Freedomain Radio

We've been taking bacteria's crap for far too long.  If bacteria want a fair shake from the higher life forms they better grow some big glassy eyes and a cute button nose and maybe some fluffy fur.  And learn to frolic or something fer cryin' out loud.

UPB is only for sentient beings (humans as for as we know). Until a cow or a chicken can rationally communicate with me his dislike to be eatan I am not going to place the abuse of animals in the list of things to do to bring about a just society. We are on top of the food chain thru luck and evolution. Is a lion immoral for eating a gazelle or wilderbeast. And what if someone invented a machine that could somehow make you feel or dertermine the pain a lettuce being yank out of its roots and dress with italian season ranch dressing would vegertarians be immoral for the 'slaughter' of countless plants.

I think it might have some relavence to this discussion..

In the video it seems to me that Mr Singer is basically saying that were there is pain and the greater the capcity for pain, the greater the moral obilagation for a rational being like a human is for not eating an animal. What if there was no such thing as pain? Do we still have a moral obilagation to not eat animals. We humans have a code of conduct(morals) for the purpose of being good to be happy for its own sake. Were there is capacity for higher reasoning they can be choice i.e. (free will). As for as I know only we can go agaisnt our nature (which is reasoning and empthy) for example religion and statism. Other can not.

Dimitri Andre:

Is a lion immoral for eating a gazelle or wilderbeast. And what if someone invented a machine that could somehow make you feel or dertermine the pain a lettuce being yank out of its roots and dress with italian season ranch dressing would vegertarians be immoral for the 'slaughter' of countless plants.

Singer is a utilitarian, his goal is to reduce suffering and maximize goodness. I am going to assume that if a machine is needed to determine the degree of suffering that a plant endures, animal suffering (which we can deduct with the naked eye) is significantly larger. If there was a way to synthezie our nutritional needs, rendering plants uneeded, Singer would be a sythezerian. 

Dimitri Andre:

 Until a cow or a chicken can rationally communicate with me his dislike to be eatan I am not going to place the abuse of animals in the list of things to do to bring about a just society.

There are plenty of mentally disabled people who are incapable of communicating with you their desire not to be eaten, and there are plenty of animals who are perfectly capable of communicating their dislike of being eaten, that would be the reason most animals tend to run away from us.

Dimitri Andre:

We are on top of the food chain thru luck and evolution.

I am also 6'2 and well built, by this logic I can go around and take my pick of  the ladies to have my way with.

I am not sure, actually I am quite certain, you do not fully understand Singer's argument. He does not contends that animals and humans are equal in traits, rather they are in equal consideration. This is similiar to our approach of gender differences, men and women are not equal in attributes, but should still be given equal consideration. We also apply this concept to the mentally retarded, they do not posses the same cognotive capabilites or genetics as we do, but that does not mean we should practice eugenics, or farm them for that matter.

The main idea is that in out current industrialized soceity we can get our nutritional needs through a quick trip to grocery store, if we lived in the stone age, or even medieval ages we would be in a different situation. But the fact of the matter is we do not live in the stone age, we do not need meat to survive, and causing animals to suffer so you can have your bacon-double-cheese-burger is immoral. The lion eating the gazalle is doing what it needs to do, you are not.

I used to be a very proactive animal rights activist, attending demos, vegan diet etc, and with in the animal rights community Singer was highly regarded. However, he lost his popularity amongst this group when one day, a group called Pro-Test began arguing for the testing of animals for human research (not sure why, since its not illegal in the UK), and Singer met with a vivisectionist to suppoedly have a debate, but instead he just completely agreed that what the man did was great (he tested on monkeys to find a way to reduce pain and discomfort for MS sufferers), it really surprised all animal rights activists because we all had the impression he was firmly against animal testing under any circumstances. It wasnt until then that I fully understood what his views were.

colind:

Dimitri Andre:

Is a lion immoral for eating a gazelle or wilderbeast. And what if someone invented a machine that could somehow make you feel or dertermine the pain a lettuce being yank out of its roots and dress with italian season ranch dressing would vegertarians be immoral for the 'slaughter' of countless plants.

Singer is a utilitarian, his goal is to reduce suffering and maximize goodness. I am going to assume that if a machine is needed to determine the degree of suffering that a plant endures, animal suffering (which we can deduct with the naked eye) is significantly larger. If there was a way to synthezie our nutritional needs, rendering plants uneeded, Singer would be a sythezerian. 

Dimitri Andre:

 Until a cow or a chicken can rationally communicate with me his dislike to be eatan I am not going to place the abuse of animals in the list of things to do to bring about a just society.

There are plenty of mentally disabled people who are incapable of communicating with you their desire not to be eaten, and there are plenty of animals who are perfectly capable of communicating their dislike of being eaten, that would be the reason most animals tend to run away from us.

Dimitri Andre:

We are on top of the food chain thru luck and evolution.

I am also 6'2 and well built, by this logic I can go around and take my pick of  the ladies to have my way with.

 

I am not sure, actually I am quite certain, you do not fully understand Singer's argument. He does not contends that animals and humans are equal in traits, rather they are in equal consideration. This is similiar to our approach of gender differences, men and women are not equal in attributes, but should still be given equal consideration. We also apply this concept to the mentally retarded, they do not posses the same cognotive capabilites or genetics as we do, but that does not mean we should practice eugenics, or farm them for that matter.

The main idea is that in out current industrialized soceity we can get our nutritional needs through a quick trip to grocery store, if we lived in the stone age, or even medieval ages we would be in a different situation. But the fact of the matter is we do not live in the stone age, we do not need meat to survive, and causing animals to suffer so you can have your bacon-double-cheese-burger is immoral. The lion eating the gazalle is doing what it needs to do, you are not.

 

Thanks for responded I do very much love my bacon cheeseburger. After thinking about last nite and reading your comment it makes sense to me. I will have to bow down to Mr. Singers and your logic colind. I going to think about some more. I felt an strong emotional stimulous to it like a soldier being told he is committing murder in Iraq. But thank you though I still don't fully accept the idea or more like the conclusion. Sorry If I offended anybody with my previous comments. (I wasn't trying to for the record)

Hopefully future technology can solve this stuff, for instance I'm all for the idea of growing meat in a lab.  If we can still have burgers and steaks from the petri dish and let the cows, pigs and chickens roam free that would be awesome.  (Not that there would be as many wild cows in the absence of farming of course, but that's besides the point.)

We are very spoiled when it comes to food.  Just like state power, we want to hand the gun off to someone else.  Here, YOU go and kill those cows, just don't show it to me, I don't wanna see the blood and hear the moans.  But If we can grow meat we can dispense with the ugliness and suffering of factory farming then we don't have to live with that sort of willful ignorance.  I don't know what the hippies will have to be upset about then in a brave new no-farming world, but hey, if they can cry over trees then they can protest the salad bar too.

colind:

causing animals to suffer so you can have your bacon-double-cheese-burger is immoral.

I'm having real trouble understanding that point.. When in a world we don't even seem to have empathy for each other, how are we too find it in treating animals with more grace.. I cannot help but think that animal rights have so much more to do with psychological issues than they do with rational reason.. Our own species surely come first, just as a matter of survival frankly.. I have yet to be convinced that less animal cruelty will lead to more enriching human interaction.. However, I can see it happening vice versa..

xelent:

colind:

causing animals to suffer so you can have your bacon-double-cheese-burger is immoral.

I'm having real trouble understanding that point.. When in a world we don't even seem to have empathy for each other, how are we too find it in treating animals with more grace.. I cannot help but think that animal rights have so much more to do with psychological issues than they do with rational reason.. Our own species surely come first, just as a matter of survival frankly.. I have yet to be convinced that less animal cruelty will lead to more enriching human interaction.. However, I can see it happening vice versa..

I dont think the intention of animal right's activists is to improve human interaction through treating animals with more grace, well it wasnt for me, but i did use it as a judge of character for who i thought would be a kind, empathetic and virtuous person to date or have as a friend, and is one of the main factors that made me want to date my last bf. I think it went on the idea that someone who is compassionate about animals will surely be compassionate about humans

I just thought it important to note also that the majority of animal rights activists can often be quite involved with human rights groups, which was something i did. It didnt just seem to be aimed at animals but humans as well, they tend to view the 2 as equal. Obviously its all external stuff, i certainly didnt know of the term personal work when i was doing it.

candice:

I just thought it important to note also that the majority of animal rights activists can often be quite involved with human rights groups, which was something i did. It didnt just seem to be aimed at animals but humans as well, they tend to view the 2 as equal.

That's a really interesting point Candice and perhaps I was casting unecessary aspertions, which is possible for sure. I'm quite certain I have no wish to be sadistically cruel to animals, as I myself have had great joy from my experience with them. But I must confess to being somewhat perplexed at the immoral cheeseburger suggestion.. Perhaps there is some relationship between animal and human suffering that I have lost sight of.. Do you have any thoughts on that at all?..

xelent:

 But I must confess to being somewhat perplexed at the immoral cheeseburger suggestion.. Perhaps there is some relationship between animal and human suffering that I have lost sight of.. Do you have any thoughts on that at all?..

The immoral cheese burger, I like how you phrase it. Singer stresses “speciesism" in which one animal claims to be intrinsically worth more than an animal of a different species, it racism or sexism for animals. He does understand that some animals are stronger or have high order thought processes than other animals, just as men generally have more upper-body strength than women, and both tend to think in different ways. Singer takes this and approaches the lifeboat scenario; I think we would all tend to agree that if we were stranded on a lifeboat in the open ocean with food for two, we would feed another human before we would feed a dog, and we would feed a dog before we fed a human in a terminal coma. If we were to fed the human in the coma over the dog on the basis that the dog is a dog and the human is human, than that would be speciesism. There is nothing inherently dignifying about being a human. I believe we here at FDR tend to reject the life boat scenario as a reasonable test of moral systems that lead to world peace on the grounds that it cannot determine who to pack in the lifeboat. Singer agrees. We do not live in a lifeboat; we live down the block from grocery stores filled with affordable, healthy vegetarian products.

And I know people have been saying that we should worry about humans before we animals, I agree, yet that does not invalidate the argument.

xelent:

candice:

I just thought it important to note also that the majority of animal rights activists can often be quite involved with human rights groups, which was something i did. It didnt just seem to be aimed at animals but humans as well, they tend to view the 2 as equal.

That's a really interesting point Candice and perhaps I was casting unecessary aspertions, which is possible for sure. I'm quite certain I have no wish to be sadistically cruel to animals, as I myself have had great joy from my experience with them. But I must confess to being somewhat perplexed at the immoral cheeseburger suggestion.. Perhaps there is some relationship between animal and human suffering that I have lost sight of.. Do you have any thoughts on that at all?..

Im not so sure, I got heavily into animal rights when I was about 15, and then relaxed about it a bit, since then i guess ive just been contemplating the whole thing, i tried eating meat again and never really thought much of it, then lately as ive been eating it i have had thoughts about why im eating it, and i felt some sadness thinking about how an animal did die in the process, combined with the fact that i dont really need to eat it, i have actually gained some weight since leaving behind my vegan diet which im definetely not happy about. So im thinking about going to vegetarianism for a while and then maybe vegan again.

Whether or not my thoughts and feelings come from issues in my past, or come from some kind of objective moral standard i dont know, perhaps it comes from neither. . .

I think the majority of people dont have any desire to cause harm to animals. I guess in a sense with regards to meat we just have the slaughterers to do the hard part for us, that is to say they are ones who willingly kill the chickens/lambs/sheep/cows so we can eat them, i would personally really struggle to do that though and i dont think id find myself eating the meat of the animal i had killed (probably out of guilt and feeling sick)

For me, when I think on it, the idea that the cheeseburger is a peice of meat that once came from a cow makes me feel a bit  i think of my happy memories of cows grazing peacefully in the fields with their calves which i always found a peaceful and enjoyable site, then i think how on earth could i eat it? The same goes especially for lambs, so sweet, small and fluffy and then it gets killed to become lamb chops? But those are just my thoughts, they could just be my issues.

I think for some reason I just cant break away from the peaceful, happy and calm memories i have of most farm animals to the idea of "yum this is a tasty slab of meat!" Then again, i was never a big meat eater, all my life I have never eaten much dairy or meat, i actually dont think it tastes all that good, for example if i have a lasagne i find myself scraping all the mince meat to the side so i can get at the veggies and the pasta lol (which totally misses the point of eating lasagne) so sticking to a veggie diet is actually a little more convenient for me anyway.

I did have a teacher once, and he said he very much wanted to be vegetarian like i was, he told me he tried his absolute best at it for 2 years, but was near constantly sick, lethargic, sluggish and other such ailments, he kept going to the doctor to try and see what was wrong, but didnt recover until he ate meat again! Whereas myself, I was vegeterian for 2-3 years and vegan for about 2 years and never experienced any problems, in fact i consider myself to have been very healthy (far healthier than I am now). It seems some people, albeit to the best of my knowledge only a few, really need meat in their diets.

nathanm:

Hopefully future technology can solve this stuff, for instance I'm all for the idea of growing meat in a lab.  If we can still have burgers and steaks from the petri dish and let the cows, pigs and chickens roam free that would be awesome.  (Not that there would be as many wild cows in the absence of farming of course, but that's besides the point.)

We are very spoiled when it comes to food.  Just like state power, we want to hand the gun off to someone else.  Here, YOU go and kill those cows, just don't show it to me, I don't wanna see the blood and hear the moans.  But If we can grow meat we can dispense with the ugliness and suffering of factory farming then we don't have to live with that sort of willful ignorance.  I don't know what the hippies will have to be upset about then in a brave new no-farming world, but hey, if they can cry over trees then they can protest the salad bar too.

Hi nathanm - I was enjoying your posts here!

I see where you're coming from with the petri dishes and I think the inhumanity of factory farming of livestock is appalling and needs to be subjected to a complete rethink in a compassionate vein (and we surely eat too much meat etc etc.), but if we abandon our position at the top of the food chain and stop killing animals things get complicated. Where I live there is a rapidly expanding population of wild deer that do a lot of damage to people's gardens ( if you are unable to keep them out) and to the tree cover of the hillisides. They're protected of course (apaprently the penalties for shooting a deer are harsher than GBH on a fellow human being), but the trouble is that an increase in the population of tasty ungulates brings with it a gradual return of predators in the form of wolves and bears, which is fine if you're in the car but not so great if you're frolicking in a glade with your ipod. I'm also thinking of getting a few chickens 'cause I love a fresh egg, but you can't really have chickens roaming free across the land - I think they only lay for a few years, so then what? You either start confining them to zoos and stuff or you get the natural solutions to overpopulation, which are a bit worrying imo, especially if they're not confined to remote areas of wilderness!

Derek 

And if humans stopped using cows for leather and meat what would the future of their species be? Would there be any left other than the dairy cow in 200 years? Is that a better or worse fate?