4 ms·

Doesn't it follow from this that it would be beneficial to kill wild animals so that their far more numerous offspring won't die grisly natural deaths?

by ksdale 6y ago

bbrree66 6y ago
Let's start with the human-created suffering then we can discuss this question.
- ksdale 6y ago
  Why? If we can create moral good by preventing the existence of animals, do we have a duty to prevent the existence of as many animals as possible?
  - hprotagonist 6y ago
    There was an ethics paper that won a student prize at oxford ..? or cambridge ..? that argued this exact position. I can't put my fingers on it right now though, it's really annoying. edit: http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-the-suffering-of-wild-animals/ http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-... Ethical consequentialist vegetarians believe that farmed animals have lives that are worse than non-existence. In this paper, I sketch out an argument that wild animals have worse lives than farmed animals, and that consistent vegetarians should therefore reduce the number of wild animals as a top priority.
vzidex 6y ago
Yes, but only because we (humans) wiped out the natural predators of many wild animals - the typical example being wolves and deer in North America. We then do indeed kill wild animals so that their populations don't explode due to a lack of predators - in Canada and the US you typically need a "tag" to hunt wild animals, basically a ticket that allows you to kill X number of a specific species. These tags are distributed in limited numbers, and extensive work goes into surveying populations of wild animals to distribute the right number of tags. Proceeds from selling tags go to conservation efforts, including the surveying efforts previously mentioned. As someone trying their hardest to follow a vegan diet, I fully support hunting wild animals for food and population control. However, that situation is worlds removed from animals that are bred for the sole purpose of being raised and slaughtered in factory farms. EDIT: to rip off another comment in this chain - the issue of hunting wild animals is orthogonal to the issue of factory farming. i.e., the two issues have little to do with each other and you cannot/should not use one as moral justification for the other.
- ksdale 6y ago
  I meant kill them in general so that they don't have offspring at all, as most animals in nature die what we would consider grisly deaths. (Which, to be clear, I think is wrong.) I'm not a fan of factory farming, but I don't agree that hunting and raising farm animals are orthogonal issues. My own views are more complicated than I care to get into here, but I think it boils down to - 1) Is it always wrong to kill animals for food? and 2) Would those animals rather exist than not, prior to dying? I think the answers to those questions are no (or else we have to declare eg lions immoral) and yes (assuming the conditions they live in aren't absolutely horrific, which also leads me to believe that factory farming should basically go away and we should reduce our meat consumption as much as we need to to make that possible). I try to limit my meat consumption and find meat that I believe has been raised ethically, but I don't believe veganism is required (though I totally respect those beliefs!)
  - vzidex 6y ago
    Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response. I'd agree with you that I'd be OK with meat consumption if the animals being raised for meat were raised under "optimal" conditions for their happiness, and only slaughtered at the end of long, fulfilling lives. What burst my bubble on that idea, however, and really gave me the urge to strive towards a vegan diet, was just how completely implausible that image is. Even if your meat comes from "ethical" sources, I have three big issues: 1. Animals are typically slaughtered far short of their natural lifespans. Cows, pigs, and chickens have natural lifespans of 20, 20, and 10 years, and live 3, 2, and 0.2 years under factory farming conditions [1]. Even if the meat you're consuming comes from animals that live fantastic lives - the stereotypical image of open pastures, a "natural" diet, loving care from the farmer - those lives are almost definitely being cut short for the sake of profitability. 2. The animal products industry puts a humongous amount of effort into keeping consumers from thinking about the origins of their food. Part of this effort is whitewashing the process as much as possible. I don't feel like finding specific examples off the top of my head, but it's cases like "cage free chicken" meaning that the birds are kept in a massive, communal shed with 24/7 artificial lighting, very little cleaning, veterinary care, etc. It's very possible that even if the meat you're buying is labelled with "humane" and "ethical" terms like free-range, cage-free, etc. that those terms mean very different things than you might assume. 3. Modern livestock are bred to produce the maximum amount of product (meat, milk, eggs, wool) as possible. This leads to chickens whose legs collapse underneath them from their weight after a few months of life, cows which have chronically infected udders from the quantity of milk they produce, etc. Even if you take these breeds and raise them under "humane" conditions, they'll still have miserable lives without extensive veterinary care. That all said, if you do indeed source your meat from sources that you have verified give their animals fantastic comfortable lives, let them live (most) of their natural lifespan before slaughter, and only raise heritage breeds that don't suffer just from being alive, then I'm all for your meat consumption - and very curious how much your meat costs! [1] https://www.four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animals/life-expectancy https://www.four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animal...

Doesn't it follow from this that it would be beneficial to kill wild animals so that their far more numerous offspring won't die grisly natural deaths?

by ksdale 6y ago

Doesn't it follow from this that it would be beneficial to kill wild animals so that their far more numerous offspring won't die grisly natural deaths?

bbrree66 6y ago

Let's start with the human-created suffering then we can discuss this question.

ksdale 6y ago
Why? If we can create moral good by preventing the existence of animals, do we have a duty to prevent the existence of as many animals as possible?
- hprotagonist 6y ago
  There was an ethics paper that won a student prize at oxford ..? or cambridge ..? that argued this exact position. I can't put my fingers on it right now though, it's really annoying. edit: http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-the-suffering-of-wild-animals/ http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-... Ethical consequentialist vegetarians believe that farmed animals have lives that are worse than non-existence. In this paper, I sketch out an argument that wild animals have worse lives than farmed animals, and that consistent vegetarians should therefore reduce the number of wild animals as a top priority.

vzidex 6y ago

Yes, but only because we (humans) wiped out the natural predators of many wild animals - the typical example being wolves and deer in North America. We then do indeed kill wild animals so that their populations don't explode due to a lack of predators - in Canada and the US you typically need a "tag" to hunt wild animals, basically a ticket that allows you to kill X number of a specific species. These tags are distributed in limited numbers, and extensive work goes into surveying populations of wild animals to distribute the right number of tags. Proceeds from selling tags go to conservation efforts, including the surveying efforts previously mentioned. As someone trying their hardest to follow a vegan diet, I fully support hunting wild animals for food and population control. However, that situation is worlds removed from animals that are bred for the sole purpose of being raised and slaughtered in factory farms. EDIT: to rip off another comment in this chain - the issue of hunting wild animals is orthogonal to the issue of factory farming. i.e., the two issues have little to do with each other and you cannot/should not use one as moral justification for the other.

ksdale 6y ago
I meant kill them in general so that they don't have offspring at all, as most animals in nature die what we would consider grisly deaths. (Which, to be clear, I think is wrong.) I'm not a fan of factory farming, but I don't agree that hunting and raising farm animals are orthogonal issues. My own views are more complicated than I care to get into here, but I think it boils down to - 1) Is it always wrong to kill animals for food? and 2) Would those animals rather exist than not, prior to dying? I think the answers to those questions are no (or else we have to declare eg lions immoral) and yes (assuming the conditions they live in aren't absolutely horrific, which also leads me to believe that factory farming should basically go away and we should reduce our meat consumption as much as we need to to make that possible). I try to limit my meat consumption and find meat that I believe has been raised ethically, but I don't believe veganism is required (though I totally respect those beliefs!)
- vzidex 6y ago
  Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response. I'd agree with you that I'd be OK with meat consumption if the animals being raised for meat were raised under "optimal" conditions for their happiness, and only slaughtered at the end of long, fulfilling lives. What burst my bubble on that idea, however, and really gave me the urge to strive towards a vegan diet, was just how completely implausible that image is. Even if your meat comes from "ethical" sources, I have three big issues: 1. Animals are typically slaughtered far short of their natural lifespans. Cows, pigs, and chickens have natural lifespans of 20, 20, and 10 years, and live 3, 2, and 0.2 years under factory farming conditions [1]. Even if the meat you're consuming comes from animals that live fantastic lives - the stereotypical image of open pastures, a "natural" diet, loving care from the farmer - those lives are almost definitely being cut short for the sake of profitability. 2. The animal products industry puts a humongous amount of effort into keeping consumers from thinking about the origins of their food. Part of this effort is whitewashing the process as much as possible. I don't feel like finding specific examples off the top of my head, but it's cases like "cage free chicken" meaning that the birds are kept in a massive, communal shed with 24/7 artificial lighting, very little cleaning, veterinary care, etc. It's very possible that even if the meat you're buying is labelled with "humane" and "ethical" terms like free-range, cage-free, etc. that those terms mean very different things than you might assume. 3. Modern livestock are bred to produce the maximum amount of product (meat, milk, eggs, wool) as possible. This leads to chickens whose legs collapse underneath them from their weight after a few months of life, cows which have chronically infected udders from the quantity of milk they produce, etc. Even if you take these breeds and raise them under "humane" conditions, they'll still have miserable lives without extensive veterinary care. That all said, if you do indeed source your meat from sources that you have verified give their animals fantastic comfortable lives, let them live (most) of their natural lifespan before slaughter, and only raise heritage breeds that don't suffer just from being alive, then I'm all for your meat consumption - and very curious how much your meat costs! [1] https://www.four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animals/life-expectancy https://www.four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animal...