DogmaticTrip Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Animals are sentient beings - they have the ability to feel pain, to feel emotion.. they have self interest, and can be anthropomorphised. So.. why do we slaughter them? It's barbarous, unnecessary, and not justifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 "why do we slaughter them?" We who? I recommend a change of neighborhoods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowzer Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 It's barbarous, unnecessary, and not justifiable. If you're trying to make a case for animal rights, you'll have to do better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Animals are sentient beings - they have the ability to feel pain, to feel emotion.. they have self interest, and can be anthropomorphised. So.. why do we slaughter them? It's barbarous, unnecessary, and not justifiable. Because it is more humane than throwing them on the grill alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogmaticTrip Posted October 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 If you're trying to make a case for animal rights, you'll have to do better than that.Fine - have a few hours? Pft. Because it is more humane than throwing them on the grill alive. Been to a factory farm lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Actually - I hear that in Japan they do just that: cook them alive. I say: if it tastes better - why not? As for animals rights - this is a contradiction in terms, but I for one would like to hear the full argument for it. How do animal rights activists define rights? Where do rights come from? And how do animal rights fit together with human rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Rexton Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Animals are sentient beings - they have the ability to feel pain, to feel emotion.. they have self interest, and can be anthropomorphised. So.. why do we slaughter them? It's barbarous, unnecessary, and not justifiable. I should bring you to court for all the pain and suffering you've inflicted on those poor insects you've crush and/or killed with pesticides. In fact, you should be crush with boulders for crushing those poor cockroaches with your foot. How barbaric, unnecessary and immoral of you! ------ On a more serious note, we slaughter them because they're either 1) a nuisance who stand in the way of progress, or 2) good enough to eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 To clarify one thing: murder has a specific (legal) definition. The unlawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought. Therefore, one cannot murder animals. VES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Been to a factory farm lately? No, I buy my meat from the grocery store. VES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor80 Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 RationalCop - You should try butcher shops, the meat is fresher and often better quality. ------ When an animal (tasty animal) speaks to me, then i will consider not killing it for food. Until that time they are raised in most cases for the only perpose but to feed me. If I(nobody) didn't eat them then they would not have been born in the first place. Need i remind anybody what this world would be like if we held animal rights above human right, like the kook lefties want? All i need say is India, they let monkeys take over towns because it is illegal or something to kill them. Let me tell you, i say pave the earth. On a more realitsic note, only humans have rights, animals are either property, pests, or dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Because it is more humane than throwing them on the grill alive. I understand that for many mammals, physical exertion and/or stress tends to release hormones which spoil the taste. In the case of shellfish however, cooking alive is the best way, while fish should be cleaned immediately and thrown onto the grill still twitching. Yum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 RationalCop - You should try butcher shops, the meat is fresher and often better quality. I'm not even aware of any butcher shop in my area. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I don't recall ever seeing or hearing of one where I live. I'll look into that though. In the words of the immortal Timon and Pumba: "What's eatin' him?" "Nuthin'! He's at the top of the food chain." VES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Animals are sentient beings - they have the ability to feel pain, to feel emotion.. they have self interest, and can be anthropomorphised. So.. why do we slaughter them? It's barbarous, unnecessary, and not justifiable. Don't slaughter them then, I don't care what you do. Just leave me out of it. If you are going to try to persuade everyone to stop eating meat you're fighting a losing battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoyd Loki Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Fine - have a few hours? Pft. Been to a factory farm lately? Yes, I have dozens of them. So, start the argument, and it better be better than Pft; is that a farting sound or something? I saw cows being butchered in the famous Faces of Death video years ago. Cow gets throat slit, bleeds down the line, next cow, so what? I make my living cooking animal meat. I've probably cooked enough cow to fill the state of Texas. Cow, chicken, pig, turkey, tuna, octopus. You name it, I served it to ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 "If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" (Homer Simpson I think) To give a semi-serious answer, animals don't have rights so it is not unethical to kill them. I think it would be unethical to torture an animal, but only because it would mean you enjoy inflicting pain, which would be a sign of very bad values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Animals do not think. They are not conscious of themselves. They cannot make rational decisions. An animal who could do that would not be an animal. Therefore rights are not applicable to animals. BTW, following that line of logic, bacteria are single-celled animals. We kill millions everyday. Isn't it barbarous to kill them then if it is barbarous to kill multicellular animals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montesquieu Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Animals are sentient beings - they have the ability to feel pain, to feel emotion.. they have self interest, and can be anthropomorphised. So.. why do we slaughter them? It's barbarous, unnecessary, and not justifiable. Barbarous? Unnecessary? Not justifiable? By what ethical standard? Lesser animals aren't humans, and only humans have any rights. The ability to process pain isn't anything noteworthy, any being with a primitive brain can claim that (if they could all talk). The instinct to survive is the base point of all organic life, plants included, and that is the only respect in which lesser animals can be said to be self-interested. By this standard all vegetable and fruit life cannot be consumed, because it to is "self-interested" and has also been barbarously slaughtered. Killing animals is necessary because they can't be properly processed for eating unless they are dead, unless you know of a way to pull out a chicken's feathers and cut it apart and eat it without killing it (the same applies to all animals that are eaten). Human beings are omnivorous, meat is a fundamental part of the human diet, if it weren't we wouldn't be able to chew it, digest it, crave it, or swallow it. It would be anathema to us as a species, which it clearly is not. I would suggest you take your uninformed and goofy "ideas" somewhere where they will be appreciated, i.e. a farm or petting zoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 This must have been someones idea of a PETA hazing for a new member. Walk into a forum on Objectivism and try to convince people animals have rights. VES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Speaking of PETA, i want this hat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonebuddha Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Here's one of the best pieces I've ever read on the subject: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp...rder=authorlast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Animals do not think. They are not conscious of themselves. They cannot make rational decisions. An animal who could do that would not be an animal. Therefore rights are not applicable to animals. Technically an animal that could do that would be a human. I’m an animal, just a very rational animal (aka human) that loves eating other tasty animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deedlebee Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Here's one of the best pieces I've ever read on the subject: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp...rder=authorlast Salutations everyone. I'm very new here, and somewhat new to Objectivism as well. My inquiry into the philosophy is quite serious, so I would like to posit the same question, though hopefully with more substance. The idea of "animal rights" is one of a few hang-ups I have (or would like to overcome) before accepting Objectivism as my full-fledged standard. Growing up in the 80's, I was subject to more than my fair share of trendy environmentalism. I even had a "save the dolphins" necklace at one point. I've been trying to understand the philosophy with the help of a friend, and so far, I can soundly say that I do believe that animals should be considered property. What I can't seem to disassociate myself with, is the intrinsic value of living creatures, specifically those with higher brain functions. (Most large mammals, domesticated cats and dogs, dolphins, chimps, rats, octopi... etc) I do believe that it is right to use animals to further scientific research, and I do believe it is morally acceptable to own an animal, as a pet or in a zoo.. whatever. I read the article posted by stonebudda, and it made some very good points. Our ability to reason does indeed set us apart from the rest of our "neighbours". From the article "Whenever environmentalists want to curtail freedom they remind us that man is part of nature, but they forget this at all other times. The fact is that human action is just one among the myriad factors, right along with those floods and droughts and comets, that determine who succeeds in the struggle for life." Humans, I do not think, are subject to the forces of nature to the same degree as other living things. We can protect ourselves, predict outcomes and easily relocate in cases of major disaster. We also do not interact with our environment in the same way that snails, rabbits or bacteria do. Our impact is on a scale that simply cannot be equaled or leveled-out by a small natural disaster. I am puzzled with trying to resolve the idea that laws should not be based on morality, while understanding that laws are required to protect an individuals rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). On the surface, I see this makes sense. You don't want the trendy moral standard of the day enacted into law, thus making it illegal to take showers at noon on Tuesdays, or some such nonsense. But the laws designed to protect the rights of an individual, are based, as viewed through Objectivism, on the right to life. (This is not a pro-life abortion speech) Someone else commented earlier that abuse of animals would indicate bad values. I do not believe laws should force people to act one way or another, assuming their actions to not infringe on the rights of others. But if abuse of animals shows bad values.. those that are anti-life.. can we then say that it is morally corrupt to torture an animal (shortening or ending it's life) because it shows a lack of respect for the value of life itself? (Again, this is not related to abortion, because that involves a "parasitic" nature which is not independent.) If we at least recognize that the action is based on bad values, can we then say that, morally, we should act in opposition to this? (We establish that torturing an animal without purpose is the result of bad values and can then say that it is morally abbhorrent to abuse an animal, and thus should take measures to prevent it whenever possible.) Life is a value, but I'm guessing the argument will be that life alone, is not a value within itself. It is only valuable when .....? If I have misunderstood key points of this philosophy, I apologize. I am sincerely trying to figure this out. When it was pointed out to me before that all my arguments for "animal rights" were emotional, I took a day to think about this, and found this evaluation was correct. But it seems to me that there must be some moral value in preserving life, when it is reasonably (and rationally) possible to do so. What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.West Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 There are perils in collaborating with the "meat is murder" crowd. You could be exposed to the music of The Smiths, or experience this scenario: http://www.southparkstudios.com/down/downl...THEHELPLESS.wav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Rolfe Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Animals are sentient beings - they have the ability to feel pain, to feel emotion.. they have self interest, and can be anthropomorphised. So.. why do we slaughter them? It's barbarous, unnecessary, and not justifiable. Well I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to become a vegitarian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfortun Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Deedlebee, The point I think you are missing is that the ultimate value to which morality is beholden is not any life, but human life. A set of values implies the question of "value to whom?" Not to anything, but to humans. The other point you might be missing is in the definition of rights and who has them. Rights only apply to rational beings- beings capable of reasoned choice living in a society of other reasoning beings. Refer to "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness for the final word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts