4 ms·

Why care about the suffering, but not about the extinguishing of a life? If the moment to moment experience of a thing has value, but the thing's actual existen

by wcarss 6y ago

Why care about the suffering, but not about the extinguishing of a life? If the moment to moment experience of a thing has value, but the thing's actual existence does not, why should (humane) murder not be legal? I do implore you to wake up -- you are deluding yourself for the sake of the pleasure. Death is a form of suffering. Whether the creature you kill knows it lives only to die for you, whether it can see and understand some aspect of its cage or not, you took it before its time. It is all the same wrong in the end. Now, eating an animal that died of natural or uncontrollable causes, or using for-real excess milk or eggs? Sure, fine. But those are not at all sustainable activities at a population level. We have to do things to animals that cause real harm to ever get enough of those products to sell them, even if we treat the animals way better overall. (And it's still better to push for better treatment than to do and feel nothing!) My own mental backflip: I do still eat meat, because I'm a selfish and horrible person. I accept my complicity in the evil. But I also know my own choices will not meaningfully change demand patterns, so I allow myself the pleasure of the flavours I grew up eating, and try not to dwell on it too much. Even the Buddha was said to eat meat if it was what was served -- but of course, would request not to be served it! Regardless, I know full veganism is the only actually ethically justifiable choice, and I believe and hope it will one day be the only realistic or acceptable choice for all of us. I will advocate for it (I hope) strongly whenever I can. No being deserves any part of what we do to them for food, and most people have pretty awful reasons to continue to eat meat; often literally at the level of, "animals can't suffer!", or, "humans are a higher being!", which is a mind-blowingly horrific thing to understand people will assert even after being given the evidence. I find the dismissive attitude appalling and try to get friends to at least see it in its real light. Personally, once I catch wind that the tide toward veganism is beginning to turn, or that we somehow achieved affordable ethically lab-grown cheap muscle+fat tissue meats, I'll gladly turn that page. Or, once the horror again resurges strongly enough to overcome the value of shepherd's pie, thanksgiving ham, or a hamburger. It's not much of an intellectual position, but it's all I've got. I ask that you at least be honest with yourself: the beings you eat have suffered for your pleasure.

imoverclocked 6y ago
> Death is a form of suffering. I don't think this blanket statement is true. eg: people often live long past the point that they enjoy being alive. > Now, eating an animal that died of natural or uncontrollable causes, or using for-real excess milk or eggs? What's "natural" in your opinion? Do you mean old-age, disease, natural predators or something else? Humans are natural predators. Death from old age/disease is often caused by environmental factors or stress. Calling any of this "evil" is an interesting choice. Maybe this is all just how the world works and we have yet to accept that as a species. I do think our role in the food chain needs to be sustainably defined and understood.
- wcarss 6y ago
  Thanks for taking the time. It's an interesting argument that many people live past the point that they enjoy life, but I doubt you are really suggesting we would be right to kill those people without their direct consent. Euthanasia, where it is at all accepted as moral, typically requires consent. If you think you can get the consent of an animal to kill it, well... let's cross that bridge when we come to it! Regardless, 'death' in this instance is still not necessarily a pleasure -- it may just be the option with the least suffering, and even if there are exceptions to death as a form of suffering, it doesn't seem far off base. As living beings, we value life. Next, I agree that "natural" could mean a lot of things. In this case, understanding that we're discussing moral involvement, I'm speaking about whether or not you have moral involvement in causing the death. Paying for a burger from McDonald's is indirectly asking for the death of the cow. They wouldn't kill it if no one bought burgers, but we all know that people do buy burgers, so the blame is diffuse. We all share. But you, in eating it, still profit by the being's death, and it was ultimately a deed done for your benefit when you chose to pay them. Of course it is more direct if you pay a butcher to slaughter a cow, and far more direct if you wield the knife. Hit a deer with your car by mistake? Maybe that's like manslaughter levels of culpability. As a sidebar, is a cow killed by a wolf a natural death? It happens 'in nature', and the wolf couldn't live without killing other things, so it is natural for a wolf to kill a cow. But... is the death a natural death? I do not feel it is. I cannot blame the wolf (as it does not know better and does not possess other actual options, like we do), but I do not think the cow exists for the wolf. To paraphrase Kant I think, each being is an end unto itself. The cow's most natural death is one of old age, i.e. what we would legally call 'natural causes'. Suppose that health care could have extended its life, well sure, but there's a limit of practicality. Last, it would be possible to justify literally any act from the position of "maybe this is just how the world works and we have to accept it" -- so, again, sure. But slavery was 'just how the world worked' for a long time, and I feel I am better off, and I can think of a hell of a lot of other humans who are better off, for us eventually having not just accepted it. There are similarities. Veganism is really the only choice that's morally consistent, intellectually honest, and doesn't rely on special permission. It is ultimately not really arguable that it is a terrible thing for us to do to breed them, to keep them, to manipulate them, to harvest their products, and to kill them, especially in the ways we do. One must rely on ideas like 'might is right', 'we are inherently special for reasons that must be taken on faith', or 'nothing really matters anyway, everything is relative', which are exactly the arguments that have been used to justify all past atrocities of our doing.

by wcarss 6y ago

imoverclocked 6y ago

> Death is a form of suffering. I don't think this blanket statement is true. eg: people often live long past the point that they enjoy being alive. > Now, eating an animal that died of natural or uncontrollable causes, or using for-real excess milk or eggs? What's "natural" in your opinion? Do you mean old-age, disease, natural predators or something else? Humans are natural predators. Death from old age/disease is often caused by environmental factors or stress. Calling any of this "evil" is an interesting choice. Maybe this is all just how the world works and we have yet to accept that as a species. I do think our role in the food chain needs to be sustainably defined and understood.

wcarss 6y ago
Thanks for taking the time. It's an interesting argument that many people live past the point that they enjoy life, but I doubt you are really suggesting we would be right to kill those people without their direct consent. Euthanasia, where it is at all accepted as moral, typically requires consent. If you think you can get the consent of an animal to kill it, well... let's cross that bridge when we come to it! Regardless, 'death' in this instance is still not necessarily a pleasure -- it may just be the option with the least suffering, and even if there are exceptions to death as a form of suffering, it doesn't seem far off base. As living beings, we value life. Next, I agree that "natural" could mean a lot of things. In this case, understanding that we're discussing moral involvement, I'm speaking about whether or not you have moral involvement in causing the death. Paying for a burger from McDonald's is indirectly asking for the death of the cow. They wouldn't kill it if no one bought burgers, but we all know that people do buy burgers, so the blame is diffuse. We all share. But you, in eating it, still profit by the being's death, and it was ultimately a deed done for your benefit when you chose to pay them. Of course it is more direct if you pay a butcher to slaughter a cow, and far more direct if you wield the knife. Hit a deer with your car by mistake? Maybe that's like manslaughter levels of culpability. As a sidebar, is a cow killed by a wolf a natural death? It happens 'in nature', and the wolf couldn't live without killing other things, so it is natural for a wolf to kill a cow. But... is the death a natural death? I do not feel it is. I cannot blame the wolf (as it does not know better and does not possess other actual options, like we do), but I do not think the cow exists for the wolf. To paraphrase Kant I think, each being is an end unto itself. The cow's most natural death is one of old age, i.e. what we would legally call 'natural causes'. Suppose that health care could have extended its life, well sure, but there's a limit of practicality. Last, it would be possible to justify literally any act from the position of "maybe this is just how the world works and we have to accept it" -- so, again, sure. But slavery was 'just how the world worked' for a long time, and I feel I am better off, and I can think of a hell of a lot of other humans who are better off, for us eventually having not just accepted it. There are similarities. Veganism is really the only choice that's morally consistent, intellectually honest, and doesn't rely on special permission. It is ultimately not really arguable that it is a terrible thing for us to do to breed them, to keep them, to manipulate them, to harvest their products, and to kill them, especially in the ways we do. One must rely on ideas like 'might is right', 'we are inherently special for reasons that must be taken on faith', or 'nothing really matters anyway, everything is relative', which are exactly the arguments that have been used to justify all past atrocities of our doing.