6 ms·

Am I the only one who finds this enslaving of living things troublesome? I mean livestock enslavement is problematic, but the necessity for food could 'morally

• vianneychevalie 6y ago
  I wholeheartedly disagree with the use of the word "enslavement". Anti-specism is an opinion, a framework of thought that I find wrong, and that I believe is going in the wrong direction. I do consider myself superior to animals, and would be ready to sacrifice a large number of animals to save one human life. While slavery is wrong, the semantic parallel you're building between slavery and scientific research on animals devalues the horror of being owned, lived by actual human beings. There needs to be more debate and measure in the way we present animal pain and animal exploitation, which I believe are both acceptable. I wouldn't hit my dog! But I understand that we need to put down dogs in animal shelters without calling it a mass murder. When you say "livestock enslavement is problematic" you're stating an opinion as if it were a fact. However, I completely agree with you with the fact that we should limit this type of surveillance-focused research, which could end up in net negative happiness in the world.
  • dTal 6y ago
    >But I understand that we need to put down dogs in animal shelters without calling it a mass murder. If you're totally fine with it, why not just say "kill" instead of the soothing euphemism?
    • i_cannot_hack 6y ago
      Maybe because it's the most commonly used terminology in this context? Trying to attribute some hidden opinion to the author's use of a contextually common synonym (instead of the one you would prefer) seems a bit weird to me.
    • vianneychevalie 6y ago
      English is not my first language, sorry. You're completely right.
    • celticninja 6y ago
      Because when my dog is old and he is in pain and it won't get any better, I want to gently, let him go, to put him down/to rest. I don't want to 'kill' him. That's what the police would do to someone's innocent dog. Words have emotional connotations.
      • tripzilch 6y ago
        Which absolutely has nothing to do with "animal pain and animal exploitation", which the GP believes is acceptable, and was using the killing of their dog, somehow as .. I'm not sure how their argument works, because obviously the way we exploit animals is nothing like the way we would gently send a puppy to their final resting place in puppy heaven.
    • LetThereBeNick 6y ago
      “Euthanize” implies an often tough decision to end a condition of prolonged suffering that has little hope for improvement. “Kill” does not imply any such decision
  • patti3000 6y ago
    > I do consider myself superior to animals And that's the kind of mindset that got us into the mess we find ourselves in today.
    • vianneychevalie 6y ago
      Do you mean the exponentially successful increase in happiness, life expectancy, creativity, exploration, science and much more that the human race has accomplished? I don't even think I contributed anything yet but I'm proud and wish for it to continue. Feel free to have a negative outlook on the achievements and impact of your species, but please, realize that it's simply your own opinion. Not everything is perfect! Climate change is a horrible byproduct of our presence and action. But wow, look how far we've arrived! How far we'll still go!
      • h0l0cube 6y ago
        > But wow, look how far we've arrived! But how far? And by what measure? If we had awe-inspiring technological progress, but only increased the suffering of sentient beings, is that a win? Or is somehow scientific understanding, in and of itself, a worthwhile pursuit, and damn the consequences? As it stands, we don't really have an accurate hedonic utilitarian measure we can use to decide if sentient beings are better off, even for humans. Though a cursory search leads me to the 'Gross National Well-being' measure, but such self-surveys aren't known to be reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Well-being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Well-being
      • ace_of_spades 6y ago
        The irony is that many people who really believe in the potential of humanity to create huge futures full of happiness and bliss are the ones who are most concerned about our survival. There are obviously different opinions on the degree of our survival chances but reasonable people have put it as low as 1/6. That means a f*cking dice roll could put a stop to all the progress you have been lauding about. Don’t get me wrong... I am an optimist, I want to creat a great future and lift the potential that is there. I would wager I probably see more potential than most. BUT we will have to radically transform how our societies operate, how we care about each other (including non-human animals), how we care about our planet, and what role we see ourselves having in the future. Have a look at the book „The Precipice“ by Toby Ord for more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Precipice:_Existential_Risk_and_the_Future_of_Humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Precipice:_Existential_Ris...
  • mola 6y ago
    I thought I was pretty reserved. While I believe this is enslavement, I explicitly talked about the moral ambivalencey of it when it comes to animals. I didn't advocate a black and white approach of, using animals=evil. I agree with most of what you say, I just think we should always ask ourselves these questions instead of blindly admiring the technical achievement, comfort, etc. It's a matter of respect for the universe, part of the respect is aknoweldging that killing is part of this universe, but we should be thoughtful about it. And understand necessities vs excessiveness. It seems you do purposely think about these things, so I've got no qualms with you :) I hope I'v made myself clearer.
  • littlecosmic 6y ago
    Humans are superior to animals in many ways, but many animals feel pain as readily as humans and have instincts that are frustrated when we use them. Ie, they suffer because of what we do to them. It seems silly to get stuck on a point about whether or not slavery is exactly the right word for it.
    • wazoox 6y ago
      I don't get this obsession with suffering from antispecists. Suffering is an evolutive adaptation. Suffering of a cow is certainly very similar to suffering of a human being, but suffering of an ant? Probably not. Then why should suffering modes similar to us should be the measure of everything? I don't see the point. This all really sounds like bad anthropomorphism to me, and a very poor philosophy. I don't understand how it got so trendy, except as a side effect of individualism gone wrong.
      • tripzilch 6y ago
        > Suffering is an evolutive adaptation. You're mistaken. Noxiception is the evolutionary adaptation. That is the response of an organism to a potentially hazardous stimulus. Sometimes called "pain response", but it's not suffering. > Suffering of a cow is certainly very similar to suffering of a human being, but suffering of an ant? Probably not. Probably probably probably probably. You know science? So noxiception has been proven in organisms as simple as C. Elegans. Suffering has been proven in organisms as simple as snails. They were subjected to painful but non-damaging stimuli (hot needle) for a prolonged period of time and this measurably reduced their ability to learn (learning very simply maze puzzles, which snails can do). It paints a pretty clear picture of trauma.
        • wazoox 6y ago
          Out of your insulting tone (I should frankly tell you to GFY), that doesn't explain the less why "pain" should be the measure of all things. And recently plants have been showed to display response to aggression, too. So far this is all a bunch of smug, moralistic bullshit that leads nowhere.
  • ace_of_spades 6y ago
    Interesting. If you are up to critically reflect your own perspective, let‘s start a discussion on your rejection of anti-speciesism. First of all, let us clarify what anti-speciesism means so that we are on the same page here and don‘t fight with windmills that don‘t exist. Anti-speciesisim is the position that one should not discriminate on the basis of species as it is not a morally relevant criterion for making destinctions between living beings. The argument is that similar to the color of skin, there is nothing that we inherently value in being a member of a specific species. What we generally care about are other more fundamental criteria such as ability to feel pleasure and pain or some other criteria that could be a plausible source of value (e.g., potential to create value in the world which could be proxied by intelligence). Thus, it is totally possible to be anti-speciesist and still value human beings more than other animals based on the understanding that we are different in our ability to feel pleasure and pain or create value in the world. Moreover, in your post you have not made any argument which would put anti-speciesim per se into question. Of course, you could argue that there is an inherent difference between non-human and human animals but you still need to define what that criterion is. If you believe in an evolutionary world view species doesn‘t seem like a good candidate since we basically randomly evolved from other animals and it would be totally unclear from which point on we were worthy of moral consideration. It seems much more likely that you care about something else then species but I am open to hear your side on the argument. Now, where you probably see a difference to most anti-speciesists is the degree to which you want to give recognition to the moral value of non-human animals. For anti-speciesists, how much moral concern we should have for an animal is generally an empirical question that is based on some definition of cognitive function. Going down this route has the nice property of making things emendable to a grounded discussion about facts rather than just moral intuitions. To sum up, I think you should really reconsider your position on anti-speciesism as it is a pretty defensible and logical position to take if you are inclined toward a scientific world view that recognizes evolutionary theory. Regarding the moral question of using animals for food production if we don‘t have to (and trust me, we don‘t need to rely on almost all of the billions of animals we are slaughtering every year for reasons of tradition or taste), I can also recommend the following short video (2 min) on a thought experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSUz6Rj5oo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSUz6Rj5oo4
  • tripzilch 6y ago
    > There needs to be more debate and measure in the way we present animal pain and animal exploitation, which I believe are both acceptable. I wouldn't hit my dog! But I understand that we need to put down dogs in animal shelters without calling it a mass murder. > When you say "livestock enslavement is problematic" you're stating an opinion as if it were a fact. No but it IS a fact, if you agree you wouldn't hit your dog, I suppose that when you "put it down", you would also prefer to do it painlessly instead of giving it to a slaughterhouse that operates on such a scale that it can't quite 100% guarantee your dog might not dangle half-alive on a meat hook for a minute (or other types of accidents that definitely do happen). If you agree that treating a dog like that IS problematic, we're doing this to animals that are literally just as intelligent and loving as dogs (namely, pigs), on a massive industrial scale. Sure, I also consider myself sufficiently superior to animals to justify eating them. But the way they are treated in the bio industry is absolutely problematic, for a various number of reasons actually.
• drewblaisdell 6y ago
  Moralizing is a race to the bottom. If you think that the existence of life on Earth is the paramount moral good and are e.g. willing to fly on a plane, you are a hypocrite.
  • gspr 6y ago
    I'll bite on your last sentence. Why?
    • celticninja 6y ago
      I presume he means you are adding to climate change. What if you are flying an endangered animal some where it can reproduce? Is that ok?
      • gspr 6y ago
        > I presume he means you are adding to climate change. Everything is a matter of degree. Calling people hypocrites for ever flying is riduculous.
        • IanSanders 6y ago
          Not for just flying, for "thinking that the existence of life on Earth is the paramount moral good" and flying.
    • IanSanders 6y ago
      Probably (unnecessary?) ecological impact and using fossil fuels
      • gspr 6y ago
        What is "necessary"? I, too, regard global warming as the biggest threat to our species. I still don't think that makes someone a hypocrite for flying.
        • 6y ago
• yboris 6y ago
  I think you've not read much literature from the animal welfare movement (aka 'animal right'). Consider reading the classic 'Animal Liberation' by Peter Singer. You would benefit from reading others' thoughts on this and thinking more deeply about the issue. You claim "feeding people is a necessity" and that it somehow balances out what we do to animals. You certainly know people can live well without animal parts in their diet. Even if by some bizarre reason humans required animal flesh in their mouths, it wouldn't imply that doing anything we want to animals would be appropriate. Torturing a cow for 1 year wouldn't be appropriate if we could get the same cow meat without the torture. Please learn about how animals are treated before you "find it morally ambivalent"
  • rmtech 6y ago
    Vegan diets cause malnutrition and perhaps even psychological changes. Due to the suffering of wild animals, eating beef is probably net negative for total animal suffering because a cow only has 1 brain for a ton of biomass.
    • yboris 6y ago
      You make a very bold claim that vegan diets cause malnutrition. You probably don't mean to say vegan diets inherently do this -- simply that many people who try don't know how to balance their diet, right? Let's assume for the sake of argument that malnutrition cuts a human life short by 1 year. Does this now justify torturing hundreds of animals for hundreds of years? I'm trying to nudge people to think of any argument that results in "we can now torture animals". At this current time, we don't need to abuse animals to eat animals, we only do it because it's cheaper. I doubt many people in company of family and friends could say 'saving $1' justifies torturing animals.
    • dhshshshshysysy 6y ago
      False. What agenda do you have to blatantly lie like this and spread propaganda?
    • tripzilch 6y ago
      > Vegan diets cause malnutrition and perhaps even psychological changes. Even if this were true, that still means the moral imperative is to eat as little meat as you possibly can, to avoid this scenario. I'd be surprised if that were more than roughly half a chicken breast per week.
• jimmaswell 6y ago
  Insects are (more than likely) too simple to have a perception of suffering, so I don't consider morals to apply to them any more than to a plant. I can't give an exact cutoff on the chain of complexity but you wouldn't moralize a petri dish.