• Sapientia
    5.4k
    You're saying that a person should not criticize each individual justification, and instead criticize all justifications as a whole. And explain to me how you would do this in these two scenarios:

    "I believe women shouldn't have the right to vote because of these reasons: They aren't sufficiently man like, they have never been president, they are not physically strong like men."

    "I believe eating animals is okay because of these reasons: They aren't sufficiently human like, they can't understand morality, they can't experience pain like we can."

    I'd like you to criticize those two scenarios as a "whole", like you say you have to, and not criticize each reason itself [which apparently is erroneous].
    chatterbears

    Have you lost the plot? What reason have I to do that? I have a reason to defend my position, not to criticise positions invented by you. I've already demonstrated the error in your form of argument. I refer you back to those previous replies. I can only lead a bear to water.
  • Sapientia
    5.4k
    What you're basically saying is, "Dont isolate parts of my argument, because then my whole argument will crumble" - Sorry. I'll try my best to not attack you with logic and proper reasoning :)chatterbears

    What you're basically saying is, "I'm going to stick with the erroneous way and try to spin it as a success". That's it, call it "logic and proper reasoning". That'll do the trick. I'm sure nobody will notice if you substitute a label for the real thing.
  • Sapientia
    5.4k
    This would depend on the strength of the analogy between humans and other animals, which, as has been shown multiple times on this thread, is far from adamantine. Indeed, it's hard enough to make an analogy between two humans.Txastopher

    Have you noticed that it's a pattern? At this stage, I wonder whether anyone here is in any doubt that he'll do anything other than presuppose such things in his "attacks".
  • Sapientia
    5.4k
    Put yourself in the shoes of an animal. Would you rather live a longer life, free from pain and suffering, and die a possibly painful death [such as cancer]? Or would you rather live a shorter life that is full of pain and suffering [horrible living conditions], followed by getting your throat slit?chatterbears

    I hope no one endeavours to humour this false dilemma.
  • chatterbears
    168
    To both of you, since you're so humored by how unreasonable Vegans are; how about you debate me, live on stream. You can show thousands of people how flawed and fallacious my argumentation is, since it is apparently equivalent to that of a Jehovah Witness. It should be easy for both of you, right? And we can let the audience be the judge. And if either of you respond with some excuse, such as "It would be a waste of time.", then you're full of hot air.

    This thread is for people who actually care to discuss and explain their positions, not ignore all opposing positions without proper rebuttal. I'd love to talk to either of you, or both at once, over voice chat. That way, you can't constantly ignore questions and comments without proper responses, followed by ad hominem. And if you're not willing to debate me over voice chat, get off this thread and go spout your nonproductive comments elsewhere.
  • Pseudonym
    789
    This thread is for people who actually care to discuss and explain their positions, not ignore all opposing positions without proper rebuttal.chatterbears

    Right, so where's your rebuttal to the very simple proposition I've stated three times now?

    Eating wild, entirely grass-fed, or kitchen-scrap fed meat (which is the only meat I eat), is ethical because there exists intelligent, well-informed studies which conclude that such low impact forms of meat-eating probably cause less harm than farming the equivalent quantity of vegetables for some measures of 'harm'. Therefore a person could entirely reasonably conclude that such forms of meat-eating are ethically sound.

    Do you claim that no such intelligent, well-informed studies exist? Because we have direct evidence within this thread that they do, it would be incumbent upon you to show us how their authors are not qualified intelligent people.

    Do you perhaps claim that it is not reasonable for a person to derive ethical commitments from intelligent, well-informed studies? In which case it is incumbent upon you to present your alternative ethics and prove that it is 'right'.

    Or do you agree that certain specific types of meat-eating cause less harm that the equivalent vegetable farming for some measures of harm? In which case, for the sake of the environment you're clearly so passionate about, I would humbly ask that you direct your energies towards fighting the factory-farming system so clearly at fault here and stop pestering meat-eaters who have already agreed with you on that front.
  • chatterbears
    168
    Right, so where's your rebuttal to the very simple proposition I've stated three times now?

    Eating wild, entirely grass-fed, or kitchen-scrap fed meat (which is the only meat I eat), is ethical because there exists intelligent, well-informed studies which conclude that such low impact forms of meat-eating probably cause less harm than farming the equivalent quantity of vegetables for some measures of 'harm'. Therefore a person could entirely reasonably conclude that such forms of meat-eating are ethically sound.
    Pseudonym

    Link us multiple studies [not just one] that all point to the same conclusion. Scientific consensus doesn't come from one study, but from multiple sources that all agree with each other.

    But even if the evidence pointed to what you are saying, there's an even better alternative. I could point to a random person who grows vegetables in their backyard, and say they cause less harm than your killed wild animal. But neither the person who grows vegetables nor the person who kills wild animals, is who this thread is geared toward. The overwhelming majority of meat eaters are the ones contributing to factory farms. They prefer convenience and pleasure over consideration and ethical consistency.

    Also, many people on here will make comments, I will then respond, and they won't acknowledge or answer the question/s I have asked in my response. A good example of that is Txastopher, who likes to talk but never listens or responds to counter-arguments or rebuttals. I don't mind considering your evidence, but there are multiple conversations going on at once, and I saw you responding mostly to NKBJ.

    As I said initially, post your scientific journals/research and I will take a look. As far as I can tell (unless I missed it somewhere), you haven't linked anything yet. All you have done is quoted some research, correct?
  • Pseudonym
    789
    Link us multiple studies [not just one] that all point to the same conclusion. Scientific consensus doesn't come from one study, but from multiple sources that all agree with each other.chatterbears

    No, that's not how it works. This is a philosophy forum, not an agricultural one. You have yet to establish philosophically that an ethical position must be supported by the current consensus of scientists who happen to have investigated the subject. I can see an argument to say that supporting an ethical position based on empirical facts with whichno one agrees could be arguably irrational, but that's not the same as consensus.

    I need only a single report from an expert who I can reasonably trust to be well-informed and no less biased than any other scientist. If such a report exists, then any ethical position which I find appealing for whatever reason may be reasonably supported by it. Your version of empiricism was rejected by the scientific community a long time ago and with very good reason. We no longer put all the evidence in a bucket and follow whatever it shows us. We arrive at falsifiable theories and continue with them until such time as they are falsified. My theory is that farming/hunting meat in the way I've described causes less harm overall, by my measure of harm, than farming the equivalent quantity of vegetables. Many well-informed, intelligent scientists disagree with that conclusion, but at least one agrees with it, so the theory has not been falsified. Consensus doesn't enter into it, we're not trying to establish what the case if probabilistically likely to be, we're supporting a particular ethical position, the two do not necessarily follow the same process.

    The studies I'm using to defend this position I've already citied, Reijnders and Soret (2003), Rosi et al. (2017), and Davis (2003), all of which have been linked earlier in this thread, all of which conclude that some meat-eating diets cause less environmental harm than the equivalent vegan diets. But please don't waste your time looking them up to find points within them you could refute. It's irrelevant that you could refute points within those studies. So long as there exist intelligent experts who disagree with each other, there exists the necessity that one of them is wrong, if it is a necessary possibility that an intelligent expert is wrong then you have no way of knowing that it isn't you, no matter how intelligent or expert you think you are. That is the philosophical point that's relevant here.

    I could point to a random person who grows vegetables in their backyard, and say they cause less harm than your killed wild animal.chatterbears

    Maybe you could. what does that prove? Only that the 'right' ethical choice varies depending on the circumstances and the facilities one has available to them. Very much not the claim you originally made.

    neither the person who grows vegetables nor the person who kills wild animals, is who this thread is geared toward.chatterbears

    That's simply not true. If that were the case, the post would be entitled "Is it wrong to factory farm animals?" and I think you would have had considerably more agreement. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with your notion that animal farming is significantly in need of improving. If you want to aim the post at a particular type of meat-eater, then I suggest you don't open it with the statement to the effect that all meat eating is unethical.
  • Sapientia
    5.4k
    Lol, no thanks. I don't do voice chat. Here's good enough.
  • Shiva Surya Sai
    4
    I don't think so cause animals eat each other all the time anyway. But meat consumption needs to be very low according to modern standards where physical work too is very low. Meat consumption can also lead to quick obesity and carries a real danger of various biological problems
  • chatterbears
    168
    I don't think so cause animals eat each other all the time anyway.Shiva Surya Sai
    Not sure what you're talking about. Are you saying, it is okay to eat animals because other animals eat each other? If this is what you're saying, you're appealing to nature. That because it happens in nature, it is morally acceptable. Rape and cannibalism occur in nature, should it therefore be morally acceptable if humans rape and eat other humans?
  • chatterbears
    168
    The studies I'm using to defend this position I've already citied, Reijnders and Soret (2003), Rosi et al. (2017), and Davis (2003), all of which have been linked earlier in this thread, all of which conclude that some meat-eating diets cause less environmental harm than the equivalent vegan diets.Pseudonym

    Post it again so I can read the study. I don't understand why you couldn't just post it again, when I even said "I may have missed it, so can you link it".

    That's simply not true. If that were the case, the post would be entitled "Is it wrong to factory farm animals?" and I think you would have had considerably more agreement. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with your notion that animal farming is significantly in need of improving. If you want to aim the post at a particular type of meat-eater, then I suggest you don't open it with the statement to the effect that all meat eating is unethical.Pseudonym

    If people actually thought that factory farming needed improvement, why aren't they doing anything to help improve it? And the only way to improve an animal enslavement and holocaust is by abolishing it. Also, my original post was "Is it wrong to eat animals?" - This is a general statement that would apply in most situations. Similar to "Is it wrong to rape?" - There many situations where it is not wrong to rape, such as a child soldier who is forced to rape his sister, otherwise they will kill her. In that situation, death is worse than rape, so it is not immoral for him to rape his sister because he was forced to; and the alternative would be death. Same thing with eating animals. There may be a situation where you're forced to, where it depends on your survival. But generally speaking, I am not referring to the child soldier situation or the stranded on a deserted island situation. I am referring to the people who contribute to factory farms every day, by buying animal products. An unnecessary harm (lustful rape / bacon) vs. a necessary harm (child soldier rape / killing an animal for survival).
  • Gord
    24
    It is absolutely wrong to eat animals;. They possess the will to live in way the rest of nature simply does not. They do not love the way plants do.
  • Pseudonym
    789
    Post it again so I can read the study.chatterbears

    http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?url=https://www.lbs.co.il/data/attachment-files/2015/05/23994_thbahvnvt.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm0EnoQUILL85Pf3mP-Wo5mPQ_KHDw&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

    https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/664S/4690011

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06466-8

    As for the rest of your post, it's not 'necessary' for me to kill the deer I hunt. I could buy the equivalent vegetables, or the equivalent in factory chicken. I hunt deer and eat them because it think its less harmful overall for the reasons cited in the studies above (as well as other reasons to do with the value I personally attach to 'naturalness', the meaning of which would take an entire essay to explain). So your acceptance through gritted teeth of those who absolutely have to kill animals for meat is entirely irrelevant. I wish more people hunted their own meat, reared pigs on kitchen scraps, ate the pigeons and rabbits which are killed anyway to grow vegetables. Its not about necessity, its about believing it to be better.
  • Posty McPostface
    2.8k
    Has Peter Singer come up in this thread? I don't think the ethicality can be more eloquently stated than what he has already presented on the issue.
  • NKBJ
    224


    Peter SInger is a utilitarian. I personally think Tom Regan was better at making the case convincing. (Though they both have a lot of value to add to the discussion.)
    Carol Adams also does an amazing job explaining why it's so hard for people to accept even the notion of vegan/vegetarianism.
  • NasloxiehRorsxez
    1


    Why assume the short lived wild animal would have suffered anymore than the long lived animal? It could just as likely be both animals live "free from pain and suffering" until the short lived one is quickly killed by a hunter and the other is likely to suffer a gruesome death.
  • chatterbears
    168
    Why are these studies so old? It would be more relevant to find studies within the past 5-7 years, as more knowledge has been gained since 2002. But either way, that 2002 study that you posted has been refuted by Gaverick Matheny.

    2002 Study [Steven Davis] - Was refuted by Gaverick Matheny
    2003 Study [Counter to Steven David] - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026354906892

    Gaverick Matheny states, in response to Steven Davis, "In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does not count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals, involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist."

    Read full article here: https://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html

    Your 2003 Study [Lucas & Sam] - "Although on average vegetarian diets may well have an environmental advantage, exceptions may also occur." - So this is talking about exceptions, not general knowledge that would apply.

    Your 2017 Study [Nature] - "Thus, regardless of the environmental benefits of plant-based diets, there is a need for thinking in terms of individual dietary habits." - Again, talking about exceptions, such as individual dietary habits, not necessarily plant-based diets themselves.

    Here are some articles I can point you to that are more recent and relevant.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13959 - Clicking the "Figures" tab on the right side, you can see how much higher the CO2 levels of Dairy, Egg, Fish & Livestock are compared to plant-based foods.

    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data - Global Emissions of Agriculture exceed transportation

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM - the contribution of the livestock sector to global greenhouse gas emissions exceeds that of transportation.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/index.html - Scientific Sources are cited throughout the article.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.