5 ms·

I don't wanna get in a philosophical thicket here, but gotta note that I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that meat livestock exist for their meat. Th

I don't wanna get in a philosophical thicket here, but gotta note that I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that meat livestock exist for their meat. That may be the reason that humans raise them, but from the animals' perspective, they exist for their own purposes. Their lack of ability to exercise freedom and volition doesn't negate their intentionality.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Can you exist for your own purpose if you have no authority over your own existence? Farm animals exist because of their owners, therefore they exist for their owner's purposes alone, no?
- MisterOctober 8y ago
  Couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Do prisoners and slaves exist for their captors' purposes alone? I can understand an argument to the affirmative, but it is completely contrary to my way of thinking. To quote Hamlet : "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself king of infinite space" or Hawking : "In my mind, I am free."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - zamfi 8y ago
    I think you are misunderstanding the parent poster: livestock animals would not exist but for their owners. So, for humanely-raised and nobly-killed animals: the choice (made by humans) is an animal with a benign, perhaps even happy existence, followed by a peaceful death vs. not existing at all. (Obviously not true for factory farms.) It’s definitely not an ironclad argument: children also exist only because of their parents, but (our modern) society does not grant parents the right of life or death over their children at will.
    - sytelus 8y ago
      This is like saying people brought from Africa for slavery wouldn’t have procreated, produced offsprings and successfully survived if it wasn’t for their necessities supplied by their owners.
      - MisterOctober 8y ago
        ^ exactly. To me, the notion is odious that individuals born into exploitative circumstances [be they human or otherwise] forfeit their volition / consciousness as a result of those circumstances. Rousseau : "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
        zamfi 8y ago
        I have no idea who's down-voting you, but you are absolutely right. To find acceptable the exploitation of animals while finding immoral the exploitation of humans, you must believe that animals differ from humans in some fundamental ways! Comfortable, caring bondage is still bondage, and we should not forget that.
- sytelus 8y ago
  Assume there were powerful aliens Zondors who defeated humans fair and square. It turned out Zondors loves human meat. So they built human farms where they keep them in cages until they become teens with nice soft meat. They barely provide square feet per human, feed them nothing but corn, inject with all kind of hormones and so on. Then they take ripe humanity of the cage holding from the neck, cut them open while still they were still alive and screaming, harvest meat and cook it right in front of other caged humans in various different art forms and enjoy it while having some Zondorian entertainment. This happens years after years, decade after decade and millions of humans purely exist to be food for Zondors. How do you feel now?
  - eyko 8y ago
    Humans don't make good farm animals. We take years to fully develop and over a decade to reach puberty (almost two decades if you want safer pregnancies). We're omnivorous so feeding us will be more expensive (probably enriched corn/soy based meals) and over many more years. We're also not that big even if we were bred for size -- keeping stocky bulky humans with a good meat to fat ratio, discarding slender ones and fattier ones (unfortunately the same features that made my yoruba ancestors the stallions of the slave trade, would probably make us the wagyu of the Zondor haute cuisine). The Zondors must really like the taste of human meat if they think it's worth it. It also wouldn't work because if you have enough humans in one place under harsh conditions, rest assured a rebellion is in order.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - SquirrelOnFire 8y ago
    Humans have sapience. Cows don't. Cows should still be treated humanely and only have one bad day (when they're slaughtered) since they're clearly capable of suffering, but ignoring the difference is a little dishonest, intellectually.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Can you exist for your own purpose if you have no authority over your own existence? Farm animals exist because of their owners, therefore they exist for their owner's purposes alone, no?

MisterOctober 8y ago
Couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Do prisoners and slaves exist for their captors' purposes alone? I can understand an argument to the affirmative, but it is completely contrary to my way of thinking. To quote Hamlet : "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself king of infinite space" or Hawking : "In my mind, I am free."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- zamfi 8y ago
  I think you are misunderstanding the parent poster: livestock animals would not exist but for their owners. So, for humanely-raised and nobly-killed animals: the choice (made by humans) is an animal with a benign, perhaps even happy existence, followed by a peaceful death vs. not existing at all. (Obviously not true for factory farms.) It’s definitely not an ironclad argument: children also exist only because of their parents, but (our modern) society does not grant parents the right of life or death over their children at will.
  - sytelus 8y ago
    This is like saying people brought from Africa for slavery wouldn’t have procreated, produced offsprings and successfully survived if it wasn’t for their necessities supplied by their owners.
    - MisterOctober 8y ago
      ^ exactly. To me, the notion is odious that individuals born into exploitative circumstances [be they human or otherwise] forfeit their volition / consciousness as a result of those circumstances. Rousseau : "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
      - zamfi 8y ago
        I have no idea who's down-voting you, but you are absolutely right. To find acceptable the exploitation of animals while finding immoral the exploitation of humans, you must believe that animals differ from humans in some fundamental ways! Comfortable, caring bondage is still bondage, and we should not forget that.
sytelus 8y ago
Assume there were powerful aliens Zondors who defeated humans fair and square. It turned out Zondors loves human meat. So they built human farms where they keep them in cages until they become teens with nice soft meat. They barely provide square feet per human, feed them nothing but corn, inject with all kind of hormones and so on. Then they take ripe humanity of the cage holding from the neck, cut them open while still they were still alive and screaming, harvest meat and cook it right in front of other caged humans in various different art forms and enjoy it while having some Zondorian entertainment. This happens years after years, decade after decade and millions of humans purely exist to be food for Zondors. How do you feel now?
- eyko 8y ago
  Humans don't make good farm animals. We take years to fully develop and over a decade to reach puberty (almost two decades if you want safer pregnancies). We're omnivorous so feeding us will be more expensive (probably enriched corn/soy based meals) and over many more years. We're also not that big even if we were bred for size -- keeping stocky bulky humans with a good meat to fat ratio, discarding slender ones and fattier ones (unfortunately the same features that made my yoruba ancestors the stallions of the slave trade, would probably make us the wagyu of the Zondor haute cuisine). The Zondors must really like the taste of human meat if they think it's worth it. It also wouldn't work because if you have enough humans in one place under harsh conditions, rest assured a rebellion is in order.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- SquirrelOnFire 8y ago
  Humans have sapience. Cows don't. Cows should still be treated humanely and only have one bad day (when they're slaughtered) since they're clearly capable of suffering, but ignoring the difference is a little dishonest, intellectually.