5 ms·

Contrasting opinion here (and that of the majority): stop anthropomorphizing animals. They aren't people. Their "feelings" do not matter - what matters is ensu

Contrasting opinion here (and that of the majority): stop anthropomorphizing animals. They aren't people. Their "feelings" do not matter - what matters is ensuring that we have reliable, self-reproducing, adaptable sources of protein for the population. Your lab-grown burgers that depend on thousands of years of technological development and piles of infrastructure are not the solution. Forcing everyone to become vegetarians is not even an option at all; the market demands meat and factory farms have stepped up to fill that niche at scale, reliably delivering meat to everyone in the first world even in extenuating circumstances. It's quite phenomenal, what we have accomplished in terms of livestock agriculture, and to call it "horrific" is a massive insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in that industry keeping humans fed while keeping costs to a minimum. I don't care if the animals I eat were happy, because no matter what happens they are going to be killed and I am going to cook and eat their bodies. Accepting that is simply part of being the omnivorous animal that millions of years of evolution has produced.

jbotz 6y ago
Well, I don't know where to start... to me animals are people, not human persons of course, but individuals with personality, thus "persons", i.e. people. To speak of "anthropomorphizing" animals is a bit outdated... as the primatologist Franz de Waal puts it, people who use that term are in "anthropodenial". Today's biologists and ethologists largely acknowledge that at least higher animals are sentient beings, with consciousness and a full complement of complex emotions and reasoning ability. You can argue that humans are on top in overall cognitive abilities, but it's really only by degree, not by fundamental kind... our cognitive machinery is only bigger than most other animals', not really different. As for your statement that animals' feelings "don't matter", well, why not? Not too long ago humans of one skin color said that the feelings of other humans of another skin color don't matter. Then we made some progress, and now to say that is considered barbaric. And many humans today are beginning to think it's time to make some more progress and realize that non-human animals' feelings also do matter.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> stop anthropomorphizing animals They aren't. No-one is saying that a pig has the same moral standing as a human. > They aren't people. Their "feelings" do not matter So you believe that animals are just automata with no consciousness? That animal cruelty cannot exist even in principle, any more than cruelty to sand? Descartes believed this. Today, we know better. > to call it "horrific" is a massive insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in that industry This doesn't address the matter of whether or not it's cruel. > I don't care if the animals I eat were happy, because no matter what happens they are going to be killed and I am going to cook and eat their bodies. Do you believe animals are conscious and capable of suffering, or not? Either way, it doesn't matter that they die in the end. If animals are conscious, it doesn't inform our morality that they are destined to die. People are also destined to die, but this doesn't impact our moral obligation to care about their suffering. If animals are not conscious, it doesn't matter whether they are destined to die.
- core-questions 6y ago
  > So you believe that animals are just automata with no consciousness? I don't think their consciousness matters. Obviously they're conscious and sentient to some extent; but that does not make them human, and I will not draw false equivalency here so as to be put in the position of having to have the same moral standards for how we treat animals as we treat people. Obviously, if I was going to do that, I wouldn't accept killing and eating them, either. Herds of domesticated pigs exist because _we created them_, by domesticating and farming them over thousands of years. Evolutionarily, they owe their existence to mankind. We're certainly not going to let them die out. > That animal cruelty cannot exist even in principle, any more than cruelty to sand? There is a distinct difference between animal cruelty (hurting an animal for your own personal amusement) versus farming an animal in a cost effective way (which it may not enjoy). It's a slippery slope, for sure, and I'm fine with improvements to their standard of living as long as meat remains affordable to everyone.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > that does not make them human As I said, no-one is suggesting it does. > I will not draw false equivalency here so as to be put in the position of having to have the same moral standards for how we treat animals as we treat people Again, no-one is suggesting this. Animals need only have some capacity for suffering (and pleasure), to have some moral standing. > Herds of domesticated pigs exist because _we created them_, by domesticating and farming them over thousands of years. Evolutionarily, they owe their existence to mankind. We're certainly not going to let them die out. This has no connection to the moral question, much like your earlier point about how the animals are destined to ultimately die. When we reason about whether an action constitutes animal cruelty, it is of no concern where the animal came from, or whether its species will continue to survive, or whether mankind is the reason for the continuing survival of its species. > There is a distinct difference between animal cruelty (hurting an animal for your own personal amusement) versus farming an animal in a cost effective way (which it may not enjoy) In terms of the suffering imposed on the animal, there's no difference whether the action was done out of a sadistic motive, or a profit motive. Either way, the animal is made to suffer for the benefit of the person. That said, I agree that intent is an important factor in moral (as well as legal) reasoning. Like anyone, I'd judge someone far more harshly for torturing a pig just for the hell of it, than someone who mistreats animals in their professional capacity as a farm worker. If someone harmed an animal in an act of self defence, we wouldn't call that an act of cruelty. Still though, I see no reason to dismiss the question of whether the meat industry is a form of industrialised cruelty. I can see plenty of reasons to conclude that it is, and little reason to conclude that it's not. > I'm fine with improvements to their standard of living as long as meat remains affordable to everyone. I don't see that we should necessarily make a goal of maintaining meat availability and low pricepoint. (All of this applies just as well to other animal products, but let's stick with meat.) Meat is currently cheaply available, but this hasn't always been the case, and it doesn't in itself mean it should continue to be so. There are also other issues with animal farming. Animal farming is a major source of (human) infectious diseases. [0] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399585/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399585/

jbotz 6y ago

Well, I don't know where to start... to me animals are people, not human persons of course, but individuals with personality, thus "persons", i.e. people. To speak of "anthropomorphizing" animals is a bit outdated... as the primatologist Franz de Waal puts it, people who use that term are in "anthropodenial". Today's biologists and ethologists largely acknowledge that at least higher animals are sentient beings, with consciousness and a full complement of complex emotions and reasoning ability. You can argue that humans are on top in overall cognitive abilities, but it's really only by degree, not by fundamental kind... our cognitive machinery is only bigger than most other animals', not really different. As for your statement that animals' feelings "don't matter", well, why not? Not too long ago humans of one skin color said that the feelings of other humans of another skin color don't matter. Then we made some progress, and now to say that is considered barbaric. And many humans today are beginning to think it's time to make some more progress and realize that non-human animals' feelings also do matter.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> stop anthropomorphizing animals They aren't. No-one is saying that a pig has the same moral standing as a human. > They aren't people. Their "feelings" do not matter So you believe that animals are just automata with no consciousness? That animal cruelty cannot exist even in principle, any more than cruelty to sand? Descartes believed this. Today, we know better. > to call it "horrific" is a massive insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in that industry This doesn't address the matter of whether or not it's cruel. > I don't care if the animals I eat were happy, because no matter what happens they are going to be killed and I am going to cook and eat their bodies. Do you believe animals are conscious and capable of suffering, or not? Either way, it doesn't matter that they die in the end. If animals are conscious, it doesn't inform our morality that they are destined to die. People are also destined to die, but this doesn't impact our moral obligation to care about their suffering. If animals are not conscious, it doesn't matter whether they are destined to die.

core-questions 6y ago
> So you believe that animals are just automata with no consciousness? I don't think their consciousness matters. Obviously they're conscious and sentient to some extent; but that does not make them human, and I will not draw false equivalency here so as to be put in the position of having to have the same moral standards for how we treat animals as we treat people. Obviously, if I was going to do that, I wouldn't accept killing and eating them, either. Herds of domesticated pigs exist because _we created them_, by domesticating and farming them over thousands of years. Evolutionarily, they owe their existence to mankind. We're certainly not going to let them die out. > That animal cruelty cannot exist even in principle, any more than cruelty to sand? There is a distinct difference between animal cruelty (hurting an animal for your own personal amusement) versus farming an animal in a cost effective way (which it may not enjoy). It's a slippery slope, for sure, and I'm fine with improvements to their standard of living as long as meat remains affordable to everyone.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > that does not make them human As I said, no-one is suggesting it does. > I will not draw false equivalency here so as to be put in the position of having to have the same moral standards for how we treat animals as we treat people Again, no-one is suggesting this. Animals need only have some capacity for suffering (and pleasure), to have some moral standing. > Herds of domesticated pigs exist because _we created them_, by domesticating and farming them over thousands of years. Evolutionarily, they owe their existence to mankind. We're certainly not going to let them die out. This has no connection to the moral question, much like your earlier point about how the animals are destined to ultimately die. When we reason about whether an action constitutes animal cruelty, it is of no concern where the animal came from, or whether its species will continue to survive, or whether mankind is the reason for the continuing survival of its species. > There is a distinct difference between animal cruelty (hurting an animal for your own personal amusement) versus farming an animal in a cost effective way (which it may not enjoy) In terms of the suffering imposed on the animal, there's no difference whether the action was done out of a sadistic motive, or a profit motive. Either way, the animal is made to suffer for the benefit of the person. That said, I agree that intent is an important factor in moral (as well as legal) reasoning. Like anyone, I'd judge someone far more harshly for torturing a pig just for the hell of it, than someone who mistreats animals in their professional capacity as a farm worker. If someone harmed an animal in an act of self defence, we wouldn't call that an act of cruelty. Still though, I see no reason to dismiss the question of whether the meat industry is a form of industrialised cruelty. I can see plenty of reasons to conclude that it is, and little reason to conclude that it's not. > I'm fine with improvements to their standard of living as long as meat remains affordable to everyone. I don't see that we should necessarily make a goal of maintaining meat availability and low pricepoint. (All of this applies just as well to other animal products, but let's stick with meat.) Meat is currently cheaply available, but this hasn't always been the case, and it doesn't in itself mean it should continue to be so. There are also other issues with animal farming. Animal farming is a major source of (human) infectious diseases. [0] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399585/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399585/