Oops, forgot to mention that yesterday I cooked a quail egg, shitake mushroom and sugar snap peas stirfry (I really like quail eggs, and this was tasty) and marinated chicken (which she wanted us to grill, but I thought was much tastier done in a frying pan).
Yet another Perl-content-free journal entry...
Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
Matts on 2002-03-03T15:50:50
As comfortable as I feel every day. We all "kill" things every single day of our lives, no matter how we live. Every animal does it. It's called survival. Bacteria is a very good example in point.
(responding before pudge does;-) Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-03T16:06:52
How do you know that it did not want to die? What are you, some sort of chicken whisperer?:-) Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
autarch on 2002-03-03T16:24:52
Eh?
If you are seriously trying to get people to go vegetarian or vegan with that attitude please stop. I've been an animal rights activist for the past five years and people like just make my job harder.
Getting in people's faces and shouting at them will not ever convince them to think about the (im)morality of what they're doing. It just turns them off because the style overwhelms the message.
When it comes to activism, style _is_ important, and yours sucks.Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-03T19:22:18
I have a question, and I don't intend to have an argument about it, I just want to know your opinion on the matter.
I have long been an advocate for humane treatment of animals. How does this differ from the advocacy for animal "rights," if at all? Is there any distinction, even a semantic one, for you?
Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
autarch on 2002-03-03T20:19:41
Yes, there is a definite distinction.
What you describe is animal "welfare", which is a good thing, but doesn't go far enough, I believe.
Animal rights means that I believe that animals, just like humans, have inherent rights, simply because they exist and are "subjects of a life" (to use a Tom Regan's term for it). IOW, animals, like humans, are conscious critters.
When we talk about human rights we usually mean things like freedom of speech, freedom from harm by others, freedom to travel, etc.
Obviously, to a certain degree my rights are limited by your right. My right do whatever the heck I want is limited by your right to freedom. So if "whatever I want" included locking you in my closet, then to a certain degree my rights are limited.
When I talk about animal rights, the rights I am advocating primarily comes down to the right to live free from human interference. This is, of course, impossible to a certain degree. After all, if I want to live at a anything beyond the most primitive level, I must interfere to a certain degree in animals' lives (by building houses, generating electricity, etc).
But inasmuch as it possible, animals should be given freedom. This certainly means the end of the use of animals for food, entertainment, clothing, and experimentation because none of these things can be considered at all "necessary" for human lives.
I don't _need_ to eat animals, I can do just fine on a vegan diet. I don't _need_ to wear leather or wool, as plant-based fibers and synthetics are perfectly suitable. I don't _need_ to go to a circus with animals, or a rodeo, or the zoo.
As for experimentation, we can probably agree that there is no _need_ for non-medical testing. You may argue that we _need_ medical testing, but I think that's stretching the word "need" well into the territory "want". But I do concede that many people would consider this a special case and would be willing to argue it separately.
So given that we don't _need_ to do any of these things, the only reasons we would do them then are for pleasure (again, allowing for medical experimentation as possible separate issue). Is our pleasure worth more than the suffering of the animals involved? This is highly doubtful (the suffering is _immense_). Is it worth any amount of suffering? I don't think so, because I believe animals have rights.
This is, of course, highly dependent on the fact that I live in a modern (post-?)industrial country. I can understand why someone would say that people in poorer countries _need_ to use animals in various ways. And I think the best way to improve animals' lives there would be to first raise the living standards of these countries and _then_ address the issue of animal rights.
And this also doesn't address issues like Native American hunting practices, which for many Native Americans is a cultural and even spiritual issue and not purely an issue of pleasure (in the sense of recreation).
So it's not like I can make a blanket statement about the way animals are treated.
But I can say that I think that in modern industrialized countries like the US, we should stop doing pretty much _everything_ we are doing to animals in regards to food, clothing, and entertainment, and non-medical testing.
The counter-argument to this pretty much presumes that animals don't have rights and more importantly, that their suffering is not important when compared to human pleasure. And I just can't buy into that.Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-03T21:19:09
Some quick points that I don't want to argue specifically, but want to throw out there for your consideration:
- You may not need to eat animals, but I do. That is, I need to eat meat more than you (or I) need electricity, from my perspective. This really isn't up for debate, unless you take the absolutist perspective that we should never impinge on the rights of animals, which you say you don't. You have a certain set of criteria whereby you determine that some things require electricity, and you are unwilling to give up those things, so you say you need electricity. I have a similar set of criteria for eating meat, and I hold those criteria to be more important than those for electricity. It becomes a matter of what is important to whom; it is not an objective statement of fact about which is actually more of a "need," except in regard to an individual's own beliefs and values. For you to say I don't need meat is arbitrary and subjective, and, given that, incorrect, since I disagree.
To put it another way: it would be correct, perhaps, for you to say that you don't believe that I need to eat meat, but I can assure you that given any criteria that allows you to need electricty, that I need to eat meat.
- You improperly frame the issue as animal suffering vs. human pleasure, while there may be neither suffering on their part nor pleasure on ours. I think mentioning either one does disservice to your cause, as though if I can kill them without causing suffering, then it's OK. I don't think you actually believe that. The example of a chicken is apt: I don't believe chickens suffer in any way we would actually call suffering. I don't think they are capable of suffering any more than an eggplant is. Even if they were, we could still kill them without suffering.
Also a question: I don't understand why an animal has a right to live free from human interference; they apparently have no right to live free from the interference of other animals, right? If a zebra has no right to live free from being eaten by a cheetah, why does a deer have a right to live free from being eaten by a man? Is it because of this apparently arbitrary sense of what humans "need" (cf. point 1)?
Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
autarch on 2002-03-03T23:05:15
In response to #1, you have no _biological_ need to eat meat. That's what I meant by need.
But yes, I don't need electricity based on that definition of need either. I don't think I said that I did, though. I _want_ electricity and I think it can be gotten without causing any significant harm.
1. You improperly frame the issue as animal suffering vs. human pleasure, while there may be neither suffering on their part nor pleasure on ours. I think mentioning either one does disservice to your cause, as though if I can kill them without causing suffering, then it's OK. I don't think you actually believe that. The example of a chicken is apt: I don't believe chickens suffer in any way we would actually call suffering. I don't think they are capable of suffering any more than an eggplant is. Even if they were, we could still kill them without suffering.
You can believe whatever you want, but I think that is a flat-out ignorant belief. Scientific research fully supports the idea that chickens (like pretty much all animals) are capable of suffering.
Chickens have a nervous system and a brain. They are capable of feeling pain. They have instincts which they can be frustrated or denied.
Of course, maybe you're actually debating the meaning of the word "suffering", but the dictionary definitions I've seen include things like "to endure death, pain, or distress", which is pretty clear.
Of course, how do I know that _you_ can suffer? I can't actually feel what you feel. But I know that _I_ can suffer (feel pain, distress, fear, worry, etc.). And I know what it looks like when I am suffering (I sweat, I may bleed, I may scream, cry, thrash about, etc.)
Therefore, when I see other humans in the same state, I can probably assume they are suffering.
Well, if you take things that cause suffering in humans (like castration without anesthesia) and do them to animals, then they do the same things (at least some of them), like sweat, scream, thrash about, etc. Therefore I can assume that animals suffer.
But perhaps you agree with Descartes, and believe that animals are simply machines (which leads me to wonder in what humans are not).
As to killing without suffering, even assuming such a thing is possible, it is more or less irrelevant to my points. It is highly unlikely that we could possible raise animals in the numbers necessary to satisfy current demand without suffering.
If the only animal products available came from animals that had been raised without cruelty and killed painlessly, then the price of those products would be astronomical (would you pay $50 for a pound of beef? $3 per egg?).
And then your last point. Why do animals have the right to live free from human interference if they don't have the right to live free from the interference of other animals?
Because humans, more than any other animals, are capable of acting purely based on ethics. Therefore we have an obligation to do so that other animals do not. Cheetahs are not acting unethically when they kill a zebra as they really do not have a choice.
Inasmuch as we can choose to not cause suffering to animals, including our fellow humans, we should make those choices.Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-04T00:21:13
I think meat can be gotten without significant harm. Further, I do have a biological need for meat, because I can't eat most vegetables, let alone those fake meat products. They taste bad. So if I don't eat meat, I won't be healthy, because I will be severely malnourished. I very much do have a biological need to eat meat, and you are incapable of reasonably saying that I don't.
And I did not say they are incapable of suffering, I said they are incapable of experiencing what we know as suffering. They are more like eggplants, which also suffer, in a sense; sure, they have a nervous system, but it is about as primitive as you can get. We can't comprehend what it experiences, really, as it is so entirely unlike us. And I didn't say this in regard to all animals, just chickens, so you have no basis to extrapolate what I said to animals in general. I have two dogs and three cats, with maladies ranging from epilepsy to severe allergies to lyme disease. I know animals suffer. I just don't think chickens, in particular, suffer in any way we can relate to. Maybe I am just biased against chickens, but I don't think so.
But again, it does damage your argument: you rightfully claim that the point at which killing them for food doesn't cause them any suffering would drive up food prices astronomically. Fine. But what if it didn't? Your argument would say that because they don't suffer, it is OK, and I get the impression that you wouldn't think so, that it is wrong irrespective of their amount of suffering. If you really want to damage your argument that way, fine. I was just trying to help.
As to being able to act ethically, I don't see what that has to do with anything. If they have a right to live, it isn't dependent on the capabilities of one species or another to believe that killing them is right or wrong. Their rights, like ours, are irrespective of the capabilities of others to impinge on those rights in a certain way.
You recognized this when you said their rights are "inherent," "just like humans." If I have a right to not be killed by another person, that extends to those who may be incapable of controlling themselves (perhaps under the influence of certain types of drugs, perhaps a sociopath, even a wild animal, etc., making it an act without morality one way or another), as well as to those who have ultimate power and capable will to destroy me or not. The same goes for animals, if their rights are inherent, just like ours, as you said.
Of course, your explanation is also begging the question: you claim that animals have a right to not be eaten because it is unethical to eat them, but you previously said that it is unethical to eat animals because they have a right to not be eaten! It can't be both.
It seems to me that your actual arguments are not saying they have a right to exist without our intervention -- if they do have such rights, you'll need to explain it without using a circular argument -- but that it is simply wrong to kill animals for certain reasons, and, therefore, because we are able to choose not to, we should make that choice. But that doesn't create rights on their part (as they have inherent, not arbitrary, rights), it creates an obligation on ours, based on the individual morality you hold to, that it is wrong to kill animals. Couching it in "rights", as you've described it, seems to be an attempt to convince people that killing animals is de facto immoral, doing an end run around making a real case why it is immoral.
Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
autarch on 2002-03-04T00:55:27
I think meat can be gotten without significant harm. Further, I do have a biological need for meat, because I can't eat most vegetables, let alone those fake meat products. They taste bad. So if I don't eat meat, I won't be healthy, because I will be severely malnourished. I very much do have a biological need to eat meat, and you are incapable of reasonably saying that I don't.
Well, this is one of the sillier statements I've ever seen when debating animal rights issues. What can I say? I think you're full of it. You certainly _could_ eat only plant products and survive. You just wouldn't like it much. What's this "I can't eat most vegetables" crap? What, if you eat it you can't digest it and get nutrition from it?
Re: chickens. Again, I don't know why you'd believe such a thing since it has no basis in science.
Eggplants cannot suffer. They have no central nervous system, therefore no mechanism for conducting pain signals nor any place to process such signals. And just as importantly, there is no evolutionary reason for plants to feel pain, since the function of pain is to cause a reaction that removes the harmful stimulus. Since plants can't move they can't really react in meaningful ways to harmful stimulus.
Chickens have a nervous system. It is not particularly primitive, no more so than that of most other animals. Their brain itself is more primitive but they can feel pain and frustration of insticts. That's enough to allow for a lot of suffering.
I can't believe I'm actually having to say these things, though.
Re: killing without suffering. No, I don't think that would be ok.
As to you having a right not to be attacked by animals. That's absurd. There is no such thing as ethical responsibilities for creatures incapable of making those judgements (i.e. babies, the severely retarded, most animals, etc). It is meaningless to discuss such an idea since anything without the capability of making ethical decisions is incapable of respecting rights.
Different creatures' rights interact in ways that limit certain rights and also impose responsibilities upon each other. Responsibilities are imposed only inasmuch as they can be carried out by the creature being imposed upon.
So we don't say that a one week old (human) baby has a responsibility not to kill. It is not capable of dealing with that responsibility.
But since you _can_ carry out the responsibities necessary to respect other's rights, you have an obligation to do so. Animals by and large cannot do so and therefore are free from those responsibilities.
All discussions of rights (and all discussions of philosophy in general) eventually come down to some sort of bedrock statements beyond which there is no explanation or proof. I believe that animals have rights. I believe that humans have rights. I don't have any explanation for those beliefs.
Other people may say that they believe those things because "God told me so", but that too is an unexplainable thing because it rests on belief in a god.
You claim I'm "doing an end run around making a real case why it is immoral." My case is pretty simple. I believe that animals should be free from suffering, and that human interference leads to suffering for animals. That's my case.
You tell me, what's your case for why its unethical for me to eat humans? I suspect it will also come down to some (relatively) simple statement of "killing other people (perhaps with certain caveats) is wrong."
I tend to get caught up in talking about suffering because I'm more interested in persuading people to take action than to agree with my particular philosophy. Frankly, I don't give a flying *beep* _why_ someone is vegan. I just want them to be vegan.
And if talking about suffering is what motivates people (from experience, this is the case), I'll talk about suffering. If standing on my head worked, I'd do that too.Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-04T01:31:29
I won't respond to most of what you say except two things:
I can't eat most vegetables because they taste really bad to me. It's that simple. Am I capable of digesting it? Yes. But incapable of eating it. My cat is the same with many foods she is capable of digesting. You think it's silly? Tough nuts. It's my taste buds I am protecting, not yours.
Second, this: "I believe that animals should be free from suffering, and that human interference leads to suffering for animals. That's my case." Fine. But I wasn't arguing against that, I was arguing against your circular, illogical argument that we shouldn't eat animals because we can choose not to because we shouldn't eat animals. Of course, I don't believe what you believe, and therefore have no obligation to not eat animals, which I see you agree with, since you note that our notions of rights in these respects are, in essence, entirely arbitrary.
Thanks!
Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-04T01:55:28
Oh, and about vegetables, I thought I might be able to take them intravenously, but I have this thing about needles; I could take a pill, but then I don't get the roughage I so desperately need. Bah! I'm stuck requiring meat. Bring on the cows, Little Billy!
Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
autarch on 2002-03-04T02:57:57
Its not illogical, it simply comes from a first principle which you disagree with. My first principle, as stated, was that human interference with animals is unethical. Therefore, when given a choice (which we always are in this particular case, regardless of your culinary tastes), we should make the ethical choice, which is to not interfere.
As to whether or not you have an obligation not to eat animals. Of course you have such an obligation. Why would you think I believe otherwise? Just because my notion of rights is arbitrary doesn't mean I think yours has any validity, nor would I expect you to feel any differently.Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-04T03:46:44
As to whether or not you have an obligation not to eat animals. Of course you have such an obligation. Why would you think I believe otherwise? Just because my notion of rights is arbitrary doesn't mean I think yours has any validity, nor would I expect you to feel any differently.
What you expect is nonsense. Once again, you expect me to think that you're an immoral sap just because you think I am. I'm sorry that I can't oblige you. I actually don't expect anything of the sort. I expect different things.
I expect people -- especially those who say their beliefs are arbitrary -- to realize that none of us really knows a damned thing about any of this, that we're all just making our best guess at truth, that all people will arrive at different versions of truth, and that no one knows what truth is.
I expect people -- especially those who say their beliefs are arbitrary -- to accept differences of opinion instead of attempting to force people to follow their arbitrary notion of right and wrong (without even saying why it is right or wrong, except to say that it is arbitrary!).
Jeez, what the hell was I thinking?
Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
autarch on 2002-03-04T05:28:46
You have a rather bizarre position.
I think that ethics are basically arbitrary at a certain level, as are pretty much all beliefs.
But just because I believe that doesn't change what I want from others. Look, I think killing a person is unethical. That's an arbitrary belief.
But it is something that most of the people in this country agree with, and so we have laws forbidding murder, right?
And most people consider that a good thing. In other words, one particular viewpoint has been forced on everybody. Because if you try to commit murder, people may act to prevent you from doing so. And if you do commit murder, you are risking some sort of undesirable consequence.
People who believe that killing humans is an okay thing to do are in various ways hindered from acting on that belief, or punished if they do so.
Thus, a particular ethical stance is forced on everyone, inasmuch as it is possible to do so (obviously it doesn't prevent all murders).
Now, in my ideal world, people would feel the same way about killing animals as they do about people.
What's wrong with that?
Why do I need a reason why something is right or wrong? Why is it wrong to kill a human being? Do you need a reason for that? Here's a few:
- God says it's wrong.
- Ghandhi was against it.
- Space aliens told me so.
- I just think it is.
- My parents brought me up to respect human life.
They're all completely arbitrary. Pick one.
I don't think we have a "difference of opinion" over animal rights. I think my stand is ethically correct and yours is not. Therefore I want you to change your behavior.
Presumably you might feel the same way about someone who actively killed human beings. Or would you just accept that "difference of opinion"?
At least I'm upfront about it. I want people to live according to the ethical standards I think are correct. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. There are lots of ethical standards "forced" on people against their will that help make the world a better place.
Now, I don't actually think that I'm in a position to really force you to respect animal rights. It just wouldn't work. A very small minority can't really force anything on a large majority without doing things that I would also consider unethical.
So that leaves me in the position of trying to convince people I am right. You, I consider a lost cause. But I sure as hell will not "accept differences of opinion" when it comes to ethics. That in itself is something I would consider highly unethical.Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-04T13:16:06
But just because I believe that doesn't change what I want from others. Look, I think killing a person is unethical. That's an arbitrary belief.
But it is something that most of the people in this country agree with, and so we have laws forbidding murder, right?
Nope! In actual fact, we have laws forbidding murder because we have codified in our country's law the idea that it is not arbitrarily unethical, but that it is absolutely unethical, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that the government exists to secure those rights, and that any government that is destructive to those ends should be altered or abolished.
So to compare in our law the idea of killing an animal and killing a human is unreasonable. One idea is part of the very basis of our government, and the other is not.
"Is there any way I can harm an animal to increase your dining pleasure tonight?"Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
lachoy on 2002-03-04T16:34:12
Well, the fact that people decided this 200+ years ago based on what they thought doesn't make this any less arbitrary, does it? To illustrate: making a person of color property worth 3/5 as much as a white man is pretty arbitrary, but it was in the Constitution. (The fact that they used their religion to justify this doesn't make it any more or less true.) Fortunately, it was changed, too.You're right that to compare in our law (as it stands right now) the killing of a an animal and a person is unreasonable. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that individuals or groups equate them ethically. But laws change, just like people do.
Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-04T16:59:37
Well, the fact that people decided this 200+ years ago based on what they thought doesn't make this any less arbitrary, does it?
It does in the sense of why the law says murdering people is wrong, yes: in that it is not merely the opinion of a majority of people that makes it illegal, it is the very basis of our government that makes it so. If you take that away, then you take away the basis for the Constitution, which is to provide a government that exists to protect the rights of humans.
The Declaration of Independence, the founding document of this nation, is very clear: that all (people) have unalienable rights and that the government exists to secure those rights, deriving its power from the consent of the governed, and that any government destructive to that end must be altered or abolished. The Constitution was written and ratified in this context.
I am not saying that animals don't have rights. I am just saying our government exists to protect the rights of people, and that even if government recognizes certain rights for animals, they can never be put on the same level as those of people. Further, it cannot reasonably be said that we have laws protecting the rights of people just because a majority of people want it. We have such laws because our system of government requires it in order to exist.
Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
acme on 2002-03-03T17:53:24
I'm very comfortable killing things. I'm French. This means that I'll kill and eat anything once. If it's tasty, I'll keep on doing it, otherwise I'll move on. For example, many people will testify seeing me eat worms. One particular delicacy is lamb's brains (dusted with flour and lightly fried), and my favourite restaurant in London (St. John) serves bone marrow. We must organise a "crazy mexican food" outing at TPC this year...Re:how do you feel about killing chickens?
pudge on 2002-03-03T19:26:01
Speaking of France, SNL had a tremendously funny sketch last night showing George Bush talking about the Axis of Evil. He said that Enron is now included in the Axis of Evil, as well as Germany/Italy/Japan, Tom Daschle, Dick Cheney, and Evil Kneivel. Then he said, "and France has been upset over the Axis of Evil, so guess what, France? Now you're in it it. How do you like them apples? Next time you'll keep your mouth shut. Don't mess with Texas."
Things die so I can live. Someday I will die so other things can live. There's no way to avoid that. I do seek to use meat substitutes, but that's more of a fat-in-my-diet and water consumption issue.
And if someone can point out to me that the water-consumption issue is invalid somehow on this point (that producing meat requires more water than producing plants), please, go ahead and enlighten me. I will still eat in the same pattern I always have -- meat whenever necessary for the meal.
Re:Animalist!
autarch on 2002-03-11T22:09:50
I can't resist.
Yes, producing meat uses _way_ more water (and other resources) than producing plants.
It's pretty simple. What do animals raised for food eat? The answer is plants.
So let's say that with plant it takes 1 resource unit to produce 100 calories. A "resource unit" is my made up term for the water, soil, energy, etc required.
Because of the inherent inefficiency in any conversion process (this is a law of physics), 100 calories of animal food might take 10 resource units to produce (actually, I think it's worse for most animals).
So first you use the water needed to produce vegetables. Then you feed those vegetables to animals, which is a horribly lossy conversion, so water is wasted there. Then you give the animals even more water for their own use, of course. And then there's huge amounts of water consumed (polluted, by and large) by animal waste. And then yet more water is used at the slaughterhouse.
Animal agriculture is inherently environmentally worse than plant agriculture, simply because its yet another layer on top of plant agriculture, _not_ a replacement for it.
As to your first two paragraphs, that head of lettuce has no nervous system. It's not whether things are alive that matters to most people who care about animals. It's whether or not that particular living thing can suffer. Your argument is a _very_ silly straw-person argument.
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who opposes eating animals who would actually state that they oppose killing any living thing. They simply oppose killing conscious beings, or beings that can suffer.Re:Animalist!
chaoticset on 2002-03-12T03:52:36
Thank you for the clarification!:) I had read actual numbers once some time back on the inside of a Moby CD, and took an educated guess that the numbers might not be exact but animals had to require much more water to construct. It had occurred to me that I might be able to construct a fairly detailed analysis of water consumption at each level, but I never got that far with it. As to your first two paragraphs, that head of lettuce has no nervous system. It's not whether things are alive that matters to most people who care about animals. It's whether or not that particular living thing can suffer.
I assume you mean 'pain' by suffering, and if you mean that a plant could not sense pain in the way you or I sense pain, certainly, I would agree. It lacks structures for that.
However, I would also say that I should not deprive a plant of life over an animal merely because it is not as much like me. (I have heard the argument made time and again for killing things: "They're not like us, they can't really concieve of suffering/loss/pain." I've heard it about dogs, fish, bears, cows, other people, you name it. Forgive me if I seem suspicious.)
Unfortunately for plants, they happen to be the most efficient kill on the market much of the time. I like efficiency; it implies less death.
It's not whether things are alive that matters to most people who care about animals. It's whether or not that particular living thing can suffer.
Well, as you can tell, I'm not most people. Life concerns me. Suffering passes; death is a little more permanent.
Your argument is a _very_ silly straw-person argument.
It is offered half in jest, as with every other argument I offer. If you don't like the serious half, pretend it's only a joke.
;)
