5 ms·

Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals? When you say "some people have different values" you probably mean

Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals? When you say "some people have different values" you probably mean "some people have simply not thought it through". I really don't think there's an ethical framework that favours industrial meat production. But please surprise me. Now, most people have inconsistent ethics. Which I think is a different thing. I think most people that engage with the industrial meat complex simply ignore the ethical implications, that's actually quite easy to do and even more so when most people are just inconsistent when it comes to ethics. Sometimes people are utilitarians, other times they behave like deontologists and other times they will apply ethics of care. I believe we are constantly building our own personal ethical frameworks. And that's kind of what you're alluding to, but I also think it's important to acknowledge that consistency is important, and I believe if we really tried to accomplish that most people would be faced with a very harsh reality. It's a struggle but we should be more honest with ourselves and the rest.

Eisenstein 4y ago
> Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals? The one in which human comfort takes precedence over that of a domesticated species which have been selectively bred over generations to produce meat for consumption. The industrial process is tertiary to the slaughter itself and the economics of meat consumption. You can argue about 'industrialization' of anything -- resource extraction and industrial agriculture at large destroy life on a massive scale. > When you say "some people have different values" you probably mean "some people have simply not thought it through" No, some people don't value animal life that has been domesticate specifically for food production. Not many people want a domestic pig in their house, so why do they exist? Not by natural selection and not for their own sake. We made them and we eat them and we don't care because we also don't care about paramecium and the pigs certainly wouldn't care if you were being fed to it, it would just eat you. > Now, most people have inconsistent ethics. Sure, I will grant you that and go one further -- all people have inconsistent ethics. Why do you care about pigs and not amoebas? Is it because one has a brain? Is it because one is multicellular? Is it because one is cute, or intelligent? What are the criteria? List all of your ethical criteria for food consumption and 'willing to argue that people who do it are bad people' and then list the features of everything you do and the consequences of those things and cross reference -- now, when you find a conflict, highlight it and then stop doing it. I bet you can't without seriously inconveniencing yourself to the point where you justify not following through. > It's a struggle but we should be more honest with ourselves and the rest. Absolutely agree. Self-awareness is the most important trait. I think that the term 'good person' can be roughly defined to mean 'self-aware and willing to correct after reflection'.
- devb 4y ago
  >> Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals? > The one in which human comfort takes precedence over that of a domesticated species which have been selectively bred over generations to produce meat for consumption. The industrial process is tertiary to the slaughter itself and the economics of meat consumption. You can argue about 'industrialization' of anything -- resource extraction and industrial agriculture at large destroy life on a massive scale. How is human comfort an "ethical framework"? I'm not sure you understand what ethics are.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    I'm willing to learn. Please teach me why 'human comfort' is not a value to which one can prescribe a an ethical weight.
    - boston_clone 4y ago
      So, in short, most people think it’s wrong to permanently end a creatures life because you get some temporary good feelings out of it. You can prescribe a value, but if temporary sensory pleasures truly outweigh the entire lives of other beings, there may be neurological issues affecting compassion.
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        'Comfort' means 'lacking hardship', not 'hedonistic pleasure'.
        boston_clone 4y ago
        Then I would argue that there is no difference in comfort when living a life fueled by dead animals and their excretions versus a life fueled by plants. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ Most individuals are comfortable admitting that they prefer to not abstain from things like steak and cheese because those things simply taste good. That, to me, is hedonistic pleasure: unnecessary, and an invalid argument for the continued abuse and slaughter of billions of animals around the world.
stametseater 4y ago
> Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals? Most major religions for starts. Probably not the answer you were looking for, nor one that sits well with you, but it is nevertheless the truth. Perhaps you, like myself, are an atheist. Well it turns out that most atheists eat meat too. So the evidence points towards industrial slaughter being ethical in most secular ethical frameworks as well. inb4 "it's not a real ethical framework if I disagree with it."

Eisenstein 4y ago

> Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals? The one in which human comfort takes precedence over that of a domesticated species which have been selectively bred over generations to produce meat for consumption. The industrial process is tertiary to the slaughter itself and the economics of meat consumption. You can argue about 'industrialization' of anything -- resource extraction and industrial agriculture at large destroy life on a massive scale. > When you say "some people have different values" you probably mean "some people have simply not thought it through" No, some people don't value animal life that has been domesticate specifically for food production. Not many people want a domestic pig in their house, so why do they exist? Not by natural selection and not for their own sake. We made them and we eat them and we don't care because we also don't care about paramecium and the pigs certainly wouldn't care if you were being fed to it, it would just eat you. > Now, most people have inconsistent ethics. Sure, I will grant you that and go one further -- all people have inconsistent ethics. Why do you care about pigs and not amoebas? Is it because one has a brain? Is it because one is multicellular? Is it because one is cute, or intelligent? What are the criteria? List all of your ethical criteria for food consumption and 'willing to argue that people who do it are bad people' and then list the features of everything you do and the consequences of those things and cross reference -- now, when you find a conflict, highlight it and then stop doing it. I bet you can't without seriously inconveniencing yourself to the point where you justify not following through. > It's a struggle but we should be more honest with ourselves and the rest. Absolutely agree. Self-awareness is the most important trait. I think that the term 'good person' can be roughly defined to mean 'self-aware and willing to correct after reflection'.

devb 4y ago
>> Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals? > The one in which human comfort takes precedence over that of a domesticated species which have been selectively bred over generations to produce meat for consumption. The industrial process is tertiary to the slaughter itself and the economics of meat consumption. You can argue about 'industrialization' of anything -- resource extraction and industrial agriculture at large destroy life on a massive scale. How is human comfort an "ethical framework"? I'm not sure you understand what ethics are.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  I'm willing to learn. Please teach me why 'human comfort' is not a value to which one can prescribe a an ethical weight.
  - boston_clone 4y ago
    So, in short, most people think it’s wrong to permanently end a creatures life because you get some temporary good feelings out of it. You can prescribe a value, but if temporary sensory pleasures truly outweigh the entire lives of other beings, there may be neurological issues affecting compassion.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      'Comfort' means 'lacking hardship', not 'hedonistic pleasure'.
      - boston_clone 4y ago
        Then I would argue that there is no difference in comfort when living a life fueled by dead animals and their excretions versus a life fueled by plants. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ Most individuals are comfortable admitting that they prefer to not abstain from things like steak and cheese because those things simply taste good. That, to me, is hedonistic pleasure: unnecessary, and an invalid argument for the continued abuse and slaughter of billions of animals around the world.

stametseater 4y ago

> Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals? Most major religions for starts. Probably not the answer you were looking for, nor one that sits well with you, but it is nevertheless the truth. Perhaps you, like myself, are an atheist. Well it turns out that most atheists eat meat too. So the evidence points towards industrial slaughter being ethical in most secular ethical frameworks as well. inb4 "it's not a real ethical framework if I disagree with it."