which once broken have consequence – But good luck trying to fight their reluctance to do so. I still stand by my assessment and many other’s first hand, that the packing industries put both workers and animals “through the meat grinder”, figuratively and literally.
I think I can assume rightfully that from you avatar you are a student of Objectivism? I too have studied Any Rand (decades ago) and her philosophical viewpoints I found the most inconsistent and telling flaw was in her inability to square-up in any sufficient manner, the concept of “animal rights”.
I was pleased to find this essay as a rebuttal coming from this “libertarian/capitalist/individualist” POV because it aptly answers your statement that: “we do not determine moral agency on an individual by individual level”. No. And I say that we should not either, on a species to species level either.
This author expounds:
“If you think about it, the Argument from Species Normality is very un-libertarian. It demands that we judge a being not as an individual, but as a member of a group, in this case her species. This is no different from the ‘identity politics’ we hear from the left. If it’s senseless to decide a person’s value or moral status solely on the basis of his race, it’s equally senseless to decide a person’s value or moral status solely on the basis of his species. Species, by itself, is simply not morally relevant. What matters is the nature of the individual, viewed under the light of objective moral principles”.
It saves me a lot of typing and time as I can’t find anything I disagree with. And it was very telling that even the “head thinkers” found animal rights difficult to sustain an argument against, especially in the Argument from a Marginal Case: “Dr. Branden cut him off: ‘I’m afraid I won’t be able to help you on this.’ Dr. [Nathaniel] Branden explained that he himself had ‘struggled’ with the question of the moral status animals. He said even Ayn Rand (a confirmed cat lover, by the way) had felt there must be something morally wrong with mistreating animals, but, unable to make it fit her Objectivist philosophy, she shelved the issue. As for him, he could not deny the pure Aristotelian logic of the Argument from Marginal Cases. He was stuck.”
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/graham/graham1.html
As far as holding “duties only towards other humans” – Even if I had an exclusionary view of what duties man has towards other living beings… I would stand steadfast that it IS a moral duty to my fellow “man” to evolve towards a non-violent position in our culture. Societies will always breakdown when force and might are held as justifications for wrong doing. I don’t know if you’re are/were a “Trekkie” fan… But there’s a reason Gene Rodenberry chose to set the captain and crew of Enterprise in a world of non animal exploitation. It is our greatest challenge in the effort to civilize our selves. I’m happy to see that I live in a time where these long overdue issues are finally being evaluated by an engaged culture.
These are not subjective, quasi-religious values – These fundamental truths are universal. All beings wish to live. To disregard those desires for frivolous wants puts us in a compromised position to use any and everyone if “force” or “might” is the standard of these violations. Again, animals aside – It is to our own benefit that we apply a common thread based on the indisputable common denominator: In the context of whose life has meaning – To each one who possesses it, it is all equal. Each of our lives have meaning to our selves. No exceptions. Brute force may violate this truth – But it does not make it “sanctioned” in or out of any “religious” teachings.
Finally at your “stab” of “humor”: Your entire (unsuccessful) effort hinges on (primitive and indoctrinated) taste buds. AND in material wealth – (the cost of flesh). Even from a non-theist judgment I find those “reasons” “unholy” and totally off the mark of what most “decent” people would even admit to. You make yourself sound like an ogre… I’m sure you didn’t intend to demean your ethical code by reducing it to mere physical pleasure. (?) If so, how can you expect your “virtues” or “moral code” to be taken seriously?
I would also caution you that with great error, you cast a bad light on my entire species. I believe we are capable of setting and achieving our goals of enlightenment… And that it must include “fairness” to *ALL* who would benefit from it… Not just “fairness” for the strong and able. In all fairness, if a lion was attacking me – I have every right in my power to defend myself. Equally so, if I have a choice to allow a cow to live by selecting other qualitatively nutritious and satisfying nourishment – Fairness would encourage me to let the cow live. What would the point be if not “necessity”? Besides… I’ve always found cows much more worthy of my awe and respect than a steak…
It’s a simple matter of living by the Golden Rule. If you wouldn’t want something done to you… How can you justify doing it to someone else? ~peace~
Hi Susan – Thanks for taking this issue in your thoughtful considerations. I gather you are looking for an ethical “yuck”. Perhaps this about eggs and dairy may prove sufficient:
http://www.fowlplaymovie.com/
Please keep in mind… These are all “standard industry practices” – Nothing is considered “cruel” or “criminal”. Basically, in the treatment of “farmed animals” they’ve become invisible in the eyes of society and any legal “protections”.
(sorry)…
Hu·mane / hyoomáyn / adj. 1. having what are considered the best qualities of human beings; kind, tender, merciful, sympathetic.
From Webster’s New World Dictionary
Good luck on your journey of investigation and discovery.
Aaron – To go back to your earlier post: In regards to slaughterhouse workers “it is not in the slaughterhouses’ best interest to have employees injured due to company malfeasance” – Well not unless the workers were very disposable. I have been in the past been involved in a suit against a very small company due to “malfeasance”. There may be laws which once broken have consequence – But good luck trying to fight their reluctance to do so. I still stand by my assessment and many other’s first hand, that the packing industries put both workers and animals “through the meat grinder”, figuratively and literally.
I think I can assume rightfully that from you avatar you are a student of Objectivism? I too have studied Any Rand (decades ago) and her philosophical viewpoints and found the most inconsistent and telling flaw was in her inability to square up in any sufficient manner, the concept of “animal rights”.
I was pleased to find this essay as a rebuttal coming from this “libertarian/radical capitalist/individualist” viewpoint because I believe it answers your statement that: “we do not determine moral agency on an individual by individual level”. No. And I say we should not either on a species to species level either.
This author can expound:
“If you think about it, the Argument from Species Normality is very un-libertarian. It demands that we judge a being not as an individual, but as a member of a group, in this case her species. This is no different from the ‘identity politics’ we hear from the left. If it’s senseless to decide a person’s value or moral status solely on the basis of his race, it’s equally senseless to decide a person’s value or moral status solely on the basis of his species. Species, by itself, is simply not morally relevant. What matters is the nature of the individual, viewed under the light of objective moral principles”.
It saves me a lot of typing and time as I can’t find anything I disagree with. And it was very telling that even the “head thinkers” found animal rights difficult to sustain an argument against, especially in the Argument from a Marginal Case: “Dr. Branden cut him off: ‘I’m afraid I won’t be able to help you on this.’ Dr. [Nathaniel] Branden explained that he himself had ‘struggled’ with the question of the moral status animals. He said even Ayn Rand (a confirmed cat lover, by the way) had felt there must be something morally wrong with mistreating animals, but, unable to make it fit her Objectivist philosophy, she shelved the issue. As for him, he could not deny the pure Aristotelian logic of the Argument from Marginal Cases. He was stuck.”
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/graham/graham1.html
As far as holding “duties only towards other humans” – Even if I had an exclusionary view of what duties man has towards other living beings… I would stand steadfast that it IS a moral duty to my fellow “man” to evolve towards a non-violent position in our culture. Societies will always breakdown when force and might are held as justifications for wrong doing. I don’t know if you’re are/were a “Trekkie” fan… But there’s a reason Gene Rodenberry chose to set the captain and crew of Enterprise in a world of non animal exploitation. It is our greatest challenge in the effort to civilize our selves.
These are not subjective, quasi-religious values – These fundamental truths are universal. All beings wish to live. To disregard those desires for frivolous wants puts us in a compromised position to use any and everyone if “force” or “might” is the standard of these violations. Again, animals aside – It is to our own benefit that we apply a common thread based on the indisputable common denominator: In the context of whose life has meaning – To each one who possesses it, it is all equal. Each of our lives have meaning to our selves. No exceptions. Brute force may violate this truth – But it does not make it “sanctioned” in or out of any “religious” teachings.
Finally at your “stab” of “humor”: Your entire (unsuccessful) effort hinges on (primitive and indoctrinated)taste buds. AND in material wealth – (the cost of flesh). Even from a non-theist judgment I find those “reasons” “unholy” and totally off the mark of what most “decent” people would even admit to. You make yourself sound like an ogre… I’m sure you didn’t intend to demean your ethical code by reducing it to mere physical pleasure. I would also caution you that you cast a bad light on my entire species. I believe we are capable of setting and achieving our goals of enlightenment… And that it must include “fairness” to all who would benefit from it… Not just “fairness” for the strong and able. In all fairness, if a lion was attacking me – I have every right in my power to defend myself. If I have a choice to allow a cow to live by selecting other equally nutritious and satisfying nourishment – Fairness would encourage me to let the cow live. Besides… I’ve always found cows much more worthy of my awe and respect than a steak…
It’s a simple matter of living by the Golden Rule. If you wouldn’t want something done to you… How can you justify doing it to someone else? ~peace~
On Feb 15th, Jared said to Joel:
“It seems you still have not resolved whether feelings are to be valued as tools for rational inquiry (in whatever sense you wish) or whether they are not.”
end quote
I hope y’all will move this discussion down here so it will be easier for me to follow. OR perhaps…it deserves its own blog entry.
IMO. Feelings should be valued as tools to aid us in our quest for the best answer to a delimma. I agree that feelings can mislead us. BUT…sometimes our rationalizations aren’t correct either.
on February 10, 2011 at 2:10 pm Joel said to Jared:
“We know we feel sadness, compassion, anger, pain, happiness, suffering and flourishing. And these have intrinsic motivations towards pro-social action…… ”
end quote
on another day Joel said:
“If the masses are to move beyond killing, then meat alternatives need to be extremely feasible. Or, the demand is going to keep the killing going. ”
end quote
I totally agree with both those statements. We can speak with our buying power. If we buy from farms that treat animals kindly, those types of farms will hopefully replace the farms that care not for the humane treatment of animals.
I read a book called ‘Looking for Spinoza’ by a neuroscientist. He said that emotions come first. Then feelings. Emotions are what happens in the brain and body. Feelings are our interpretations of those physical occurences.
Here is a quote from Daniel Dennett’s book ‘Elbow Room-The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting’ that I think backs up my claim that we need emotions to help us make decisions:
“As we saw in the previous chapter, it [deliberator] must have the capacity to …..forsee the causal milieu into which it will soon pass. And it [deliberator] must foresee this reliably, swiftly, and accurately. There is a trade-off, however, among these desiderata. If this is to be genuine foresight, and not hindsight, a price must be paid: the device must simplify its information handling tasks. It must throw away or ignore data ……carrying along too much information will frustrate real time prediction. And it cannot jettison just any data; if it is to maintain some modicum of reliability of prediction, it must make the right simplifications.”
end quote
I think emotions are part of the evolutionary tool kit that helps us with those simplifications. Yes, we have to watch it so it doesn’t mislead us. BUT…it is still a useful tool.
quote from above post:
“, it [deliberator] must have the capacity to …..forsee the
causal milieu into which it will soon pass. And it [deliberator] must foresee this reliably, swiftly, and accurately.”
end quote
quote from another thread:
What about, for example, minimum wage or worker safety protocols? Would these constitute as “coercive state interference?”
end quote
As the Daniel Dennett quote implies, I hope the libertarians are thinking into the future. I fear that the milieu into which the libertarians want to lead us is a hell that even the libertarians will hate.
Awesome, Susan!
That is absolutely true! I’m a psych major as well as a philosophy major so when I see moral issues, I can’t see them as just a linear function of right/wrong. Humans have many things that compete for their attentional and processing capacities. Emotions, as the physiological processes, allow us to filter information. However, they are not always right. And, sometimes in the filtering something is lost. Sometimes it is important and necessary; and sometimes it is important ethically and it would be detrimental to the person if they acknowledged that bit of information.
People who care about animals should try to reduce this cognitive load instead of trying to recreate a new moral sense in a person. Or else they will always fight cognitive dissonance, which drastically increases cognitive load, where the person to be converted fights their strong desires and less intense moral feelings, pitting one against the other. The stronger drive will always win and people will fight the idea that make them feel at odds with themselves, like being confronted with factory farming, or that bacon was once smart or that maybe chickens are sentient. People simplify and what is going to get simplified out is ideas of animal rights and feelings. That is not situation someone who fights for animals wants.
If a person made the meat, something which people have a strong drive to have (who could live without bacon?)—less desired through alternatives, like grown meat, then people would be more likely to fight for animal rights and more people would be likely to believe the arguments. They wouldn’t get the static of strong desires. What allot of animal rights people are pushing now is emotion—”look how cute that cow is!”. However, it just pits one feeling that fades after the picture against a feeling that grows every day from within.
Just a final, follow up on The Human Cost of Industrial Animal Agriculture by the Lewis & Clark Law School:
http://lawlib.lclark.edu/podcast/?p=5008
“We’re seeing more mainstream stories in the news about the impact of factory farming on animals and the environment, but little attention is paid to the conditions workers at factory farms and slaughterhouses in the U.S. endure. In this podcast, learn about the conditions and legal and health implications for the workers who spend their days turning 10 billion animals into products for our plates.”
Perhaps out of respect and concern for human life some may wish to opt for a gentler way of living and eating?
I am actually grateful to the owner of this website
who has shared this wonderful paragraph at at this time.