Holocaust on animals

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

There's nothing wrong with using laboratory animals for experiments on several grounds.

1. Utility ethics/personhood
2. Pragmaticism

Pragmaticism is important because it limits ethics. First, look at why it is intrinsically ok to use animals sometimes and when it is not ok to use animals sometimes. I then establish how this intrinsic "ok" is molded and changed due to pragmatic concerns. Even if something would be ideally ethical, you cannot always apply it perfectly in reality.


1. Generally, you ought to do what does the greatest god. If the choice of using lab animals over humans maximizes necessary benefits and minimizes necessary harms, you ought to choose lab animals. I support animal testing for medicine and things that objectively benefit the whole. I have no problem with testing on animals who are not sapient for medical purpouses, but I do not support experiments for "cosmetic research." However, in the interest of justice, all sentient animals should be given some moral consideration if it is given that they have roughly equal mental faculties to a human. deally, for all animals that have relative par with humans mentally, you should treat them no differently from a similiar level human. To accentuate this, you should not do an experiment on X animal if you would not do said experiment on Y human with the same rough mental capacity. For example, if you have an extremely retarded infant or a really low IQ human, and you want to test the effectiveness on it or a chimp, you shouldn't do the test on the chimp if you wouldn't do it on the baby human as well, given that the baby is at a mental level equal to or lower than the chimp. That is very possible. Once establishing this concept, we can move to pragmatism and see that even if this were true, utility is also influenced by what can actually be done reasonably.

2. Even if you accept that you shouldn't be speciest, there are some pragmatic concerns which make other animals very useful, whereas using human equivalents wouldn't be. If there is some extrinsic reason for not so being "just," you can add utility on behalf of using the other animals. Using retarded babies for testing chemicals, drugs, etc might or might not work. If you are testing for drugs, it's possible that the drug might work differently for retarded kids. There would be a drop in Utility if you used the human because of inaccuracies. If these inaccuracies would be minimal, however, then it's not a problem.

Another pragmatic concern is not effectiveness of experiments and tests, rather supply. It seems like it would be very expensive to get a large supply of babies. You would have to have some type of baby-factory suppllying severely retarded babies; that's not bad in and of itself, but the cost would probably be undoable. Rats and other animals can be gotten cheaply, and you need lots of them to have successful results.

However, there's nothing wrong, really, with testing on human subjects such as prisoners, given that they are going to die anyway, whether they want to be tested on or not. It's really irrelevant what their sapience-status is if you are going to kill them regardless. You might as well kill them and do good instead of killing them and wasting money. However, if they aren't going to die, and killing them isn't already going to happen, then morality would shift back to animals.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Those damn speciesists. I hate them. Always thinking humans are better than dogs and cows and fleas. What the hell's the matter with them?

Did I tell you I got a letter from my friend? He has a similar problem. Here's what he wrote:

Dear 'Crow,

How's tricks? I'm busy right now, protesting and all, but I can dictate this letter since I've taken root infront of Archer Daniel Midland corporate offices.

I wanted to tell you how much you've inspired us and that all of us on the picket line appreciate your efforts. You're work on speciesism and your demand for equality of the species no matter how gross or how small has truly inspired our movement as we look to your efforts for guidance in our much larger cause.

As you know, ADM has millions of our fellows in their gulags awaiting execution, and we need to push really hard if we're going to save any of them from the fate that awaits them. It's totally unconscionable that anyone could have the arrogance to do what ADM and the others have done. Hopefully the reaper will come for them too, someday soon.

It's pure kingdomism, I tell you, the assumption that some animals have that they can simply eat plants just because they can't escape. Where do they get off, anyway?

Good luck, and don't give up the fight,

Your friend,

Bill Broccoli

And of course, the real reason Bush hates broccoli is that he's been paid off by the big agri-businesses like ADM.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Those damn speciesists. I hate them. Always thinking humans are better than dogs and cows and fleas. What the hell's the matter with them?
Did I tell you I got a letter from my friend? He has a similar problem. Here's what he wrote:

Your rebuttle is a nice Strawman Fallacy as well as a False Analogy Fallacy.

1. You misunderstand the concept of Personhood and Preference Utility. Neither I nor any other Utilitarian would claim that one ought to favour fleas or dogs over human persons. In fact, you probably don't understand preference utilitarianism at all and are merely throwing foreward a knee-jerk reaction against it. Utilitarian ethicists (including myself) do not treat dogs, cats, and fleas as equal to humans persons, and the above post of mine doesn't stipulate that. We balance utility in the form of Preferences.

You ought to choose that action which does the greatest good for the greatest number, and the greatest good in preference utiity is the recognition and actualization of preferences. The ability to express, form preferences is something Humans can do, because they are rationally autonomous beings who are self aware. From personhood, Utilitarianism makes decisions based based on equality of moral consideration for all beings who express personhood. Preference satisfaction of moral "persons" is what matters, not mere biology, because mere biology ignores morally important characteristics of Humans. What is valuable is the ability to form preferences, which follows self-awareness.

2. A Vegetable can never, will never, and does not express preferences, since it is not rationally autonomous or self-aware as a being. As such, you cannot compare it to the animal kingdom at all.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Actually, I just have an extreme allergy to the word "speciesist".

Then again, I would never, NEVER, presume that any animal is the equivalent of a human. Except for the Chimp Moe, or at least his pals.

Moe, if you haven't heard, was a chimp who kept a couple of loons for pets. These loons were mammalian, of the genus homo, not the avian kind. Moe was ill behaved towards humans of the sapiens kind, and he eventually wound up in a chimp prison in Simi Valley. Society being what it is, no one volunteered to take care of Moe's loons and they were allowed to wander about unsupervised. They missed their master, and visited him often. Being overly sentimental, on Moe's birthday they brought him a birthday cake. That was very nice of the loons, I must say.

Now, Moe's prison was a very modern and progressive kind of chimp prison, so he wasn't kept in solitary confinement, but was able to share his cell with other chimps. On visiting day, the loons and Moe were placed in a cage separated from Moe's new friends by a chain-link fence and a gate. The loons proceeded to share with Moe the very pretty birthday cake, and Moe completely ignored his friends watching on the other side of the wire.

Any ex-convict will tell you that's it's not nice to hog all the cake, and Moe's new pals weren't new fish. And being more intelligent than Moe's loons, they were able to open the gate without assistance.

The female loon escaped without harm. The male loon at first report sustained massive injuries, including the removal of minor unnecessary objects in his groin area. The male loon is recovering, hopefully without the means to propagate his deficiencies back into the gene pool.

Moe's friends may be on trial for aggravated criminal assualt, which might mean a capital offense for a chimp.

=====

No, coercive experimentation on people as if they were animals, denying the opportunity of informed consent and realisable dissent is totally immoral and thoroughly unethical. Ain't nothing pragmatic about it. Humans' aren't chimps.

And the presumption of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is one of the most offensive of the socialist slogans. That's like having ten wolves and three sheep vote on what to have for lunch.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

And the presumption of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is one of the most offensive of the socialist slogans. That's like having ten wolves and three sheep vote on what to have for lunch.

1. It's woefully ignorant of ethics to claim that socialists and communists have exclusive rights to the Utility Principle, so if you think the Utility Principle is socialist, then you have quite a lot to learn about ethics. "The Utility Principle" is hardly communistic or socialistic, although both economic doctrines CAN claim to provide Utility. Such notions, however are plainly absurd if you actually take time to think, read Utilitarianism (by JS Mill), and then look at modern society. What societies tend to be the best? What societies provide the most Utility? (Hint...it ain't the communist ones.) Utility Theory is highly supportive of Capitalism, and many Utilitarians promote Capitalism and were/are Capitalists themselves. There is nothing inherently socialistic about Utilitarianism--it simply picks the best action/system available.

Capitalism is good, it is pragmatic, and it is the best choice for an economy. It is the epitome of Utilitarianism.

Actually, I just have an extreme allergy to the word "speciesist".Then again, I would never, NEVER, presume that any animal is the equivalent of a human. Except for the Chimp Moe, or at least his pals.

Ok. That's reasonable. I too have an extreme allergy, but it's to Libertarians, but I don't feel the need to bring it up every five-minutes as you do with socialism. As you will know, if we debate, I am not a rabid "animal rights" activist. You will never hear me say that a dog is equal to a Human. It's not. I am not a member of PETA, and I don't think Humans are equal to many other animals. I do, however, recognize that in the interests of the equalitiy principle, all beings with rough criteria-par ought to have consideration.

This is a common problem among many people; they don't look at why Humans are more regarded. I am not saying they don't deserve higher consideration; they do. Why, however, is the intellectual crux of the argument, and it is from there that you can make a calculation. You consistantly dichotomize Animal/Human...there is no such division. Humans are Animals. We are not magical gods or agnels, nor are we the universe's gift. If we are to make ethical judgements about the value of creatures, we must use reason and say why.

No, coercive experimentation on people as if they were animals, denying the opportunity of informed consent and realisable dissent is totally immoral and thoroughly unethical. Ain't nothing pragmatic about it. Humans' aren't chimps.

Yes. Humans are not Chimps. That's a keen observation. However, what makes Humans human? What makes them valuable? If said criteria are absent, so absent are the rights. There's nothing inherently wrong, therfore, with using severely retarded babies as medical test subjects, who are mentally the same as a Chimpanzee. The only thing that would make it immoral is the pragmatism--the cost factor and the level of success.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

1. It's woefully ignorant of ethics to claim that socialists and communists have exclusive rights to the Utility Principle, so if you think the Utility Principle is socialist, then you have quite a lot to learn about ethics.

Oh, no. A lot of altruistic fools think sacrificing others for their benefit is worthwhile.

I'm not one of them.

I'm my own greatest cause. A couple of simple rules:

Stealing's not allowed. I know people seeking to act "for the greater good" don't understand this, but stealing what isn't yours is still morally reprehensible.

Murder is the theft of life. That pretty much eliminates the benefits of socialism and it's cousins fascism, communism, and liberalism.

You're not allowed to force others to do things via threats of violence or threats of unequal treatment before the law. That's called "extortion".

And for Pete's sake, you people have to keep your hands to yourself. No hitting, no picking pockets. It's called "mutual respect".

So what are people supposed to do that want to help others but aren't allowed to steal or murder or extort?

Is there something wrong with donating your own time? Your own money? ASKING people to DONATE money? It's amazing how much you can get done by being truly nice, instead of being the nice acting man with the gun.

And you'd even gain the respect of your superiors if you stopped acting like gangsters. Ever think about that?

I'm gonna go watch Wallace and Grommit, I apologize for not finishing your post or my response. I'll be back in a while.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Utilitarianism does not sacrifice anyone for personal benefit; it considers the moral value of everyone who is relevant to a decision. You aren't allowed to frak people over for self gain.

Does most of your philosphy centre around Ayn Rand's Objectivism? It sounds like you are a supporter of Ayn Rand. I agree with some of her stuff, but I cannot say I am a fan.

Natural Rights ethics is perhaps the weakest of all ethical systems, since it has no stand-alone basis. Rights stem from Utility and Duty.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Utilitarianism does not sacrifice anyone for personal benefit; it considers the moral value of everyone who is relevant to a decision. You aren't allowed to frak people over for self gain.

Utter hogwash poured over tripe then served on a fresh steaming platter of horse exhaust.

Another pragmatic concern is not effectiveness of experiments and tests, rather supply. It seems like it would be very expensive to get a large supply of babies. You would have to have some type of baby-factory suppllying severely retarded babies; that's not bad in and of itself, but the cost would probably be undoable. Rats and other animals can be gotten cheaply, and you need lots of them to have successful results.

However, there's nothing wrong, really, with testing on human subjects such as prisoners, given that they are going to die anyway, whether they want to be tested on or not. It's really irrelevant what their sapience-status is if you are going to kill them regardless. You might as well kill them and do good instead of killing them and wasting money. However, if they aren't going to die, and killing them isn't already going to happen, then morality would shift back to animals.

I'm pretty certain that we'd be able to generate a large supply of retarded babies if more people **** *** would stop making **** girlfriends get abortions. (edited)

Oh, I'm sorry, that's very rude of me. I shouldn't do that. But sometimes my muse gets annoyed, and you know how it is when those Greek godlets get unhappy.

Does most of your philosphy centre around Ayn Rand's Objectivism? It sounds like you are a supporter of Ayn Rand. I agree with some of her stuff, but I cannot say I am a fan.

No, while the philosophy she's espoused is right in many respects, it's also imperfect. But she is handy for teaching those that haven't figured out things for themselves. She's a portal through which one may start to learn to think.

Start with humility. You're born naked, and there's no god to give you special authority over others. Proceed logically from there. Since all other persons were also born nekkid, it's reasonable to deny that they have any special authority over you, also. Hence, we're all "created" equal, so long as you're able to bear in mind that the act of "creation" was nothing more than a momentary muscular spasm that triggered pleasure centers in a man's brain that's no more special than you are, and no less.

Well, since we're all equal, who the hell is anyone to tell me what to do? Who am I to give orders? That status is earned, usually through money, though flawed instinctual wiring in many human brains requires them to follow something, whether it be a man, Konrad's boots, or some silly fantasy about a spirit in the sky. Whatever, it's their choice to be that way. But there's no automatic right to give orders, and there's no right to assume others owe loyalty.

Legitimate ways to gather the money are via work, or investment, though oft times it's also an inheritance or a gift. There are other forms of debt and promise, of course. Honor is a system of keeping track of such, though no two cultures define the word identically. As far as I'm concerned, honor means honest dealing without finger crossing or loophole dodging. That'll work on a short posting.

People legitimately command obedience by being able to pay them, in whatever coin they will accept, or by issuing promises. Illegitimate forms of command as exist today are forms of extortion. The invention of "victimless" crimes, and punishments that serve only to feed governmental coffers aren't legit. Drafts to feed bodies to war clearly fit no scheme of freedom. Income taxes and other involuntary taxation that carry the threat of prison or confiscation of property as the price of refusal is major example of illegitimate power in today's society.

Some idiot, I believe his name was Rousseau, claimed that the child incurred debt because his parents raised him and his society educated him, and therefore that child, now adult, owed duty and possibly his life, to that society, if the king so demanded it. That's hooey. The child is not given a choice, raising the child is the responsibility of the parents and the natural consequence of their choice to exchange bodily fluids.


The child when grown owes society nothing except an obligation to not steal, to not murder, and to keep promises. That's it. His growth in power from there depends on his ability to pay his agents that effect that power. No person has any other form of legitimate authority over anyone else.

Natural Rights ethics is perhaps the weakest of all ethical systems, since it has no stand-alone basis. Rights stem from Utility and Duty.

Amazing, ain't it? I didn't once say anyone had a "right" to anything. Not to life. Not to liberty. Not to chasing happiness. Not once. Want to know why?

Because not only am I not arguing from a "natural rights" perspective, I deny that rights are anything but a fiction used by those who either don't understand or who're trying to pull one over.

Rights don't exist.

Power does.

I don't have a right to free speech. But in this country the Congress is forbidden to use it's power to shut me up.

I don't have a right to own a gun. If I don't have the money, no one is required to give me one. But in this country, the Congress is not permitted to deny my owership. (Not that this country obeys it's own laws )

I certainly don't have a right to life. I expect to die sometime. But again, in this country the government is forbidden from killing me, unless I've been convicted of committing a crime that carries death as a penalty.

And on down the list we can go. The "bill of rights" is a "list of what the people cannot do to each other through the governmennt".

As I say, "rights" are a fiction. And since they don't exist, they don't stem from utility, nor do they arise from duty.

I define my duties. No one else is able.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Utter hogwash poured over tripe then served on a fresh steaming platter of horse exhaust.

A logical argument this doth not make. If this is going to be the extent of your debate skills, please state it now. I have neither the time nor the desire for highschooler level debates with children who pretend to be "hip" by assuming the Virtue of Selfishness. They tend to grow up and out of that "pretend ethics." Make some attempt at a logical, reasoned discussion, then and ony then will I reply from now on.

Once you are done trolling in the land of pre-conventional ethics, we can talk. Send me a PM if you want to debate this topic. If you don't wish to, don't; I have no need to come back then if you aren't serious and are merely going to evade and mock ethics in favour of Egoism.

 

[Kelzie]

A logical argument this doth not make. If this is going to be the extent of your debate skills, please state it now. I have neither the time nor the desire for highschooler level debates with children who pretend to be "hip" by assuming the Virtue of Selfishness. They tend to grow up and out of that "pretend ethics." Make some attempt at a logical, reasoned discussion, then and ony then will I reply from now on.

Once you are done trolling in the land of pre-conventional ethics, we can talk. Send me a PM if you want to debate this topic. If you don't wish to, don't; I have no need to come back then if you aren't serious and are merely going to evade and mock ethics in favour of Egoism.

Wait, what? There are still egoists around? I thought they died out once that theory was proven to be false? Asked you somewhere else, but I don't remember where (a sure sign that it's almost time for bed). If you're a utilitarian, you must be vegan, right?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Wait, what? There are still egoists around? I thought they died out once that theory was proven to be false? Asked you somewhere else, but I don't remember where (a sure sign that it's almost time for bed). If you're a utilitarian, you must be vegan, right?

Yes. There are still egoists around, but they hide under a new name--Objectivists. These are philosphies espoused by teenagers who never get passed Kohlebergs pre-conventional stage of ethics. According to the Idiot-Objectivist, nothing matters ethically except what the individual wants, regardless of the costs and consequences to anyone around him. All that matters is what he wants, when he wants it, how he wants it. As long as you aren't actively violating the rights of anyone else, you can screw over, increase suffering, or allow to suffer anyone if it pleases you to do so.

Objectivism is egoism, and it espouses a doctrine of Selfishness. Ayn Rand's book as actually called "The Virtue of Selfishness." If you actually read her ****, you would want to puke it's so moronic. Under Objectivism, you can actually morally defend yourself if you walk passed a small child drowning in a pond if you feel it is against your interest to get your clothes wet. An Objectivist could, potentially, have zero qualms about that. Why? They ren't actively violating any rights, and it would be against his own self-interest. He is a man living by his own duty--no one can tell him otherwise. It's absurd, yet little moronic children flock to it like they do Anarchism and Communism because they think it sounds cool.

As for Veganism..no. I am a not a Vegan. I honestly don't see much of a pragmatic point. Foremost, it's a very unhealthy lifestyle. There are certain nutrients that you can only really get from certain animal products, unless you go through absurd measures to get them some other way. That's not even reasonable or affordable half the time. Unlike donating money to the poor to save lives in Rhodesia, which actively does something, not buying that hamburger will have littlte to no effect on the total utility. Nothing will stop, and since you cannot get most selfish, greedy people to stop, all your efforts are wasted. They will die anyway, so you might as well enjoy yourself. ou aren't actually doing any killing, and not eating isn't preventing any killing.

Do I think that if you could affordably and safely refrain from killing animals for needless purpouses, ought you? Yes. I don't think this applies to most food, and I have no aversion to using animal products at all. I think it's fine. I do think, however, that some (not all) some methods used to farm animals isn't ethical, although this isn't universal. PETA likes to exaggerate **** and make it look worse than it really is, and half the time, PETA gives animal rights activists a bad name--PETA is insane.

I don't think people should buy furs, though. It's disgusting how little they care about the suffering they are causing. Leather is another thing. Both of which can artifically be manufactured and damn near the same in look and feel. It's totally unnecessary killing in the name of fashion, which shows where the moral priorities lie of many people. However, when there are philosophies like "objectivism" that espouse the virtue of selfishness, it's not at all suprising where society moves.

 

[Kelzie]

Sorry. Skipped most of it cause I already know what an egoist is.

As for Veganism..no. I am a not a Vegan. I honestly don't see much of a pragmatic point. Foremost, it's a very unhealthy lifestyle.

That is so extremely incorrect it's not even funny. Well, it is a little. Vegans live on average 7 years longer than omnivorous humans. That ain't cause it's unhealthy.

There are certain nutrients that you can only really get from certain animal products, unless you go through absurd measures to get them some other way. That's not even reasonable or affordable half the time.

There's one. B12. And a couple things about it. One, if we were living as we used to, we wouldn't need to take it. We used to get it from drinking out of streams. Two. The only way you get it, is from eating a cow that has been fed B12 vitamins. I'm just cutting out the middle man.

Unlike donating money to the poor to save lives in Rhodesia, which actively does something, not buying that hamburger will have littlte to no effect on the total utility. Nothing will stop, and since you cannot get most selfish, greedy people to stop, all your efforts are wasted. They will die anyway, so you might as well enjoy yourself. ou aren't actually doing any killing, and not eating isn't preventing any killing.

Ah, I see. The old "if you can't beat em, join em" approach. Tell me. Utilitarianism is morally opposed to slavery. If slavery were still ramapant in the world today, and nothing you could do would stop it, being a utilitarian, would you own a slave>

Do I think that if you could affordably and safely refrain from killing animals for needless purpouses, ought you? Yes.

Eating meat is needless. Humans don't need it to survive. In fact, we do better without it. We only do it cause we like the taste. I'd call that needless, wouldn't you?

I don't think this applies to most food, and I have no aversion to using animal products at all. I think it's fine. I do think, however, that some (not all) some methods used to farm animals isn't ethical, although this isn't universal. PETA likes to exaggerate **** and make it look worse than it really is, and half the time, PETA gives animal rights activists a bad name--PETA is insane.

I agree. PETA is nuts.

I don't think people should buy furs, though. It's disgusting how little they care about the suffering they are causing. Leather is another thing. Both of which can artifically be manufactured and damn near the same in look and feel. It's totally unnecessary killing in the name of fashion, which shows where the moral priorities lie of many people. However, when there are philosophies like "objectivism" that espouse the virtue of selfishness, it's not at all suprising where society moves.

I'm sorry. Hold the phone. All of a sudden the selfish motivation of satisfying your tastebuds is less selfish than satisfying your fashion sense. Not very utilitarian of you.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

That is so extremely incorrect it's not even funny. Well, it is a little. Vegans live on average 7 years longer than omnivorous humans. That ain't cause it's unhealthy.

Well, I have read and heard that there are certain vitamines that humans are ony able to get from animal products. This could be wrong. I would change my mind, if it were. For example, I read this: There are several nutrients vegans should pay attention to. These include Vitamin B12, iron and iodine: deficiencies in these are more likely following a vegan diet, and deficiencies of these potentially have serious consequences, including anemia, pernicious anemia, cretinism and hyperthyroidism.

Some nutritionists have expressed concerns about the potential dangers in the vegan diet. This is especially true for young children where the failure to achieve adequate nutrition can lead to permanent developmental deficits. In widely reported comments, Professor Lindsey Allen of the U.S. Agricultural Research Service declared: "There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans."

It is also documented that arents practising what they described as forms of veganism have been charged with child abuse for not providing adequate nutrition.

This is wrong. My problem with veganism is most people aren't smart enough to do it, and it ends up having bad consequences. It's not an application of utility that Joe H. American can follow.

There's one. B12. And a couple things about it. One, if we were living as we used to, we wouldn't need to take it. We used to get it from drinking out of streams. Two. The only way you get it, is from eating a cow that has been fed B12 vitamins. I'm just cutting out the middle man.

The problem is we don't drink out of streams, and it's highly unlike anyone will. Not everyone lives near streams. If there is a better way of getting this resource, then I have for it =D

Ah, I see. The old "if you can't beat em, join em" approach. Tell me. Utilitarianism is morally opposed to slavery. If slavery were still ramapant in the world today, and nothing you could do would stop it, being a utilitarian, would you own a slave>

Well, not quite. If slavery were rampant in the world today (which it is), and nothing could be done to stop it, I would, as a Utilitarian, simply not own a slave, because going out and buying a slave would bestow on no one any objective benefit, and I would directly be causing objective suffering. I would also be actively violating the rights associated with moral personhood of tht slave. A human is a rationally autonomous, self-aware indivdiual, and I would actively contribute to his suffering. That slave would not be worked by me if I didn't buy it. There is a net loss of utility if I actively enslave. However, it is feasble that if I were to buy the slave, he might actually have it better than if someone else bought him, depending on how I treated him. If you take into account the net utility, if I had to choose between him going somewhere worse than my home, I ought to buy him and keep him freer. That would be the "best" option available.

When talking about veganism, one can choose either not to eat or to eat. You cannot buy the animal and treat it well, thus saving its life. Eating also does not cause active suffering, as does owning a slave. I am not killing the animal whereas I would be working the slave. It does not matter whether or not I eat or don't eat, because they will continue to die regardless of what I do, and even if I choose to participate, they will die just the same. Your act cannot be immoral if there is no net gain or loss. Neutral acts are just that--amoral. Veganism is pointless, and I don't like pointless docrines. Since you are not killing them, and forgoing eating them will not stop them from dying, it's logically nonsensical to be a vegan for anything other than health concerns, which are dubious at best, since veganism is very dangerous if you aren't careful with dietary planning.

Eating meat is needless. Humans don't need it to survive. In fact, we do better without it. We only do it cause we like the taste. I'd call that needless, wouldn't you?

If that is really true, then I am fully acceptable of that. Needs come before wants. The only concerns I have are people becomming sick and pragmatism Sometimes ivory tower philosophy gets in the way of reality.

I'm sorry. Hold the phone. All of a sudden the selfish motivation of satisfying your tastebuds is less selfish than satisfying your fashion sense. Not very utilitarian of you.

Remember, I never said eating for the sake of taste is moral. I was basing my argument on what I read/heard about the potential health hazaards of the lifestyle. If those don't really exist, and you can pragmatically live on it, then I don't see why taste is any different from fashion.

A problem I have with Vegans is that they think by eating veggies they are being guilt-free, when mass farming also kills thousands of animals. However, you need to stop somewhere.

The funny part is, vegans praise Peter Singer for starting the Animal Rights movement, but many of them don't even know where Singer stands on most issues. He is not against the use of animals in experiements, which many vegans are against. Neither Peter Singer nor I also have problems with using animal products if the animals are treated well and by using the product you don't kill the animal. Vegans don't. That's extreme.

 

[George_Washington]

Animals are morally superior to humans that committ horrible crimes like murder and rape. I hold that to be true.

 

[George_Washington]

I don't think people should buy furs, though. It's disgusting how little they care about the suffering they are causing. Leather is another thing. Both of which can artifically be manufactured and damn near the same in look and feel. It's totally unnecessary killing in the name of fashion, which shows where the moral priorities lie of many people. However, when there are philosophies like "objectivism" that espouse the virtue of selfishness, it's not at all suprising where society moves.

OH, OK! On one hand you say that nothing has rights and present a very cold, inhuman look at life. Now you say that we should care more for the suffering of animals. Hmmm...interesting. If animals don't have rights, then why worry about how they suffer?

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with buying furs, that's absurd. You don't know that animals suffer that much. Prove it. Fashion is a very important, cultural thing. It has also been proven that skins of several kinds of animals can make very soft, comfortable shoes. Those animals will most likely be eaten eventually anyway, so why not make shoes out of them?

 

[robin]

Animals are morally superior to humans that committ horrible crimes like murder and rape. I hold that to be true.

Have you ever seen film chimps on the rampage ?
Very enlightening. The fact that's kept beneath the surface most of the time in humans, is down to a mere 500,000 years of evolution & human society.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Once you are done trolling in the land of pre-conventional ethics, we can talk. Send me a PM if you want to debate this topic. If you don't wish to, don't; I have no need to come back then if you aren't serious and are merely going to evade and mock ethics in favour of Egoism.

Okay, you've been spanked, and now you're running away.

And not one statement of mine did you even attempt to address, let alone refute. You simply got caught stepping in your own hypocrisy right at your front door, and now you're rushing off to hide.

That's typical behavior of people that think they're owed a living by others.

 

[Kelzie]

Well, I have read and heard that there are certain vitamines that humans are ony able to get from animal products. This could be wrong. I would change my mind, if it were. For example, I read this: There are several nutrients vegans should pay attention to. These include Vitamin B12, iron and iodine: deficiencies in these are more likely following a vegan diet, and deficiencies of these potentially have serious consequences, including anemia, pernicious anemia, cretinism and hyperthyroidism.

I hate how examples of unhealthy omnivorous diets are rampant, but nobody cares. They're everywhere! Look around America. That is an example of an unhealthy diet. Omnivores have vitamin deficienices all the time, but nobody blames it on an omnivorous diet. Yet a couple of vegans with dumb eating habits get anemia, and all of a sudden everyones: "Oh! Being a vegan is unhealthy. Being a vegan will kill you!" A couple things to remember. A lot of vegans are anorexic. They're not anorexic because they're vegans, they're vegans because they're anorexic. A lot of these deficincy cases are anorexics that aren't eating anything anyway. The second thing to remember is the vegan type known as "junk food vegans". These are mostly college and highschool students that think it's cool to be vegan, and eat nothing but cereal, mashed potatoes and white rice. You will get sick on that vegan diet. HOWEVER, I feel the need to point out that many omnivorous teens eat that poorly too.

Some nutritionists have expressed concerns about the potential dangers in the vegan diet. This is especially true for young children where the failure to achieve adequate nutrition can lead to permanent developmental deficits. In widely reported comments, Professor Lindsey Allen of the U.S. Agricultural Research Service declared: "There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans."

It is also documented that arents practising what they described as forms of veganism have been charged with child abuse for not providing adequate nutrition.

I counter your doctor with my own:

"Many members of The Vegetarian Resource Group are glowing testimony to the fact that vegan children can be healthy, grow normally, be extremely active, and (we think) smarter than average." Reed Mangels, Ph.D., R.D.

"Vegan diets can easily meet the nutritional needs of the growing child. Most of the nutritional concerns and issues vegetarian families have are exactly the same as for all other families. The scientific literature shows a positive relationship between vegetarian diets and reduced risk for several chronic diseases and conditions, including obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer " Carol M. Coughlin, RD

This is wrong. My problem with veganism is most people aren't smart enough to do it, and it ends up having bad consequences. It's not an application of utility that Joe H. American can follow.

Most people aren't smart enough to follow a healthy omnivorous diet either. The difference is, if you follow my diet correctly, you will be healthier than if you followed your diet correctly.

The problem is we don't drink out of streams, and it's highly unlike anyone will. Not everyone lives near streams. If there is a better way of getting this resource, then I have for it =D

That wasn't really the point. The point was that we both get B12 from the same place: vitamins. Yours is just eaten by a cow first.

Well, not quite. If slavery were rampant in the world today (which it is), and nothing could be done to stop it, I would, as a Utilitarian, simply not own a slave, because going out and buying a slave would bestow on no one any objective benefit, and I would directly be causing objective suffering. I would also be actively violating the rights associated with moral personhood of tht slave. A human is a rationally autonomous, self-aware indivdiual, and I would actively contribute to his suffering. That slave would not be worked by me if I didn't buy it. There is a net loss of utility if I actively enslave. However, it is feasble that if I were to buy the slave, he might actually have it better than if someone else bought him, depending on how I treated him. If you take into account the net utility, if I had to choose between him going somewhere worse than my home, I ought to buy him and keep him freer. That would be the "best" option available.

When talking about veganism, one can choose either not to eat or to eat. You cannot buy the animal and treat it well, thus saving its life. Eating also does not cause active suffering, as does owning a slave. I am not killing the animal whereas I would be working the slave. It does not matter whether or not I eat or don't eat, because they will continue to die regardless of what I do, and even if I choose to participate, they will die just the same. Your act cannot be immoral if there is no net gain or loss. Neutral acts are just that--amoral. Veganism is pointless, and I don't like pointless docrines. Since you are not killing them, and forgoing eating them will not stop them from dying, it's logically nonsensical to be a vegan for anything other than health concerns, which are dubious at best, since veganism is very dangerous if you aren't careful with dietary planning.

Sooo...let me get this straight. You're only against suffering if you have an active hand in it? Wow, that's quite a loophole you've got going on. And I can promise, that if everyone were vegan, nobody would be making meat anymore. You probably buy all your clothes from sweatshop brands too, huh? No harm, no foul...right? :roll: The fact that my actions are not contributing to torture is motive enough for my pseudo-utilitarian self. Guess not you though.

A problem I have with Vegans is that they think by eating veggies they are being guilt-free, when mass farming also kills thousands of animals. However, you need to stop somewhere.

Like you said, you've gotta draw the line somewhere.

The funny part is, vegans praise Peter Singer for starting the Animal Rights movement, but many of them don't even know where Singer stands on most issues. He is not against the use of animals in experiements, which many vegans are against. Neither Peter Singer nor I also have problems with using animal products if the animals are treated well and by using the product you don't kill the animal. Vegans don't. That's extreme.

I am not against animal testing, as you would have seen if you read this thread. Although, Singer is because he believes insufficient good has come from it to justify the pain that goes in. Not caught up on your Singer readings, eh? From his writing, he condemns eating animals:

"For the great majority of human beings, especially in urban, industrialized societies, the most direct form of contact with members of other species is at mealtimes: we eat them. In doing so we treat them purely as means to our ends. We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. l say "taste" deliberately—this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defense of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products."

from All Animals Are Equal. This article made me go vegan (along with some Jeremy Bentham readings, most notably his quote "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer"). I just find it very odd that the most prominent Utilitarians are saying that eating animals is wrong, but you, who claim to be a follower, say it is not.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Objectivism is egoism, and it espouses a doctrine of Selfishness. Ayn Rand's book as actually called "The Virtue of Selfishness." If you actually read her ****, you would want to puke it's so moronic. Under Objectivism, you can actually morally defend yourself if you walk passed a small child drowning in a pond if you feel it is against your interest to get your clothes wet. An Objectivist could, potentially, have zero qualms about that. Why? They ren't actively violating any rights, and it would be against his own self-interest. He is a man living by his own duty--no one can tell him otherwise. It's absurd, yet little moronic children flock to it like they do Anarchism and Communism because they think it sounds cool.

Have you managed to read beyond the cover of the booK? I doubt it. Your example is one of the many hollow canned objections crafted to distort the principle, nothing more. Any true objectivist would realize that the benefit of getting his name in the paper as a "hero" would more than pay for the cost of wet shoes. A valid argument against not attempting to rescue the child would be one's inability to swim. Balancing one's own life against another is a choice, not an obligation. That's a real situation that explains the limits of reality.

If you disagree, explain what benefit to anyone accrues by the would be rescuers also getting killed.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

OH, OK! On one hand you say that nothing has rights and present a very cold, inhuman look at life. Now you say that we should care more for the suffering of animals. Hmmm...interesting. If animals don't have rights, then why worry about how they suffer?

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with buying furs, that's absurd. You don't know that animals suffer that much. Prove it. Fashion is a very important, cultural thing. It has also been proven that skins of several kinds of animals can make very soft, comfortable shoes. Those animals will most likely be eaten eventually anyway, so why not make shoes out of them?

They can feel pain. Being bashed to death and then skinned doesn't tickle. You are also depriving it of life for no reason that serves any objective purpouse. It's merely your personal taste. That does not warrent causing pain to othres. There is something wrong with killing another creature for no objectively beneficial reason, whether or not it is not a person. You don't need a mink coat. The mink needs its coat. Life is more important than taste.

How does this apply to abortion? There is an objectively good reason to kill the fetus. It's a parasite living in your body. You don't want it there. IF that parasite were outside your body and doing nothing, I would be against killing it just as much as I am against killing things for shoes. Even if you don't have personhood,, that in no way implies that you ought to kill something. It just makes it POSSIBLE given objective reasons. You shouldn'ttorture or kill a newborn for subjective reasons as well as a donkey.

I am not against animal testing, as you would have seen if you read this thread. Although, Singer is because he believes insufficient good has come from it to justify the pain that goes in. Not caught up on your Singer readings, eh? From his writing, he condemns eating animals:

"For the great majority of human beings, especially in urban, industrialized societies, the most direct form of contact with members of other species is at mealtimes: we eat them. In doing so we treat them purely as means to our ends. We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. l say "taste" deliberately—this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defense of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products."

from All Animals Are Equal. This article made me go vegan (along with some Jeremy Bentham readings, most notably his quote "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer"). I just find it very odd that the most prominent Utilitarians are saying that eating animals is wrong, but you, who claim to be a follower, say it is not.

First of all, I never said eating animals was good. In fact, that is my opposite opinion hinging on my inability to distinguish if the diet is healthy, since I get conflicting reports. Many doctors say it's unhealthy and nearly impossible to afford. If and only if this were true, then I would be against it. If and only if it's not true, then I am not against it. Understand? I don't WANT to have to eat them, but I don't want to get sick either.

Secondly, that is not true. You misunderstand Singer. I know his position on eating things, but my comment was directed at animal testing to save lives. Peter Singer is only against testing that is cosmetic or for "pure research," not for experiments that have a net gain via reduction of human suffering and death. In fact, if you read one of his latest articles, he is fully behind the extermination of Chickens that contain the Avian Flu, because the possibility to mass kill humans is very great. Do you know how many people will die if the flu is not exterminated?

Further, in his articles "The Sanctity of Human Life," and "Killing Humans" he explains that it is ok to do an experiment on an animal if and only if, given the ability, you would do that same experiment on a newborn or child of the same mental level. He's not against experimentation at all for objective gain (suffer, life etc). However, he recognizes that, applied to reality, it's nigh impossible to get a steady flow of retarded babies and newborns and it would be extremely costly, and the results might not yeild the needed results. Therefore, for mass medical experimentation, it's only possible to use rats and other animals. If, by some chance, you could clone cheaply rat level newborns, and the experiments woudl work just as well, you ought to use them.

Sooo...let me get this straight. You're only against suffering if you have an active hand in it? Wow, that's quite a loophole you've got going on. And I can promise, that if everyone were vegan, nobody would be making meat anymore. You probably buy all your clothes from sweatshop brands too, huh? No harm, no foul...right? The fact that my actions are not contributing to torture is motive enough for my pseudo-utilitarian self. Guess not you though.

Pointless endeavours are just that; pointless. I am doing nothing, and nothing is changing if I do do something. There is no net gain or net loss. It's netral from a Utilitarian Calculus.

And yes, I shop at stores, which mainly use oversees workers. THat's the bulk of goods, because rarely do you find "made in ameica" stuff, and I don't have the money to shop at the mall, where a T-shirt costs 50 dollars. Afraid I don't make that much money,despite my career. I only do what is utilitarian insofar as pragmatism in daily life is concerned. Singer mentions this is pretty much ok in his argument "that bread belongs to the hungry." Singer doesn't fully live up to his standards either. IF he did, he would donate more than 20% of his salary, and he would have let his mother die in order to give that money to someone more needy. It's a standard, but you can't be perfect.

Scarecrow Wrote:

Have you managed to read beyond the cover of the booK?

Sadly, yes, I have read two of her nonsense books, both Atlas Shrugged (wank material), and (The Fountain head).

Your example is one of the many hollow canned objections crafted to distort the principle, nothing more. Any true objectivist would realize that the benefit of getting his name in the paper as a "hero" would more than pay for the cost of wet shoes.

False. If they were expensive shoes, getting your name in the paper, sans reward, is not beneficial. As an objectivist, I wouldn't give a **** about my name unless I got something objective out of it. Fame < money to me, and since every Objectivst makes up his own rules, that is just as valid as getting "fame" in your example. Therefore, it is forseeable, and equally concievable, that you would not sav the child if it cost you more money to do so.

And don't give me this "true objectivist" bullshit. That's a No True Scotsman Fallacy. THere is no "true" objectivist, since each objectivist is an egoist who makes up his own rules. Whatever he feels is best for himself, regardless of what you think, he will do.

A valid argument against not attempting to rescue the child would be one's inability to swim. Balancing one's own life against another is a choice, not an obligation. That's a real situation that explains the limits of reality.

No. Mine was equally valid. If I were an objectivist, and I didn't like childre, and I held my expensive shoes as more valuable than whatever fame I might/might not get, then I would choose my shoes and my time over the kid.
That's the complete stupidity of Objectivisim--aka. Selfishness.

If you disagree, explain what benefit to anyone accrues by the would be rescuers also getting killed.

Anyone could claim any reason not to rescue, and all would be equally valid under Objectivist logic. That's absurd.


Or, going to the Opera every day of the week, if you feel like it, is easily defendable under Objectivism instead of giving a dime to starving children as charity. Objectivism is the "Help if you feel like it, **** em if you don't" philosophy. It's shitty when applied to reality.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

"For the great majority of human beings, especially in urban, industrialized societies, the most direct form of contact with members of other species is at mealtimes: we eat them. In doing so we treat them purely as means to our ends. We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. l say "taste" deliberately—this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defense of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products."

Taste is good enough for me. :2razz:

And all animals aren't equal. Let me know when the first dolphins set foot on the moon in their own spaceships. And I'll be very interested in reading the Chmpanzee's first sonnet.

 

[Kelzie]

Taste is good enough for me. :2razz:

And all animals aren't equal. Let me know when the first dolphins set foot on the moon in their own spaceships. And I'll be very interested in reading the Chmpanzee's first sonnet.

Singer never says that (even though that's the title). It's actually a rather good article, if you take the time to read it. Although you might not like it, so nevermind.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Yes. He does not claim all animals are actually equal. That's a catchy phrase he attributes to his work. He's talking about equality of consideration.

 

[George_Washington]

They can feel pain. Being bashed to death and then skinned doesn't tickle. You are also depriving it of life for no reason that serves any objective purpouse. It's merely your personal taste. That does not warrent causing pain to othres. There is something wrong with killing another creature for no objectively beneficial reason, whether or not it is not a person. You don't need a mink coat. The mink needs its coat. Life is more important than taste.

But how do you know they are actually bashed to death? I would make a logical bet here that most companies put down the animals in a safe and painless way. I could be wrong but I doubt they just bash the animal over the head with a baseball bat, lol.

And I am not depriving them of life for no objectable purpose. The purpose of looking good and feeling good in clothes is a just as valid as eating them. Look, most animals that they use for clothes are going to just be eaten anyway. For example, I have a pair of shoes made out of Indian goatskin (Indian as from the country India). That goat would probably have been eaten over there if it hadn't been made into a pair of shoes. So why is it so wrong to use animals for clothes? And the animals that are going to be skinned for fur, well, I don't really see the harm as long as the species isn't going to be instincy. It's natural for us humans to protect ourselves from the cold and animal fur is a great way to do so. Have you ever tried on lined with actual animal fur? They're expensive but they keep you much warmer than synthetic material does.

How does this apply to abortion? There is an objectively good reason to kill the fetus. It's a parasite living in your body. You don't want it there. IF that parasite were outside your body and doing nothing, I would be against killing it just as much as I am against killing things for shoes. Even if you don't have personhood,, that in no way implies that you ought to kill something. It just makes it POSSIBLE given objective reasons. You shouldn'ttorture or kill a newborn for subjective reasons as well as a donkey.

I still am not convinced that the fetus is a parasite but even if it was, that fact is irrelevant because:

1.) The woman knew she could get pregnant before she had sex and so should take responsiblity for her actions (unless she was raped).

2.) The fact that it's a parasite is irrelevant compared to the fact that it's a foundation for a human life that could give us a lot of great things.

 

[George_Washington]

Have you ever seen film chimps on the rampage ?
Very enlightening. The fact that's kept beneath the surface most of the time in humans, is down to a mere 500,000 years of evolution & human society.

True but I consider my dog to be above killers and rapists because he is kind, caring, and possesses more human virtues than some humans.