Philip Wollen : Animals Should Be Off The Menu

[barts]

Whether it is "the same deer" is irrelevant. I addressed the concern of benefiting the gene pool with that of selective breeding... and even so, would you really claim it is more ethical to kill the weak than the strong?

My hypothetical did not address the latter point, as I suggested that the hunter could carve out as much meat as he wanted and leave the rest to rot. In such a situation they are essentially equivalent, are they not?

It would be helpful if you'd not keep altering your hypothetical to fit objections and failures. This is the course taken by religious people in their defense of gods and prophets.

The fact is that sport hunters and wolves target different animals, and the consequences of their activities have different consequences. It would be preferable if you not keep imagining different fictitious hunters as convenient to your argument which, I have to admit, seems obscure at this point.

It seems all you're arguing is that at times there can be an ethical relationship between human and non-human animals. On that it seems most people agree. No doubt it's a failure on my part, but I fail to see the nuance you're adding to the discussion.

[LetThereBe]

It would be helpful if you'd not keep altering your hypothetical to fit objections and failures. This is the course taken by religious people in their defense of gods and prophets.

The fact is that sport hunters and wolves target different animals, and the consequences of their activities have different consequences. It would be preferable if you not keep imagining different fictitious hunters as convenient to your argument which, I have to admit, seems obscure at this point.

It seems all you're arguing is that at times there can be an ethical relationship between human and non-human animals. On that it seems most people agree. No doubt it's a failure on my part, but I fail to see the nuance you're adding to the discussion.

Well, if it is situationally ethical to obtain and consume animal products, then that invalidates any claims that Veganism is ethically superior by default. Again, I alter the hypothetical to try and isolate exactly what actions are or are not immoral.
I am unable to establish exactly what your positions is, as you keep your claims ambiguous enough that there is plenty of room for caveat. You say "with few exceptions". What are these exceptions? Can only a purely mutualistic relationship be considered ethical?

It is hard to know whether I even hold your argument in contention when you make overly-general claims.

[barts]

Well, if it is situationally ethical to obtain and consume animal products, then that invalidates any claims that Veganism is ethically superior by default.

What logic are rationale are you using to make this conclusion?

Veganism causes less harm and suffering than eating animal products. How that is not "ethically superior" eludes me. Please explain.


Also please define the notion of "situationally ethical".

[LetThereBe]

What logic are rationale are you using to make this conclusion?

Veganism causes less harm and suffering than eating animal products. How that is not "ethically superior" eludes me. Please explain.


Also please define the notion of "situationally ethical".

I have a chicken. That chicken lays eggs, some of which I take and consume. I provide that chicken with food and protection from predators. This relationship is to both of our benefit.
It would not be ethically superior to be vegan instead. In fact, since both the chicken and I benefit, this system is ethically superior to one in which I do not have the chicken.

I say "situationally ethical" because it depends on the treatment of the animal. If I keep the chicken in painful, cramped conditions that cause more harm than the benefit I provide then it is arguably not ethical.

[barts]

I have a chicken. That chicken lays eggs, some of which I take and consume. I provide that chicken with food and protection from predators. This relationship is to both of our benefit.
It would not be ethically superior to be vegan instead. In fact, since both the chicken and I benefit, this system is ethically superior to one in which I do not have the chicken.

I say "situationally ethical" because it depends on the treatment of the animal. If I keep the chicken in painful, cramped conditions that cause more harm than the benefit I provide then it is arguably not ethical.

So, let me see if I have your view correct. If you can provide one example of an ethical use of animals by human beings then, in general, not using animals at all (i.e veganism) is not ethically superior to using animals in any fashion whatsoever. This seems to me to be your position. In other words, ethically there is no difference in your view from someone who consumes organic and sustainably grown plant-based foods to someone who consumes industrially raised animal products and goes sport hunting. Am I stating your position correctly?

[LetThereBe]

So, let me see if I have your view correct. If you can provide one example of an ethical use of animals by human beings then, in general, not using animals at all (i.e veganism) is not ethically superior to using animals in any fashion whatsoever. This seems to me to be your position. In other words, ethically there is no difference in your view from someone who consumes organic and sustainably grown plant-based foods to someone who consumes industrially raised animal products and goes sport hunting. Am I stating your position correctly?

No, that is a blatant strawman. My position is exactly what I said:
Veganism isn't ethically superior by default. Whether or not it is in fact superior is situational. There is nothing fundamentally immoral about obtaining or using animal derived products.

Not using animals at all is not ethically superior to using animals in SOME fashions.

Furthermore I would say Veganism is a completely ethically neutral position. Whether or not you consume animal products is irrelevant to ethics. What is relevant is whether your actions support CRUELTY. Yes, in general a non-vegan lifestyle would have a higher correlation with cruel practices, but since the use of animal products isn't itself by nature cruel you cannot claim Veganism to be superior.

[truthreality]

Well, initially I specified that the living conditions were actually superior to those of nature, but this seemed to confuse barts so I simplified.
The modified analogy would be more like this:

Let's say a man is living in a home, starving and fearing murderers. He gets murdered.

Let's say a man is living in a home, and we give him food and protection from murderers. After living in relative comfort for many years, we murder him.

If overall we eliminate more suffering, isn't that the more ethical course?

Ridiculous hypotheticals like this deserve a dislike button.

[truthreality]

No, that is a blatant strawman. My position is exactly what I said:
Veganism isn't ethically superior by default. Whether or not it is in fact superior is situational. There is nothing fundamentally immoral about obtaining or using animal derived products.

Not using animals at all is not ethically superior to using animals in SOME fashions.

Furthermore I would say Veganism is a completely ethically neutral position. Whether or not you consume animal products is irrelevant to ethics. What is relevant is whether your actions support CRUELTY. Yes, in general a non-vegan lifestyle would have a higher correlation with cruel practices, but since the use of animal products isn't itself by nature cruel you cannot claim Veganism to be superior.

You do realize humans are animals don't you? Why does your line of reasoning only apply to other animals? Your position is incredibly selfish and egocentric.

[BlackSheep]

Ridiculous hypotheticals like this deserve a dislike button.

It is funny, because I think it is a very interesting hypothetical. It potentially has the opposite effect as one might think. Many people might agree that a non-human animal in this situation would be better off while many people would have the exact opposite opinion for humans. It is similar to a major theme in the Matrix.

[LetThereBe]

Ridiculous hypotheticals like this deserve a dislike button.

What a well thought out criticism!

If you do not feel the analogy is valid, please explain how it is significantly different.

You do realize humans are animals don't you? Why does your line of reasoning only apply to other animals? Your position is incredibly selfish and egocentric.

My position is perfectly consistent. I feel using products derived from humans is also perfectly ethical when there is a mutual advantage.

[barts]

No, that is a blatant strawman. My position is exactly what I said:
Veganism isn't ethically superior by default. Whether or not it is in fact superior is situational. There is nothing fundamentally immoral about obtaining or using animal derived products.

So, let me get this straight. A vegan who consumes organic, sustainable plant-based foods is situationally more ethical than someone who consumes industrially produced animal products, but they are not fundamentally more ethical.

The nuance is lost on me, and seems utterly irrelevant in practical terms.

[barts]

I feel using products derived from humans is also perfectly ethical when there is a mutual advantage.

An example would be the black market in human organs.