Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Animal rights

Rate this topic


Ragnar

Recommended Posts

Consider what is actually being argued against by (most) vegetarians. As Old Geezer put it, and I have heard, they say that they don't like meat from factory farms. (I won't discuss the agrument about cruelty here.) What would it mean if we closed down these farms and only allowed the organically raised as our sources of meat? The first thing to happen would be a dramatic rise in cost, because there would be a lot less meat. Then, because there is less meat available, and what is available is costly, many, many people would be forced to go without. This is a gross violation of human rights, on the most basic level. What gives anyone the right to determine what another eats. Obtaining sustenance is absolutely basic to the survival of any living thing.

This is the same ol' tyranical play for power over people; they've just put on a different mask and use different props. One may argue that there is a better way to manufacture our food, and I'm sure there is. There is a question, for instance, about whether injecting cows with certain antibiotics might be detrimental to human health (because, they say, it causes the bacteria to mutate and lessens the effectiveness of antibiotics in humans). But all such questions are technical and, as such, they are the provence of science, not politics. The government only gets in the way of solutions to these problems when they dictate regulations that stiffle innovation.

Morally, if someone chooses to be a vegetarian, it's no skin off my nose. When these people become activists supporting force, however, they put themselves outside the discussion and become an enemy to human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" What would it mean if we closed down these farms and only allowed the organically raised as our sources of meat? "

Most vegetarians I know dont advocate the "shutting down of factory farms" what they do is choose to spend their money on products in line with their values. If they earn their money, this is well within their right.

If any have tried to convince me to become vegetarians, that is also within their right. (as long as our relationship does not involve force)

What I am asking is how one might respond to the argument for refraining from factory farms because of respect for life..

Chasing a deer and killing it still constitutes respect for life. So too does raising a domesticated animal for food. (In both cases, the animal is living in allignment with its nature... but if I were to say step on my German shepard to reach the cookie jar, that would not allow it to be in allignment with its nature)

a classic example that is presented to me is that of "free range chickens" vs. a "factory farm" the chickens literally are packed so tight that they are constantly shitting on each other., often force fed (to meet productions schedules) they are then drugged to prevent movement and squished into these little crates to be processed. The drugs wear off during travel and the chickens wake up.

Domesticated chickens do not normally shit on each others heads , or refrain from walking.

Free range chickens are treated differently, and probably would act no differently if the gates were lifted. (In fact, having worked on a free range farm before, I didnt see a difference in their behavior when the gate was broken for a little while)

Old salt,

I appreciated your comments, care to respond to above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is just that people in Washington state are hippies, but most the vegitarians I have met are, at the least, activally against the mere existance of factory farms. Many argue, among a host of other anti-man policies, against the existance of free range farms as well.

What I am asking is how one might respond to the argument for refraining from factory farms because of respect for life..

If their respect is for human life, they will recognise the vastly increased productivity/effeciancy of the factory farms. These things allow more consideration/manpower to go towards the things that make the life of a human being comfortable (medicine, etc...).

In my experience, however, nearly all vegitarians are activally anti-production; anti-man. Most won't try to present a reasonable arguement otherwise, and many will admit it straight-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is just that people in Washington state are hippies, but most the vegitarians I have met are, at the least, activally against the mere existance of factory farms
Oh you poor person! I feel for you. :unsure: I once had someone from washington state tell me "in a way, the trees are smarter than you"

"If their respect is for human life, they will recognise the vastly increased productivity/effeciancy of the factory farms"

That argument might apply if factory farming was healthier than the type of diet people would be able to afford without factory farms.... But factory farming is more likely to cultivate an environment where dangerous disease thrives , and the research on meaty diets is mixed at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That argument might apply if factory farming was healthier than the type of diet people would be able to afford without factory farms.... But factory farming is more likely to cultivate an environment where dangerous disease thrives , and the research on meaty diets is mixed at best.

This is true. Recall, however, that we were talking about people who were vegitarians out of respect for the animals life. My point was not that there is no good reason to have a preference against factory farms, but that they were willing to sacrifice human comforts for that non-human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be valid arguments offered regarding health matters as they pertain to factory farms. Not knowing any of the science, it still seems reasonable to argue that the healthier the animal, the healthier the meat provided. My point, however, isn't that there are always better ways of doing things, but the forcing of people to behave by standards not of their choosing.

While a chicken defecating on another chicken's head is certainly not aesthetically pleasing, we aren't eating that chicken's head. Buying free range or organtically grown meat (or vegetables) is a choice. If you choose to allocate your resources for that, it is your perogative. No one here would argue otherwise (and still be an Objectivist, anyway). This isn't the thrust of an activist's actions, however. They do not want us to have any choice in the matter. They consider it morally reprehensible and would have their morals forced on the rest of us.

Saying that the health claims about eating meat are dubious is also not a valid reason to override my rights. One could also argue that we evolved into kind of creatures we are only after we began to eat meat on a regular basis (specifically, our brain evolved). There are certain amino acids required for human health that are available only in meat. Vegetarians and animal rights activists like to say that we no longer need meat, but I've never seen any objective scientific studies to back that up. Even if there were valid studies, that still would not give them the right to determine my choices.

Remember, as well, that the arguments always go further than just eating meat. The arguments against supposed cruelty to animals extend to scientific studies using animals, as well. These arguments all ignore the requirements of human life. Just because we can think and be sensitive about how we use animals doesn't change that fact.

I would respectfully remind you that when you grant premises to one who would take away your rights you are playing a dangerous game. Just because they say that they are looking out for life doesn't mean that they have any respect for human life. If a person is for government mandated regulation of what we may or may not eat, or for regulating scientific study using animals, they are not fighting for man's betterment, no matter how they have managed to convince themselves otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is true. Recall, however, that we were talking about people who were vegitarians out of respect for the animals life. My point was not that there is no good reason to have a preference against factory farms, but that they were willing to sacrifice human comforts for that non-human life."RH
This argument would only apply if A) they considered the forgoing of meat a sacrifice. or B ) they wanted to sacrifice other peoples comfort.

"My point, however, isn't that there are always better ways of doing things, but the forcing of people to behave by standards not of their choosing."OS

I am not advocating this, I am talking about the vegetarians who who ASK you to consider their argument

"While a chicken defecating on another chicken's head is certainly not aesthetically pleasing, we aren't eating that chicken's head"OS
Dont worry, they shit all over themselves, not just their heads ;) but that wasnt my point. My point was that domesticated animals are excellent in the aristotlean sense when they are slaughtered(because that is theirpurpose) but not when they shit on themselves and dont move.

"This isn't the thrust of an activist's actions, however. They do not want us to have any choice in the matter. They consider it morally reprehensible and would have their morals forced on the rest of us. "

I am not talking about Veggies who would initiate force or advocate the initiation of force. I am talking about those who may find it morally reprehensible and would consequentally want to discuss this with friends/family , just as any moral issue is discussed.

"There are certain amino acids required for human health that are available only in meat. "
FYI not true :)

"I would respectfully remind you that when you grant premises to one who would take away your rights you are playing a dangerous game."

AGAIN , Vegetarians who advocate using anything other than their consumer dollars to affect factory conditions are not who I am talking about. In fact I went to a school that was 60% vegetarian for a short while and only met one or two of these people, and THEY were RESENTED by the rest of vegetarians .

The vegetarians who most often discuss this issue with me;

A Dr. doing it for health reasons,

My capitilist brother working for a fortune 500 company making big bucks,

and my sister working for the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Old Geezer, everything you said is true. This may not be true for your personal aquantinces, but most all people who claim to be concerned about the life or living conditions of a chicken are willing to sacrifice the life or living conditions of human beings.

This may or may not be the case with doctors claiming to be vegitarian for health reasons. Frankly, I believe that most doctors who make the claim that meat is bad for your health do not believe it, and do so only to encourage vegitarianism. This may or may not be the case with your friend, I don't know.

I am talking about those who may find it morally reprehensible...

On what grounds, surely it is not morally reprehensible for me to let chickens live in poor conditions so that I may eat at a lesser expense. It would be immoral to put chickens in such poor conditions for no reason, but there is a goal here, one which effects the quality of life of billions of human beings. What you must ask is: is it the improvement of this quality of life which your friends find morally reprehensible? For most vegitarians, the answer is yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont quite understand where you are getting this generalization from?

I have spoken to many vegitarians, and even taken a class in "Environmental Ethics" (it was required, believe it or not). Almost all arguements for any sort of consideration for the well being of animals are admittedly anti-man, most others hide it only on a surface level.

Note that when I consider an animal's well being necessarily implies that I go out of my way to make that animal's life better. Surely, it is silly, a waste of time, even immoral, to harm an animal for no reason... but to cause yourself any sort of inconvience on account of an animal is at best a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am having considerable difficulty imagining how chickens could ever survive in the wild."YF
Me too. what of it?

"Note that when I consider an animal's well being necessarily implies that I go out of my way to make that animal's life better"

A)it necessarilly implies nothing

B ) the issue isn't the well being of the animal, but rather respect for life itself.(not deference to animal life, just respect for life's struggle for existence) If the issue was well being than there are certain ways in which the animals are better off under a factory system (higher weight, preventative antibiotics)

i) If the standard of excellence for the food is taste than I have several questions; 1. Do you feel that food preferences are a rational choice?? If they are than might exposure to new information lead to different choices? If they arent, then why do food preferences vary?

ii) if the standard of excellence is cost, than a veggie diet is cheaper.

iii) if the standard of excellence is health, the jury is still out in my mind.

iiii) if the standard of excellence is cultural, YIKES!

anyway, what do YOU consider the standard of excellence for food?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Geezer:

I have had many discussions with vegans and vegetarians over questions of health. My own health is atrocious and I am pretty much boat bound most of the time because of it (Oh, I live on a boat). Fellow boaters who are vegetarians talk to me all the time about the kinds of things you've mentioned; they seem to think that all my genetic make-up could be changed if I just ate differently. They are always respectful to me personally. Anytime I've delved any deeper, however, these lovely, non-activist people would have the world acting on their beliefs BY LAW (i.e., by force). It would, their argument goes, be healthier for *the most* people in the population, cause less harm to animals, end government subsidies to factory farms (freeing up the money to support organic farming), put an end to obesity -- the list goes on and on, and changes with each discussion. These are nice people who would never dream of hurting another human being.

At first, our discussions only went as far as the kind you are talking about. We discussed the merits of this and that. I tried to get them to back up their assertions with science, asking them to give me something to go on besides blantantly biased pamphlets and books and their own understanding. (For an instance of this, consider that you didn't give me anywhere to go that says we don't need certain amino acids found only in meat. You merely said that it was untrue. I know you were giving the short answer, but the short answer does nothing to persuade and, in fact, I have been told differently by the doctors who dictate my diet.) Whenever we got into discussing the actual facts, the conversation invariably turned to the morality of eating animals in the first place.

This discussion provides a fine example of the kind of question which buries a false assumtion, such that any direct answer to the question grants the assumption. The assumption in this discussion is that it is immoral to eat animals. It is a question, then, of ethics, not science. Science is used because the ethical aspect is more inflamatory and it is easier to persuade using science.

The fact that the speaker doesn't have a clue of what he is doing isn't relevant. If you are to ferret out the true meaning behind the questions being debated or discussed, to paraphrase Toohey, don't bother to examine such assumptions, merely ask yourself what they accomplish.

That's the short answer, anyway. ;~)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"an instance of this, consider that you didn't give me anywhere to go that says we don't need certain amino acids found only in meat. You merely said that it was untrue. I know you were giving the short answer, but the short answer does nothing to persuade and, in fact, I have been told differently by the doctors who dictate my diet.) "

Proving a negative is difficult, OS... Which amino acid are you refferring to? I am an avid weight lifter and am not aware of any amino acids not available via a vegetarian diet.

Please Name an Amino acid that cannot be obtained from a vegetarian diet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Geezer, I am going to answer your statements one by one, and label my answers to correspond with your labels.

A) Yes, it does. If I factor in the well being of an animal when considering what I should do, I am doing so because I have put that animal somewhere on my list of values.

:) How much do these people respect life? I, for instance, respect life enough not to go out of my way to harm animals (i.e. enough not to think it is fun to harm animals). That is about the extent one should respect animal life. If ones "respect" goes beyond that than one must be concerned with the well being of the animal. Or if you prefer, what one thinks is the well being of the animal (every vegetarian I have ever met--and I have met a fair few--argues against the use of anti-biotics and other medicines on animals as a violation of that animals nature).

i) Firstly, I don't feel anything that is relevant to this discussion. This said, I will tell you what I think. The "standard of excellence" is taste. When considering this, remember that taste is a sense, and that sensory data may vary from person to person (ex. colorblindness). Once a person receives sensory data, they interpret it. When you taste a food, you then make a value judgment regarding that taste. This is the primary reason why tastes in food vary.

ii) The "standard of excellence" is not cost. But this may be, and usually is, a factor in deciding what food one should eat anyway. A vegetarian diet may be cheaper, I don't know. I suspect either one can be made to be very cheap.

iii) Like cost, health is a consideration when deciding what one should eat, along with the "excellence" of the food. Again I don't know which may be made to be healthier, but I do know that since my dad went on Dr. Atkins’ diet he has lost what must be close to 100 pounds, has much lower cholesterol, and much lower blood pressure than he did before. I suspect that a standard, well rounded, diet can be made to be reasonably healthy.

iv)I won't insult anyone here by presuming that this even needs to be answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i)  This said, I will tell you what I think. The "standard of excellence" is taste. When considering this, remember that taste is a sense, and that sensory data may vary from person to person (ex. colorblindness).RH
Why do you consider taste the standard of excellence?(Side note, have you ever tasted organic beef? I like it)

"Once a person receives sensory data, they interpret it. When you taste a food, you then make a value judgment regarding that taste. This is the primary reason why tastes in food vary"RH

Value Judgement implies reason, and reason is open to change with the introduction of new sense data. When I talk with secular vegetarians they most often tell me that they became a vegetarian after reading/watching factory farm conditions.

It seems to me that SOME Vegetarians who became exposed to Factory farm conditions decided that taste was less important to them then eating food obtained in alignment with their respect for the good(Aristotlean sense) and out of awe for the struggle for existence

v)I won't insult anyone here by presuming that this even needs to be answered.

Good presumption ;) It was meant to be a joke, I wont quit my day jobs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When judging food qua food the only thing to consider is the taste of it. Think of it like a painting... the cost of the art and the morality of the materials used are to be considered when deciding if you will buy the piece, but not when judging its artistic merits.

Value Judgment implies reason, and reason is open to change with the introduction of new sense data. When I talk with secular vegetarians they most often tell me that they became a vegetarian after reading/watching factory farm conditions.

These people should be informed of the virtues of factory farms. They should read/watch the conditions in countries that don't have them... but then, most that I have met wouldn't care (or would say that those people are "living according to their nature").

Yes, one's taste in food is subject to change. However, ideally, a person judging food qua food would remove considerations other than the sensory data from his taste buds from his judgment. Again, other things may be important, but the judgment of the food itself should be separated from those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When judging food qua food the only thing to consider is the taste of it. Think of it like a painting... the cost of the art and the morality of the materials used are to be considered when deciding if you will buy the piece, but not when judging its artistic merits."
why should I think of food as a painting? I do not need paintings to live, nor do I crave paintings if deprived of them for some time,

"These people should be informed of the virtues of factory farms. "

Is the "virtues" you refer to cost efficiency? Most people I know are aware of the price differences for certified organic foods.

"They should read/watch the conditions in countries that don't have them... "
Those countries suffer from lack of capitilism, not lack of factory farms (an analagous situation... you should read/watch the condititions of countries that dont have many tv's)

"Yes, one's taste in food is subject to change. However, ideally, a person judging food qua food would remove considerations other than the sensory data from his taste buds from his judgment."

What is the non arbitrary reason to ban sensory experiences and the consequential judgements/abstractions from our judgements of more sensory experiences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we may have a misunderstanding here... I am speaking of the taste of food as an aesthetic value. So:

Why should I think of food as a painting? I do not need paintings to live, nor do I crave paintings if deprived of them for some time,
Nor do you need good tasting food...

What is the non arbitrary reason to ban sensory experiences and the consequential judgments/abstractions from our judgments of more sensory experiences?

Sometimes the evidence provided by a give sense is irrelevant to judgment being made. For example, the smell of a painting is not relevant to that painting’s artistic value... in a similar fashion, what is used to make a food (and how it is treated before being made into food) is not relevant to the taste of the food. Therefore, just as smell should not be considered when judging a painting, the treatment of the animal should not be considered when judging the taste of the food.

As for this:

Those countries suffer from lack of capitalism, not lack of factory farms (an analogous situation... you should read/watch the conditions of countries that don’t have many tv's)
Is the "virtues" you refer to cost efficiency? Most people I know are aware of the price differences for certified organic foods.

You forget that the efficiency of food production is a major factor in how many people can afford to eat properly (yes, even in this country). True, this is only one of the many benefits of capitalism, but that does not mean that it is not valuable. An otherwise non-capitalist country with factory farms would be better off than a completely non-capitalist country. Note that I am not arguing that one should buy factory meat in support of those people who couldn't afford to eat properly without the factories. Rather, I am arguing that one should not be disgusted by the conditions in those factories, since one should consider what those conditions accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Geezer: First off, I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you for information (though I stated it in the negative). I made a positive statement that you said was untrue. What information do you have that makes you say it is untrue?

As for naming a specific amino acid that you can't get from a vegetarian diet, I can't give you one. My doctor and nutritionist told me, when they were discussing my dietary requirements, that I *had* to eat a specific amount of meat so that I got the proteins I required. This is why I used it as an example -- and only an example. It is a scientic question that has nothing to do with ethics, neither does it speak to my main (ethical) point.

Nothing concerning the particulars food makes any difference to the discussion of the morality of eating meat. While debating the merits of eating this or that might be interesting, I fail to understand how merely saying that one prefers a particular diet furthers the debate on the ethical question. The focus of my post was that, no matter what one's preference is, the moment a person advocates force to back up that preference, they are advocating the abrogation of rights and, as such, are morally reprehensible. I've tried to point out the underlying assumptions made by most vegetarians I've met, which inevitably lead to an advocacy of force.

(Sorry I can't help on the amino acid thing. I know I ought to be more curious, but my situation is so all-encompassing that I just get bored dealing with all of it. It would be my whole life if I let it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a positive statement that you said was untrue. What information do you have that makes you say it is untrue?
The burden of proof falls on you to provide evidence to back up your assertion with evidence.

My doctor and nutritionist told me, when they were discussing my dietary requirements, that I *had* to eat a specific amount of meat so that I got the proteins I required

He could have just have easily have said that you could eat more complementary proteins.

It is a scientic question that has nothing to do with ethics, neither does it speak to my main (ethical) point.
Science and ethics are not divorced. In fact one must understand the nature of reality in order to judge good actions.

"Nothing concerning the particulars food makes any difference to the discussion of the morality of eating meat

what if the food contained arsenic? What if the food contained human flesh?

"The focus of my post was that, no matter what one's preference is, the moment a person advocates force to back up that preference, they are advocating the abrogation of rights and, as such, are morally reprehensible."

I agree... Did I give the impression that this is other than my opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is in response to Ragnar's first posting in this section.

But the point is about 'unnecessarily' infliciting pain and suffering on these creatures.

I do not believe you understand what happens when an animal is brought in for slaughter. First they are shipped to the slaughter house. There, they are kept in stalls or an open field and fed normally and watered normally. There is absolutely no cruelty involved before or after they are brought to the house. Then they are lined up in a cattle shute and they are tagged in the back of the head by an electrical shock that shuts down their brain. It is similar to a taser. Their body falls limp, without feeling, and they are hung by their ankles from the ceiling while they are bled out. There is no pain whatsoever involved in slaughtering an animal which will exclude your reason of "pain and suffering".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez Louis, Geezer, I never said that science and ethics were mutually exclusive, I said that the particular discussion of amino acids -- which I never wanted to discuss and I'm sorry as hell now that I brought up, even as an example -- didn't treat the question at hand, i.e., the ethics of eating meat. I won't discuss the matter further here because I think the question of amino acids detracts from the discussion at hand. (As an Objectivist, I'm assuming that you aren't for the use of force.) I prefer to stay on the subject. If you have anything to offer regarding what I've said on that subject, I'll be happy to engage you in further debate. I won't be further side-tracked by debates over irrelevent issues.

That said, if you care to discuss the matter elsewhere, I'm willing. When I said I was asking for information, I meant it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...