Ethical Veganism should be everyday practice for ethical societies
Modern ethical principles guide modern societies. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out in 30 articles the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. Many nations have these rights protected in law.
Interestingly, while many would agree with these principles and endorse legislating to protect these rights for human beings, they seem far less concerned with the rights of other species. While the UN can observe that "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind", I would say the same in regard to the treatment of other species.
While this lack of recognition from us to them may not change in the future, ethical veganism proposes that we should pay more attention to protecting their interests, at least insofar as their most basic rights are concerned. Put simply, I suggest that ethical veganism is the idea that the ethical principles contained in Articles 3-5 of the Declaration should apply, whenever possible, to other species.
Given the sheer scale of our contempt for other sentient sepecies and given that we profess today to be deeply interested in just treatment of others, it seems to me that veganism is entirely consistent with our everyday ethics and as such open to being considered a standard ethical practice. It surprises me how vehemently people object to this idea.
In light of the lack of protection of the rights of other species at law, the most ethical approach seems to be for people to act - as best they can - as though such protections and laws do exist. That is what I think ethical veganism is proposing. Shouldn't we be more open to that?
Interestingly, while many would agree with these principles and endorse legislating to protect these rights for human beings, they seem far less concerned with the rights of other species. While the UN can observe that "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind", I would say the same in regard to the treatment of other species.
While this lack of recognition from us to them may not change in the future, ethical veganism proposes that we should pay more attention to protecting their interests, at least insofar as their most basic rights are concerned. Put simply, I suggest that ethical veganism is the idea that the ethical principles contained in Articles 3-5 of the Declaration should apply, whenever possible, to other species.
Given the sheer scale of our contempt for other sentient sepecies and given that we profess today to be deeply interested in just treatment of others, it seems to me that veganism is entirely consistent with our everyday ethics and as such open to being considered a standard ethical practice. It surprises me how vehemently people object to this idea.
In light of the lack of protection of the rights of other species at law, the most ethical approach seems to be for people to act - as best they can - as though such protections and laws do exist. That is what I think ethical veganism is proposing. Shouldn't we be more open to that?
Comments (86)
Good call OP! "Carnism & basic human rights just don't go together" ... said the girl to her exasperated boyfriend.
How do we work out what their interests are, since we can't ask, and we're not ourselves of those species?
And, having found out, why ought we concern ourselves with those interests being met?
I believe the argument is that sentient creatures would have the same basic interests as human beings, which I suppose could be summarised as the freedom to pursue their own lives as they see fit. So, Articles 3-5 of the Human Rights Declaration (HRD) seem to apply. That is, as with us they have a right to be free, in charge of their own lives, and not to be treated cruelly by us. But when I say "rights", we can take that to mean these are duties we have in relation to any interaction between us and them.
Why should we be concerned? I guess that is the 64 million dollar question. I think for two reasons. First, we are 8 billion and as such our interaction with the natural world no longer is... well... natural. Personally I see nothing wrong with people hunting other animals for food and fibre, at least not in traditional hunter/gatherer societies. But what we do today by industrialising so much of our interactions with nature seems needing some kind of constraint. Secondly because we could pose the claim that we want things to be good for other people because they have feelings about being alive. If that works for other people, it probably should work for other species - at least those that can have those kinds of feelings. It just seems good to want others to feel good (be happy rather than unhappy).
Right. But for a prey animal that life includes being hunted, being free to roam, migrating, having large herds... We prevent much of that. Which should we take as a their priority?
Would your argument apply, for example, to pets? Keeping other humans on a lead would be degrading to a point where the victim might even choose death over such treatment. So is dog-owning up there with meat-eating for you?
Quoting Graeme M
Right, so better farming and slaughter methods. I'd be in favour of such a move. I'm not seeing the need for full veganism from that argument.
Quoting Graeme M
Farm animals live longer than wild ones, so if it's being alive that's the objective, farming is better. If it's living some kind of 'fullest life' that matters, then being hunted is as much contender for part of a prey animal's natural life as any activity. I'm still not seeing in there the conclusion that we ought leave well alone.
Quoting Graeme M
I agree, but I don't think you've made the case that a well cared for farm animal wouldn't feel good over its lifetime even if raised for slaughter. Even harder with an egg-laying chicken, or a fish.
But its not the norm that animals are raised this way (nice pastures, good food, etc). Also, if you can survive without eating meat, why do it other than it tastes good? How do you not commit a naturalistic fallacy in justifying it? We can choose, and have reasons. Enough there to choose not killing large mammals and birds if we don't have to. Granted, we created these animals by domestication, so it would be up to us to figure out what to do with them, but that's a different issue of practicality rather than morality.
Your seeming disregard for the difference between humans and other animals from a moral point of view makes your argument hard to take seriously.
No. It ought to be.
Quoting schopenhauer1
An odd question. As if we do other things for other sorts of reasons. Why do you go for a walk? Why do you seek relationships? Why do you listen to music? I'm struggling to see why eating meat has to have some existential urgency to it that other activities lack.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The naturalistic fallacy just expresses your belief that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. It might be. It's not like you've got some competing theory of what is good that is more coherent. I think that if we want to eat meat, but we also want to see animals happy, we have to find a way of achieving both, or balancing those desires. I'm not seeing any argument as to why one of those desires must be met but the other is to be discarded.
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
The above also "should be everyday practice for ethical societies". Unfortunately there are many in the US, for example, who are vehemently opposed to the above. There are a lot of self-centered people in this world. How is it that you are surprised "how vehemently people object to [ethical veganism]"?
Ok agreed.
Quoting Isaac
Because I don't see the equivalency of taking a walk in the park and killing certain highly sentient animals. I'm not sure why you are playing dumb here and equivocating. Seems to be stalling.
Quoting Isaac
We can make choices. To assume that we it is fine to eat meat because our ancestors did or because other animals do, would be wrong.
It is also wrong empirically that we can't survive (in a healthy way) without eating large mammals and birds.
A competing theory? You never provided one. What I see of a moral theory here is, "If your taste buds like it, do it". But would you really say that in every situation?
So because you don't see it, I must be playing dumb? Seems a theme. One wonders what exactly you expect from a discussion forum whilst assuming everyone else simply must see the world the same way you do.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not my place to. I'm critiquing your post.
No I don't see it. One doesn't involve killing, one does. Add in "highly sentient" adjective there as well. I see the distinction, and you apparently don't. Yet, that's odd, because something (highly sentient) getting killed and something not seems like a distinction that is pretty recognizable as an event, even if you don't see it as a moral event. Again, all dog and pony show stalling it seems. It's too obvious the distinction fro you to simply shrug it off as just another event like walking.
Quoting Isaac
Our ancestors did a whole bunch of X things. Doesn't make our ancestors right. Or, perhaps more nuanced, doesn't make it right anymore.
Quoting Isaac
And I was critiquing yours.
It is difficult to understand how you managed to draw that inference from my post. Presuming you aren't taking a religious position, the argument is not that humans and other species are equal, but rather as sentient creatures both humans and other species share certain basic interests.
I disagree. Those rights you quote are not at issue in this regard. We are only concerned with those rights described in Articles 3-5 of the Declaration.
These are:
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Now it is possible that some disagree with these as human rights (some disagree with the concept of rights, for example), however I think most modern nations do agree on those fundamental basic rights.
Do you think that people generally vehemently object to those human rights?
Let me clarify. This is not talking about relations between other species, but relations between humans and other species. Freedom is just that. How life unfolds for the free is a different matter; we cannot prevent a free human being from dying in a car accident or being seriously injured from getting into a fight. But that person is at least free.
Quoting Isaac
Further clarification. We aren't talking about actually awarding rights, rather the wish to behave as though such rights have been awarded. As such, I am saying it is up to each of us to decide what that means. Genuine pet ownership, where the well-being of the pet is important, could be seen to be a form of guardianship. CAFO breeding of chickens for meat and eggs is not about their well-being in any shape or form. So, someone taking this ethical stance might still own a pet and behave responsibly while doing so but choose not to eat chickens and their eggs. I am not suggesting I judge the choices people make, but rather that as a society we take this aim seriously.
Quoting Isaac
Other animals being alive is not the objective. Acting ethically is.
Quoting Isaac
That could be true. However, if we pursue the ethics I describe to the fullest, we would not farm other animals. Again, I am not suggesting that we do that, instead I am talking about what each member of a modern society might choose to do. If animals must be farmed (because some people still choose to eat meat), it might be hoped that they still wish for Article 5 to apply. That is, we act in ways to prevent cruel or inhumane treatment. The argument is that members make choices that reflect these fuindamental ethical principles. So if animals are farmed in CAFO systems or skinned alive to produce fur, an ethical member would choose not to buy such products and would support legislation to prevent such systems.
Whether those rights should be awarded is a debate that could be had. Animal rights advocates say that they should be. But until such time as that happens, no-one is under an obligation to act accordingly (there are no laws proscribing behaviours that breach these rights in the case of other species).
However, as moral agents we should be open to behaving ethically when we can. If these rights could reasonably be applied to other species in order to reduce the extent to which we cause them to suffer in some way (even if that is just to be deprived of freedom to live their lives on their terms), we should wish to behave sympathetically, whenever we can.
The proposition is all about what each person can do to recognise the rights of other species and by extension that as a society we think this is a reasonable and preferable position to take.
I was well aware of the fact that you only cited those three articles earlier. The point you missed is that there are many self-centered people in this world who are vehemently opposed to what SHOULD "be everyday practice for ethical societies" when they see it as infringing on what they enjoy or even when they don't see a direct benefit for themselves. As such it should come as no surprise "how vehemently people object to [ethical veganism]".
Be that as it may, you're kidding yourself if you believe that there aren't people vehemently opposed to Article 5. That there aren't people opposed to Article 4. Also the article that I cited speaks to Article 3.
I am comfortable that some people DO object to ideas about ethics and may even object to the UNDHR. But I do not think that is a commonly held view. As a broad generalisation, modern societies tend to agree that these human rights exist and should be protected.
In my post, I am saying that given this is a general stance of society, it seems reasonable that a modern society would endorse these principles as being applicable to other species.Because we do not have laws that enforce these protections, someone who disagrees is free to do as they will.
Yes, but in my list was 'seeking relationships'. That's also massively different from 'going for a walk'. You've singled out killing a sentient prey animal and just declared it to be of some other scale. You're begging the question. I'm asking why it is of this other scale.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It might do. You've not given any account of what makes things right yet, so 'our ancestors did it' is currently as good a contender as any.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then I don't understand the critique. How does my not having presented a definition invalidate my criticism of your position?
So now you're talking about freedom, not death. If the animals were free prior to us killing them for food, then it would be ethical? I can see that as an argument. It would still apply to pets, which, by and large, aren't free.
Quoting Graeme M
How? Dogs are perfectly capable of living free, they do so in large packs in many southern European cities. So how is restraining them on a lead and imprisoning them in a house 'guardianship'?
Quoting Graeme M
No. We've already agreed that improvements to farming are required.
Quoting Graeme M
Yet all you have given so far as unethical is lifespan (the foreshortening of it). The only thing about eating animals that is necessary is killing them first. Nothing else is necessary (factory farms, penning them in, industrial slaughterhouses, wing clipping etc). So if all you've got as non-ethical is the reduction of lifespans, then high-welfare farming is the most ethical way to treat animals.
Quoting Graeme M
Agreed. But that's not the argument you made. It's got nothing to do with Veganism.
Quoting Graeme M
Then you're using a different definition to most. That might be part of the misunderstanding here...
Quoting https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
Veganism is not just a position that we ought act ethically toward animals, it is a declaration of what that ethical treatment should entail. It bypasses the debate about what constitutes ethical treatment and substitutes its pre-conceived notion of the solution.
Tom: Why do you kill animals?
Dick (butcher): Because Harry eats meat (meat demand).
John: Why do you eat meat?
Harry (nonvegetarian): Because Dick kills animals (meat available).
Tom (to Dick): You're killing animals because Harry eats meat?
Dick: Yep!
John (to Harry): You're eating meat because Dick kills animals?
Harry: Bingo!
Tom: So, Dick, you can't stop killing animals because Harry eats meat and Harry, you can't stop eating meat because Dick kills animals?
Dick & Harry (in unison): Précisément!
Tom: WTF? :chin:
Weve been though this before. You are for ethics being anything that the community decides is right. So if the community is 56% pro slavery, its right! If ancestors had slaves for thousands of years, its right!
:lol: :wink:
You forgot to direct that to Isaac. Hes pro suffering all around as long as everyones up for it.
Partly, yes. Though my meta-ethics is not that simple. But I don't see what my personal meta-ethical stance has to do with your position.
How does your caricature of my position further your argument or counter the points I raised against it?
:grin:
Im arguing against your position, so it has quite a lot to do with this debate between me and you. This. One. Right. Here.
Why? This thread isn't about my position. Its about veganism. If I wanted a critique of my position I'd have posted it in an OP. You posted...
Quoting schopenhauer1
...if you're not willing to defend that position, then why post it?
Stalling. I was critiquing your ancestors theory. I dont wanna rehash the same type of arguments but in the form of vegetarian or what not instead of antinatalism because its all the same thing. Youre gonna say that if the community says its OK or ancestors said it was OK then its OK and of course Im not OK with that. Im going to say that its about suffering and preventing suffering and you were going to try to trivialize that its all going to rehash the same way blah blah.
Why? This is @Graeme M's thread about veganism and you posted a claim on it. Why are we now discussing a caricature of a theory of mine that I haven't even mentioned?
Just defend your claim or leave @Graeme M's thread to the discussion of Graeme's OP.
I don't believe I ever talked about death. The claim is that other species have a right to their own lives. Whenever we can, we should respect that. Is it therefore ethical to kill a free living animal for food? I would say yes, if there are no other alternatives.
Quoting Isaac
One could take the view that owning a pet is against the principles I have outlined. But like I said, this is about guiding what people choose to do. If someone still wants to own a dog, for example, I am simply pointing out that it seems a lesser form of exploitation than raising chickens for eggs. All we can do is offer guidance to people, from there they get to make their own choices.
Quoting Isaac
I don't think you have properly understood my proposition. The problem is nothing to do with the lifespan of a farmed animal or the fact it gets killed. The argument is that other animals have a right to their own lives and to be treated fairly, including the right not to be treated cruelly. On these grounds, we should choose not to farm animals for the same reasons we shouldn't farm humans. That is, it is not ethical to own a human, to treat a person as property, to use them as a means rather than an end. So, our first priority is not create farmed animals in the first place. However, there is no law preventing that so the best we can do as ethical members of society is to not support these systems of exploitation by not buying their products. This is exactly how we might behave in the case of human exploitation. If we know that product X is produced by enslaved teenagers in Country X, teenagers who are killed at 20 because they are less useful at their job, the only ethical thing we can do is not to buy that product. We *can* also protest against Country X, of course, but that has no guarantee of success.
Quoting Isaac
I do not agree with you. If under Articles 3-5 it is not ethical to enslave humans, then we have already specified what is ethical. The same applies in the case of other species. Which is exactly what veganism is. It isn't simply a diet.
Then I'm unsure what ethical concern you're raising against welfare-concerned farming. The animals 'have' their own lives.
Quoting Graeme M
So you've no objection to hunting?
How do you feel about factory work? Is it your view that factory workers have chosen to work in those conditions of their own free will?
What about free-grazing? Would you object to that?
Quoting Graeme M
No. Veganism would preclude hunting, for example.
Magnifique! On point mon ami, on point!
Veganism is the half-open flower of morality. We still have a long way to go, oui monsieur?
Again, let's consider the human example, because I am arguing for the same consideration of basic interests. Is it ethical to own slaves? I would say no, and I think that is generally agreed by most people today. The issue isn't how well the slaves live, it is the fact they are slaves in the first place.
Quoting Isaac
Well, I do object to sport hunting or trophy hunting. Personally I am a little on the fence about people in Western societies hunting for food - by and large I don't think we need to and it is definitely acting against the interests of the animals. Still, if it's legal then people can do it. My argument is that if we wish to protect the interests of other species we probably should choose not to hunt animals for food. In the case of people living where that is a necessity, then I think it is ethical.
Quoting Isaac
Depends on which factories. Generally speaking, people working in lowly paid jobs are exploited because they do not get to share fairly in the profit of their labour. However as a society we have agreed that a fair wage is sufficient to minimise this form of exploitation. If they are working in third world conditions where they are not paid enough and are coerced into those jobs, then I would say this is wrong. The best I can do is choose not to buy products from the companies that do this.
Quoting Isaac
Well, I've already answered that. Yes, veganism would preclude that in the cases where it is not necessary, just as I said above. That is a consistent position. The definition of veganism includes the caveat "when possible and practicable". Which is precisely what I say when I use the caveat "whenever we can". But again, no-one is forced to be "a vegan", so all we can do is hope people choose to act ethically. The proposition I am making is to outline what ethical means in this context. From there, people get to make their own choices.
But you said...
Quoting Graeme M
I don't see how that applies to hunting. You seem to have gone back to this being about foreshortening life.
Quoting Graeme M
As a society we've agreed that farming is a reasonable way to create food. I don't see how your argument works here.
You were the one refuting my claims against the naturalistic fallacy (ancestors etc). Thus I refuted that refutation. When arguing someone in good faith, its reasonable to anticipate similar arguments if they are consistent with their reasoning (ie community and historical practices somehow confer morality- conflated perhaps with moral sense, etc).
A claim is not defended by pointing out that an alternative claim is wrong unless the two claims are mutually exclusive.
You are not the only one who gets to attack bucko. Sometimes you gotta move your queen back a space.
Quoting Graeme M
Which is never! @schopenhauer1 is correct when he points out life is game invented by a psychopath who creates people like us to play it whether we want to or not, offering us two and only two choices: Algos ( :up: )/Thanatos ( :down: ). Why do I feel like a Roman Emperor ... at a gladiatorial game? :snicker:
Hmmm... Are you sure you are acting in good faith here? It would be good if you were willing to be more open to the proposition rather than simply trying to find weaknesses. The claim is straight-forward. Like humans, other animals deserve to have their basic interests protected. If a basic interest is to be free to conduct one's own life (which is what is meant by the right to life, liberty, freedom and not be enslaved), then a) we should not breed them to be used as property and treated as a means rather than an end, AND b) we should not kill them when we do not need to.
I am not sure what is inconsistent or unreasonable about this, presuming we agree that other species deserve this kind of consideration.
Quoting Isaac
We have agreed (somewhat) that a fair wage is a reasonable antidote to workers being exploited. Is animal farming a reasonable antidote to the problem of animals being treated as property and being exploited? It's difficult to see that it is for the simple reason the problem is the farming itself.
Now, I am not saying that someone cannot believe that ethical farming practice isn't sufficent to ensure ethical food production. I am saying that given that such is very much in the minority, shouldn't an ethical society be open to considering the ethical claims of veganism? What individuals decide is up to them, but I would hope that evaluating an ethical issue would be a priority of an ethical society.
Philosophers are in the demolition business. They love to tear down what others (attempt to) build because they, being perfectionists, believe there really is not point to houses that have structural flaws which collapse when subject to even teeny amounts of stress. When you see philosophies, think of a city in the 3[sup]rd[/sup] world - all buildings are shoddily-built, easily reduced to rubble when put to the test - just waiting for a (philosophical) earthquake to level it. Re Paradigm shifts, si señor/señorita?
Then I'm unsure why you would post it to a public discussion forum. I should think a leafleting campaign, or blog would be the more appropriate medium for seeking approval or support.
Quoting Graeme M
It may seem that way to you. The point of posting in a discussion forum is surely to discover if it also seems that way to others. If you already have all the answers then one wonders what the point was.
Quoting Graeme M
Neither (a) nor (b) follow from your premise alone. You've drawn no connection at all between liberty and being used as an end.
Workers are all used as ends (their labour), yet we don't say that humans are mistreated to be used that way.
Nothing about killing something interferes with it's liberty other than by foreshortening its life. If foreshortening life is unethical, then it's hard to see how lengthening it (above average) is also unethical. Farmed animals often live longer than their nearest wild equivalent.
You need to show some link between being farmed and some conflict with what you have good reason to believe the animal's best interests. Welfare-friendly farming gives animals a pleasant life, longer and easier than their wild ancestors. They are killed before dying naturally, but this doesn't foreshorten their life because absent this arrangement they would have most likely died beforehand from the sorts of natural causes the farmer protects them from.
They are 'used' toward an end, but so are all employees.
Your objections either don't seem to apply, or apply also to humans where some exchange of freedom for welfare is made.
I don't mind the idea being critiqued but I feel you are simply restating your objection in different ways and I keep answering the same way. It is pretty unproductive. That said, the actual topic isn't whether my proposition is perfectly correct but rather why is it the case that an ethical society shouldn't wish to treat this ethical issue seriously. I have explained why the ethical basis for the proposition is consistent with everyday human ethics and why we can make similar decisions about the things we do in this regard.
You agree in regard to "factory" farming which as we know is about 90% of farming, yet it seems impossible for this debate to gain any traction with people generally, being rejected as some kind of subversive foolishness at best or lunatic anti-society at worst.
So the real question is, if we can reframe the vegan argument so that it makes sense in the context of our general ethical outlook, shouldn't society be more open to actual genuine debate around the issue?
In the case of your objection which is - as best I can tell - that animals can be farmed ethically, then your personal choice would be to buy only meat and dairy from those kinds of producers. Which is entirely consistent with the proposition I have made. What I am suggesting is that in the absence of laws proscribing behaviours, the best we can do is be open to learning about how various animal-based industries operate, consider these in the context of the three ethical principles I describe and then decide what we want to do. But for that to actually have any effect on making things better (eg with regard to CAFOs), then we have to agree there is a rational ground for thinking that way.
My proposition is meant to offer a rational, defensible and consistent ground for genuine consideration of the problem. It really isn't that hard.
I guess the crux of this matter is to what extend everyday human ethics should also apply to animals. You take the position that it should apply almost completely (citing human rights), but I don't think that is the dominant ethical view in today's society. I would say the dominant view is that we owe some level of ethical responsibility to animals, but far short of the ethical responsibility we owe other humans.
Thus I argue and that today's ethical society does not require veganism in the way you suggest, as your extrapolation of human rights to animal rights is not the current ethical view of modern society. Today's standards treat the ethical responsibility to animals as lesser than that to other humans.
Maybe that will change over time, so if you were to write this post again in 2100, maybe then you would be correct about the modern ethical standards of 2100.
You arent paying attention to what you are reading if you think this is the counter argument Isaac is offering.
Quoting Isaac
Answer that. This is a counter argument to what you are saying. If you cannot answer it, your position is refuted so address it if you want to be taken seriously.
Quoting Isaac
This too. Dont be confuses by the mention of farming, its the bolded portion you need to answer for your position to stand.
Quoting Isaac
Again, address these claims made by Isaac. If you cannot refute this then your argument doesnt stand.
The fact that you only got animals can be farmed ethically from reading Isaacs posts is amazing to me, and it should give you pause on your own position that you have so clearly failed to comprehend counterpoints made against it. This is a very good sign that you havent considered the issue thoroughly. Also a good indicator you are making an ad hoc argument, rather than in good faith.
I agree this isn't the dominant position; my claim is that it should be for already well established reasons. I am saying that the ethical principles are the same whether applied to humans or other species. Not all human rights can apply, of course, but the core ones relating to the right to life, liberty and freedom from cruel treatment should.
We could of course take the view that humans just are far more important and only they deserve this kind of consideration, but when we dig into why this might be the case we seem to end up with the likelihood that other species deserve the same consideration.
I don't see the case you are making. Consider in the light of human rights as expressed in those core three articles. The aim is to prevent the treatment of humans as property and to prevent them being used as a means rather than an end. It also seeks to ensure that humans are free to live their lives on their own terms. Nothing about that suggests that it is fine to own a person, to breed humans as needed as a means to some end, nor that it is right to kill a person.
Isaac is arguing that we can choose to do that in relation to other humans. I don't think we can - their rights are inherent and inalienable except when forfeited (as happens for example when someone attacks someone else with the intent to do them harm). In the case of animal farming, it is the act of ownership and use as a means that breaches the ethical principle (or the animal's right, if you prefer). His argument about how well they are treated when alive doesn't bear on the question of whether it is right to own them, breed tham, and use them. Of the three principles, we have breached the first two by farming them. We *might* be able to treat them well while they live and thereby meet the duty in the third principle, but even that is questionable because I think we would agree that killing a human being for our own ends is a "cruel or inhuman" treatment and if so, it is also cruel when applied to another animal.
I am saying it is not controversial to argue that humans have a right not to be treated the way farmed animals are. As I am proposing that the exact same ethical principles should apply to other species, it is therefore not ethical to farm them. Whatever reasons can be adduced that show why we cannot do so to humans also apply to other species.
When you started with "Modern ethical principles," I took that to be the dominant ethical principals in today society. In which case modern ethical principals do not require veganism.
What I now think you are arguing is that modern ethical standards are wrong and your would like to change them. Is that correct? I'm not against that in this case.
If your position wasn't correct, would that not be an ideal candidate for a reason why it is not taken seriously?
Quoting Graeme M
You don't do 'explaining' here because such an activity is reserved for when the notion in question is to be understood by the interlocutor (such as a teacher-student relationship, or the giving of an instruction). You've presented a proposition which may or may not be coherent. Either clarifying, defending or modifying it is the response to criticism.
Quoting Graeme M
This just re-affirms the obvious - that we each act according to our own ethical standards. It's conceited for you to assume that others not acting so compassionately toward animals is an indication that they just haven't thought about it. It may be an indication that they have thought about it but reached a different conclusion to you.
Quoting Graeme M
No, they can't.
Firstly, we've agreed there are many caveats to the principles you've outlined, even for humans. Take children, for example. Are they free to leave the school grounds or the home whenever they feel like it? No. Are children free to dress and behave how they see fit? No. Are children considered the property of their parents (in that their parents have the right to treat them in any way that is within legal boundaries)? Yes. So already for nearly a quarter of the population we have exceptions to the liberty ethic on the grounds that "it's for their own good". We also have various arrangements set up where liberties are exchanged for welfare gains (most employment arrangements are like this, but the capitalist economy as a whole can be seen as such an arrangement). We have exceptions to killing too, such as in war ("for the greater good"), euthanasia (where one's liberty and one's lifespan conflict), and you mentioned self-defence.
So we have a few general principles which are punched through with contextual exceptions.
Animals aren't humans, So their context is different. If their context is different, then their contextual exceptions will be different. Their particular set of caveats will be different to the set humans have.
To demonstrate this, consider if you saw on the news that humans were being chased down and killed by armed thugs. You'd feel compelled to stop this situation. But when, on a nature documentary you see a gazelle being chased down the street by a lion the ethical response would not be the same. If you don't allow this exception, then you are suggesting (as I know some radical vegans do) that we should bring about the extinction (or otherwise render harmless) all predators. Why don't we?
So if you're going to simply say "look at the animals that are farmed - we wouldn't ethically treat a human that way so we shouldn't do so with other animals" and call it an argument, the easiest counter is to say "look at the prey animals that are in the wild - we wouldn't leave any humans in those circumstances so we shouldn't do so with other animals".
If you have an answer to that question - if you have a reason why you think it is wrong, or unnecessary to interfere with the 'appalling' conditions that prey animals live in in the African savanna, conditions we would be monsters for allowing other humans to endure unaided, then you have your first caveat, your first difference of circumstance between humans and other animals.
Other people simply have a different such list perhaps to you.
So any debate about veganism has to be a debate about what is on that list of differences and why.
I mean in the sense that perhaps I have explained poorly. Your approach has been purely to find fault, which is fine, but I am also interested in why it is a rational and defensible argument.
Quoting Isaac
Feel free to insert "clarifying", "defending" or "modifying" in place of "explaining".
Quoting Isaac
This is just restating what I have proposed. My proposition is that IF our ethical principles are valid, it is reasonable to apply them to the case of other species. I think the public debate should be more informed in this regard whereas it typically is not. If after that an individual prefers to act contrary to the principles outlined, that is their choice.
Quoting Isaac
The difficulty I have with this section is that you appear to me still to be arguing against something I haven't said, or more exactly to be trying to find a way to misinterpret the principles outlined.
What if we just step back from all of your loopholes and caveats about human rights and tackle the main concern. Do you think it ethical to own human beings, breed them for your own ends, and kill them when you wish to further those ends? If not, then such matters as children leaving school grounds or being "owned" by their parents are irrelevant. If yes, then we can't discuss this any further because you wish to hold a view that I do not think is generally held by most modern societies.
Also, raising the matter of the ethical nature of relations between other species is clearly irrelevant. Why would you do this unless you simply refuse to contemplate the proposition and prefer to be contrary just fo the sake of it? The fact we don't excuse thugs killing people because lions kill zebras gives rise to the reason why we might not excuse the killing of farmed animals because lions kill zebras.
In the case of human rights, we are specifically constraining our ethical concern to how human beings affect other human beings (relations between people). Similarly, our ethical concern in the case of animals rights is only in the context of how human beings affect other species (relations between people and other species).
I can't make sense of this expression. It sounds like you've already decided the argument is rational and defensible, but you want to find out why. That seems like an oddly dogmatic approach.
Quoting Graeme M
No, I wrote about people reaching different ethical conclusions to you, not about people agreeing with your conclusions but ignoring them.
Quoting Graeme M
The answer is "no, with caveats". It's not a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. There are caveats where we use other humans to our own ends, there are caveats where we kill other humans to our own ends. That is the conclusion of the examples I gave. It's the reason I gave them.
Quoting Graeme M
I mean this is patently false. Again the reason why I provided the example I did. If other humans were suffering as a result of frequent animal attacks, or frequent earthquakes, or volcanoes... We don't wash our hands of the humanitarian issues because they were not caused by other humans. We have barriers in place to prevent such tragedies because we care about the humans who would otherwise suffer. So if our ethical concerns extend without caveat, to other animals, then why do we not similarly protect prey from the suffering at the hands of their predators. A lion is no less a natural occurrence than an earthquake. We evacuate people from the vicinity of the latter, ought we evacuate prey from the vicinity of the former?
This is just bad reasoning. Ethics can only go human-to-animal, and not animal-to-human or animal-to-animal as it is obvious most animals cannot, by their biological nature, ethically reason (though perhaps things like fairness and compassion play some roles- another discussion). Rather, the question becomes, how do we humans (who do have capacity for ethical reasoning), treat other animals? Because animals cannot ethically reason, it does not negate them to "thus, humans can treat animals as beings deserving of being killed for X reasons by humans". Rather, if we "know" what is going on and the animal does not, the onus is on the person who "knows" what is the case. There is no onus for a lion or whatnot. They cannot help but kill. You cannot reason with them.
Of course being NOT a consequentialist, silly reductio ad absurdums like, "But humans DO know that animals will get killed by other animals", doesn't come into play in most deontological discussions of rights and ends. Animal-to-animal relationships are categorically not in the "rights' purview. Humans need only stick to human-to-human or human-to-animal relations.
And so, as far as animal-to-animal relationships, that is not in our realm, as it is two non-reasoning animals. You cannot blame animals for something they cannot reason about. While it is tragic for the animal being eaten, and a pessimistic part of life (see my pessimism), it is not a matter of human ethics that this takes place and we don't prevent every single instance of this. It actually speaks to a larger pessimism itself (that it needs suffering to sustain life).. But being that animals can't ponder this tragedy, they are to some extent going to be subject to their instincts and what happens to them as a result of other animals' instincts.
Conversely, by letting animals follow their nature (again, being animals that CANNOT reason by their nature), it is protecting their rights to follow the ends of their animal interests. We can argue about what kind of animals deserve this protection, but that would be a different argument. Do mice deserve the same protection as a cow or a great ape? Does a chicken deserve the same protection from harm than a mosquito or fish? I think there are good answers to this based on empirical evidence, but that would then be a different argument and a red herring.
Also, can people protect their own interests against aggressive animal behaviors and such? Of course. Animals need not be treated EQUALLY to humans, when it comes to moral reasoning. It simply stands that we have an obligation towards them, as sentient beings, to not cause unnecessarily harmful behavior towards them. And that is the key part.
Similarly to antinatalism, I think the basis of ethics lies in not causing unnecessarily harmful behavior, when you can prevent it. For a person, that might be not causing for a new person to play an often harmful game that they cannot end, (and have little say in their choices and harms they will encounter), except suicide. For an animal it may be not killing them if you don't need to. Killing for food may be less harmful than simply killing an animal for no reason, but killing for food if you don't have to is still problematic.
So why do we protect other humans from natural (non-human) causes of harm, but not other animals?
Well, we should try to if they are in our protection.
On what grounds do they become "in our protection". Why are the gazelles on the African savannah not in our protection, but the humans at risk from the drought are?
Because were are not kings with dominion over the earth with all animals as our subjects for protection. That's an odd and antiquated way of looking at it.
Why not. Why are we not morally responsible for other animals?
Because there is a distinction with the "natural world" and the human world. The natural world is that which does its thing without human (beings who are self-aware and can reason) influence and conversely, doesn't directly influence humans. But there can be a case that, if humans have the time and resources, why not go above and beyond (supererogatory actions) and preserve that which might be saved?
You really are scraping the bottom here.
There is a distinction between redheads and blondes. It doesn't imply we have a different ethical responsibility to each. Simply pointing to a difference in property isn't an argument for difference in ethical treatment.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, if you're asking me directly, my answer is because it would be ridiculous. Same answer as I'd give to most such ethical extremes. I think it's absurd to pluck an ethical principle out of our intertwined biological and cultural milieu and then, for no reason at all, follow it through to whatever ends, even the destruction of the very wellspring which birthed it. What would be the point?
It is what those properties mean.. the semantics. Blondes and redheads is a distinction that makes no difference morally. Beings who can reason and beings who can not reason does make a difference when discussing how they interact. We have no obligation to save every animal on earth, nor every human. Humans CAN be considered more important than animals and it would STILL be correct to not cause them unnecessary suffering.
Quoting Isaac
Huh? I'm saying IFF you had the means to protect, why not?
In a perverse way we do have kingly dominion over the earth. Heard about global warming? Heard about chemical contamination? Heard about soil exhaustion? Heard about 8 billion humans? Heard about Silent Spring?
Because we had the capacity to change global climate and everything that depends on a stable climate AND because we used that capacity, we have become responsible.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I wish we could reason better, and act on the results.
I used to think that the human and natural worlds were discreet, separate; it does its thing, we do our thing, and the two do not communicate. Take the trillions of bacteria in your gut: They are not you and they are part o the "natural world". It turns out that the relationship between these many species and us is far more interrelated and intimate than we would like to think.
As a species, we are part of the natural world, sharing DNA with everything from bacteria on up. Why are fungal infections difficult to treat? Because fungi and animals have a bit too much biology in common. Drugs that kill fungi negatively affect animals too.
Without the rest of nature, we'd be dead--starved, suffocated, sickened by all sorts of attackers.
Bears in the northwest help forests grow. How? The catch a lot of salmon, take it into the woods, and eat it/digest it. The bears bring specific nutrients to the forest floor through their kind of messy eating habits. Wolves help forests grow too. They eat animals that chew on trees, like deer and moose (elk). Too few wolves, too many munchers. The forest starts shrinking. Adding wolves results in fewer trees killed; hence, a thicker forest. [This has been extensively demonstrated on Lake Superior's Isle Royale, a 200+ square mile island 18 miles off the shoreline of Minnesota.]
We introduced 'exotic' earthworms into various states around a century ago. They have been working their way northward. These are the big nightcrawlers that people use for fishing bait.). They are now chewing up the leaf-litter under northern hardwood forests. They digest the leaves, of course, and leave worm castings behind. That's fine. But without the leaf litter, the thin soil in northern forests erodes too fast, impoverishing the soils.
Everything we do, and everything that happens in the natural world, including the affairs of gazelles, eventually affects everything else.
Granted, but I am saying humans are not obligated to them as they are directly to animals under their care. Is it a good idea to look after the natural environment? Absolutely.
I mean, there's people dying in Ukraine.. I can't really prevent it. But I would like it to stop. I don't have an obligation to do anything about it either, unless I had a clear way to stop it, and I unnecessarily let it prolong. There are levels of care based on proximity, relation, care, and capacity.
That's just a repeat of the assertion, not an explanation of it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I can't improve on @Bitter Crank's answer. It would be outrageous hubris.
Perhaps you are right. That would still make @Isaac not right.
Cool, then he thus refuted your idea that we have no obligation to the natural world, cause that is what he is saying.
Where have I said any such thing?
You asked if we have obligation to save wild animals from natural disasters...@Bitter Crank seems to be implying we do. Ok.
That's a question, not a proposition.
So that's settled. Fill your bird feeder with big earthworms so the northern forest survives.
Is it true though? Do you think that we have an obligation to save wild animals in a natural disaster? The same way as humans? Because that's what the argument was about.
Do you think we have an obligation to protect other humans in a natural disaster?
I just mean that I am interested in hearing both critical and non-critical points raised.
Quoting Isaac
So your answer is no. It's that simple. Digging around trying to find the possible reasons why human rights don't always carry through isn't a good faith strategy. The question is "Do you think it ethical to own human beings, breed them for your own ends, and kill them when you wish to further those ends?" Your answer is no. Don't fiddle around trying to pretend that you could potentially find a good reason for the answer to be yes. Gee, here you are so keen to counter my proposition that you want to start dismantling human rights.
Quoting Isaac
This is just poor reasoning. We don't save people from natural disasters simply because human rights mean we should. This is for several reasons, including from simple sentimentality, to being good members of the human community, to having regard to our duties as rights bearers. Once again, what happens outside of direct human relations with other species is not relevant to the proposition. If you want to make it such that it should, only to reject it, feel free to go right ahead. It's an irrelevant distraction.
I don't think this issue is relevant to my post. My interest is in regard to our duties in the context of our direct relations with other species, that is, when we do things that affect them directly. Whether we also have a moral obligation to wild animals beyond that would be a different question.
On the face of it, we probably do at some level because we do see some efforts to assist (look at YT videos of people freeing trapped animals). However, I think here we are straying into territory related to the ability to be reasoning, good faith members of a moral community. When we seek to save humans from natural disasters, we typically do so in the expectation that the victims will likely work with us on this. Wild animals will not. I think it would be different if every human we tried to save from disaster did their best to resist us, hurt us and even kill us. We'd be far less disposed to act this way.
There are some considerations to be made.
a) is it possible to save x wild animals?
b) if saved, will there be habitat for them
c) humans come first; if the choice is between saving an eagle or antelope vs. saving a human, save the human first. Then if it's possible, address the animals' survival.
If one saves a bear by giving it water during a severe drought, then what? Are we going to care for the bear indefinitely? If one feeds animals during their hard times, they will generally stick around. They may not practice higher reasoning, but they will figure out where the best deal is -- starve in the woods or survive by eating what we give them. Bears and people in close proximity usually doesn't end well.
]Some people feed deer in Minnesota; even if they are not starving, People like to watch the deer and they like our food. The are particularly fond of flowers like impatiens and begonias (definitely NOT native plants) and everything in the garden. Ordinary field corn just isn't that interesting in comparison, it seems. And some people feed deer during starvations times--cattle feed, basically.
There are groups who take care of raptors that are injured, and then release them back into their habitat. What if the habitat is gone? Eagles are not vegetarians; will there be enough live game for them to eat and raise chicks? They need animals larger than mice -- like rabbits, large fish, etc.
Good faith debating isn't necessarily in Isaac's toolbox. It's funny, I've had a back-and-forth with him several times and I've also used the term "not in good faith" towards his style, so there may be a pattern here...
Quoting Graeme M
I didn't pose it. Isaac-dude did.
Quoting Graeme M
Interesting take.
Yep, I'd agree. That would be a good answer for @Isaac's red herring.
He was trying to make an argument whereby "If schop1 can't be bothered to save wild animals in a disaster, he therefore shouldn't worry about eating animals". My point was, the most basic obligation is to not cause unnecessary harm as a basis for morals in general. I stated earlier:
Quoting schopenhauer1
As well as...
Quoting schopenhauer1
But for positive moral motivations, you have to consider things..
Quoting schopenhauer1
That is basically what you are getting at...
Proximity: I can't necessarily save someone not in my vacinity.
Relation: I will care more about people closer to me than who are not. To NOT consider this would be a violation of sorts. A mother, father, friend, neighbor.. etc. Not recognizing relations in values is borderline sociopathic.
Care: Are there people who are directly under your care that could not use their own agency? These might be the people to consider most as they can't do anything whatsoever (babies, elderly, your own pets, etc.)
Capacity: Do you have any means of actually helping? Whom and how much money shall you give if at all without going poor yourself? How are you to stop a war you have no way of stopping across the world?
That is to say all of the above is for positive factors of helping.. The basic moral stance I would argue is more basic than that. It is simply refraining from causing unnecessary suffering, which in a way is a negative stance, of not violating (rather than going out of your to help or other "positive" act).
Yes, I think he has taken an unnecessarily adversarial tack. The trouble with that as I see it is that you no longer end up debating an issue but simply responding to an endless series of slight variations on a theme.
Yeah that happens with him, unfortunately.
clarifies the matter.
Me two cents ...
Of course.
Quoting Graeme M
I'm not preventing anyone from posting noncritical content. I'm not going to make up some placatory praise just to stroke your ego.
Quoting Graeme M
If you're going to ignore my actual answer and replace it with the one you'd prefer to respond to, then the question wasn't asked in good faith. So why don't we start with what you really meant by asking it.
Quoting Graeme M
No. Don't tell me what my answer is. My answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no depending on the circumstances. It's not my problem that you're too dogmatic to accept a nuanced answer.
Quoting Graeme M
Human rights are currently limited to the treatment of humans by other humans.
You are arguing that we ought extend them to the treatment of animals by humans.
The point I'm making by bringing in natural disasters and natural predation is that you've provided no argument for why (if we're going to extend the scope of human rights) we should not extend them to the treatment of humans by natural forces or the treatment of animals by other animals.
It's you who are equating human rights with our ethical sensibilities. The argument is that if human rights do not apply to natural disasters (yet our ethical sensibilities clearly do) then human rights are clearly bounded by factors other than our mere sensibilities.
You cannot be ambivalent about this, it's a yes or no answer. I didn't ask you if it's OK to kill someone in certain circumstances. I very clearly asked you whether or not you believe it is ethical to own human beings AND to breed them for your own ends AND to kill them when you wish as part of meeting those ends. You either do or you dont. This is your problem - you prefer to answer questions according to your own restatement of them to suit your purposes then pretend you have actually made some insightful point. You haven't.
Quoting Isaac
Because this is not relevant to human rights as we understand them. Nowhere did I suggest extending human rights, I specifically noted that just three rights as described in the UNDHR are relevant and I quite specifically did not suggest we extend those rights to other species. Again, you are just nitpicking with made up versions of what I have said.
So, it's clear there is nothing to gain from talking with you further. Thanks for your input.
That's an interesting angle. I am no nutritionist but I don't think that a fruitarian diet is likely to be regarded as a nutritionally adequate or healthy diet.