6 ms·

I don't quite understand what you mean by schizophrenic in with what you describe. Isn't it possible it isn't a unified issue? I grew up in a rural region and

I don't quite understand what you mean by schizophrenic in with what you describe. Isn't it possible it isn't a unified issue? I grew up in a rural region and I've seen the production first hand both on medium-sized farms to single hunts. I have had pets I've loved and watched them die and it made me sad. I also have an issue with the mass whaling because we know of the extinction risks and the goal when eating an animal isn't to wipe out the species. I will confess, however, I haven't seen one of the American style factory farms. Any I've been to here in Canada haven't been so cold or apparently cruel and nowhere near the size and volume of production. I live in the city now and I consider myself lucky for knowing where all of my food feasibly comes from. For that reason I don't see it as schizophrenic or cognitive dissonance. I like to think it's an accepting awareness— I think we're still very much animals, but ones at least intelligent enough to maintain the planet in good order and to avoid cruelty (if we give a damn). Clearly there are problems in how a lot of food production (not just meat) is carried out, and usually with a root cause of greed. Pegging those problems to people essentially not all resigning to vegan eating makes my head spin a little. Side question for anyone who carries your perspective: I might even agree that refraining from eating any animals is the morally superior option— but do you think we morally owe it to nature (or whatever end) to refrain more than any other animal?

emodendroket 8y ago
I kind of end up with the opposite position of the OP, but if you consider eating a whale or a dog barbaric but have no problem eating (say) an overfished white fish or a pig, you have to ask yourself why.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  edit: Took me a moment to think about what you were saying. I agree with you. Maybe that's what I was roughly getting at to begin with. I agree you should think about why, I suppose I already had and take it for granted that others may not have even approached the need to question. --- I have asked myself why. I have a problem eating any animal that is endangered or at risk of extinction. I might not be against eating a whale. I've never had the opportunity. But I have a problem with hunting them in their current state of risk. I've had what I would call relationships with various animals as pets—as such I wouldn't want to eat them. Similarly, if I'd had such a relationship with any other kind of animal I might feel the same, but I can't speak to that.
jlmorton 8y ago
You seem to have missed OPs point. Many of us in the West find hunting wild whales, or dolphins to be repugnant. Meanwhile, we're perfectly happy to eat factory farmed pigs. And, yes, we do morally owe it to nature not to eat animals. The natural corollary is human rights. Human rights is just a philosophy. Most of us adhere to it today, but we have not for most of our existence. The default has been to kill large numbers of fellow humans, across all societies. Do people have a natural right to life? Humanity did not think so until relatively recently, but now we see it as obvious. Do animals have a natural right not to be killed by humans, now that we have other options? Of course, for the same reasons.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  > Do animals have a natural right not to be killed by humans, now that we have other options? Of course. Well, why? It's equally consistent to simply say that no animal other than humans enjoys rights, whether it's a dolphin or a dog or a pig. You can certainly take the other position as your premise, but I don't see why I should follow you.
  - flavor8 8y ago
    Do humans have the right not to be killed by humans? All humans, or just humans of the same nationality? If so, where do you draw the line between, say, killing humans and killing fish? I'm not trying to suggest that the two are equivalent, but constructing a logical argument for the line being somewhere rather than elsewhere is non trivial.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Somewhere in here you inevitably take some intuitive stance, call it "self-evident," and use it as your premise. This is the problem with formal ethics, I guess; if you can't agree on the premises of the discussion you're just stuck. I mean, what if we go the other way? Am I a murder for swatting a mosquito and killing it? OK, what makes that different from the fish? Is the fish more like a human or a mosquito? Is unintentional killing of animals the same as intentional? Surely we don't believe that stepping on a worm is equivalent to manslaughter. Well, you get the idea. To me, the anthropocentric view seems completely natural. In a hypothetical trolley problem with a human and an animal I can't see a circumstance where I'd ever choose to save the animal and allow the human to die. From this thought experiment I appeal to intuition to say that human life is qualitatively different, and of more value, than animal life.
paulcole 8y ago
> but ones at least intelligent enough to maintain the planet in good order Bang up job we're doing, too!
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  Can't argue there
- dang 8y ago
  Maybe not, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.
yboris 8y ago
I hold that conscious experience is likely the only thing that can matter morally. In the US, in fact, the vast majority of meat comes from factory farms - a place where sentient beings are living lives not worth living (roughly speaking torture). Buying meat thus results in market incentives to produce more meat in the future. So by buying meat, people are implicitly paying for more animal torture. Individual choices not to eat meat decrease the future supply* It doesn't matter whether in the past things were different. It doesn't matter that other animals eat animals. What matters is that each of us has a choice when buying food in a restaurant or supermarket. A choice that directly results in less or more suffering of sentient beings. * footnote in case you're curious: supermarkets are receptive to consumption patterns -- either at per-unit level, or at threshold they buy in bulk -- so you stand a chance of being the purchase that results in dozens more animal purchases. Factory farms are similarly responsive to market consumption patterns. Economists have studied the market elasticity of animal product sales and individual decision not to purchase does translate in decrease in future production.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  If that was your primary point then maybe I misunderstood. I otherwise wholeheartedly agree in the need for compassion, even in spite of eating meat. Thankfully for that reason I don't have as my only option meat farmed from the US, and I'm able to buy meat that is Canadian and can be sourced. I'm probably lucky in that I grew up not knowing a single farmer who would be okay with the kinds of processes you're speaking about. Some cruel farms exist here, you can find news of them pretty easily—but it's thankfully not the norm—and typically those aren't even cases of factory farms, just sick people.
gascan 8y ago
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated -- Mahatma Gandhi We don't owe it. But we should treat animals with compassion all the same. Many vegans & vegetarians aren't really opposed to meat, they are opposed to suffering, and American industrial meat production involves a lot of animal suffering.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  If I think something deserving of compassion, then it is something I cannot kill simply for the sake of my palate.
Aloha 8y ago
Meaning most humans do not like their meat sources to be cute, or too smart. Ideal meat is dumb as a post, and ugly as sin.
- qbrass 8y ago
  They don't want their food to be too ugly. Ugly means there's something wrong with it, and if there's something wrong with it, they won't want to eat it. It's why most people gag when they think about eating bugs, because they've associated them with disease. They want their food to look good enough to know it's safe, but not cute enough to trigger nurturing instincts.

emodendroket 8y ago

I kind of end up with the opposite position of the OP, but if you consider eating a whale or a dog barbaric but have no problem eating (say) an overfished white fish or a pig, you have to ask yourself why.

52-6F-62 8y ago
edit: Took me a moment to think about what you were saying. I agree with you. Maybe that's what I was roughly getting at to begin with. I agree you should think about why, I suppose I already had and take it for granted that others may not have even approached the need to question. --- I have asked myself why. I have a problem eating any animal that is endangered or at risk of extinction. I might not be against eating a whale. I've never had the opportunity. But I have a problem with hunting them in their current state of risk. I've had what I would call relationships with various animals as pets—as such I wouldn't want to eat them. Similarly, if I'd had such a relationship with any other kind of animal I might feel the same, but I can't speak to that.

jlmorton 8y ago

You seem to have missed OPs point. Many of us in the West find hunting wild whales, or dolphins to be repugnant. Meanwhile, we're perfectly happy to eat factory farmed pigs. And, yes, we do morally owe it to nature not to eat animals. The natural corollary is human rights. Human rights is just a philosophy. Most of us adhere to it today, but we have not for most of our existence. The default has been to kill large numbers of fellow humans, across all societies. Do people have a natural right to life? Humanity did not think so until relatively recently, but now we see it as obvious. Do animals have a natural right not to be killed by humans, now that we have other options? Of course, for the same reasons.

emodendroket 8y ago
> Do animals have a natural right not to be killed by humans, now that we have other options? Of course. Well, why? It's equally consistent to simply say that no animal other than humans enjoys rights, whether it's a dolphin or a dog or a pig. You can certainly take the other position as your premise, but I don't see why I should follow you.
- flavor8 8y ago
  Do humans have the right not to be killed by humans? All humans, or just humans of the same nationality? If so, where do you draw the line between, say, killing humans and killing fish? I'm not trying to suggest that the two are equivalent, but constructing a logical argument for the line being somewhere rather than elsewhere is non trivial.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Somewhere in here you inevitably take some intuitive stance, call it "self-evident," and use it as your premise. This is the problem with formal ethics, I guess; if you can't agree on the premises of the discussion you're just stuck. I mean, what if we go the other way? Am I a murder for swatting a mosquito and killing it? OK, what makes that different from the fish? Is the fish more like a human or a mosquito? Is unintentional killing of animals the same as intentional? Surely we don't believe that stepping on a worm is equivalent to manslaughter. Well, you get the idea. To me, the anthropocentric view seems completely natural. In a hypothetical trolley problem with a human and an animal I can't see a circumstance where I'd ever choose to save the animal and allow the human to die. From this thought experiment I appeal to intuition to say that human life is qualitatively different, and of more value, than animal life.

paulcole 8y ago

> but ones at least intelligent enough to maintain the planet in good order Bang up job we're doing, too!

52-6F-62 8y ago
Can't argue there
dang 8y ago
Maybe not, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.

yboris 8y ago

I hold that conscious experience is likely the only thing that can matter morally. In the US, in fact, the vast majority of meat comes from factory farms - a place where sentient beings are living lives not worth living (roughly speaking torture). Buying meat thus results in market incentives to produce more meat in the future. So by buying meat, people are implicitly paying for more animal torture. Individual choices not to eat meat decrease the future supply* It doesn't matter whether in the past things were different. It doesn't matter that other animals eat animals. What matters is that each of us has a choice when buying food in a restaurant or supermarket. A choice that directly results in less or more suffering of sentient beings. * footnote in case you're curious: supermarkets are receptive to consumption patterns -- either at per-unit level, or at threshold they buy in bulk -- so you stand a chance of being the purchase that results in dozens more animal purchases. Factory farms are similarly responsive to market consumption patterns. Economists have studied the market elasticity of animal product sales and individual decision not to purchase does translate in decrease in future production.

52-6F-62 8y ago
If that was your primary point then maybe I misunderstood. I otherwise wholeheartedly agree in the need for compassion, even in spite of eating meat. Thankfully for that reason I don't have as my only option meat farmed from the US, and I'm able to buy meat that is Canadian and can be sourced. I'm probably lucky in that I grew up not knowing a single farmer who would be okay with the kinds of processes you're speaking about. Some cruel farms exist here, you can find news of them pretty easily—but it's thankfully not the norm—and typically those aren't even cases of factory farms, just sick people.

gascan 8y ago

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated -- Mahatma Gandhi We don't owe it. But we should treat animals with compassion all the same. Many vegans & vegetarians aren't really opposed to meat, they are opposed to suffering, and American industrial meat production involves a lot of animal suffering.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
If I think something deserving of compassion, then it is something I cannot kill simply for the sake of my palate.

Aloha 8y ago

Meaning most humans do not like their meat sources to be cute, or too smart. Ideal meat is dumb as a post, and ugly as sin.

qbrass 8y ago
They don't want their food to be too ugly. Ugly means there's something wrong with it, and if there's something wrong with it, they won't want to eat it. It's why most people gag when they think about eating bugs, because they've associated them with disease. They want their food to look good enough to know it's safe, but not cute enough to trigger nurturing instincts.