• Gitonga
    57
    Why do people have double standards when it comes to animals?

    Let us look at human beings for example, legally speaking the charges for assault are always less than those for murder, yet how come when someone assaults an animal it's viewed as being worse than killing it?

    Eh how is me breaking a ducks leg worse than me eating a cow?

    Yet if I broke a humans leg it would be less worse than murdering a human?

    People try to justify killing an animal saying its okay if you eat it BUT you don't need to eat the animal anymore than I need to break a ducks leg.(in order to survive) both people are doing it simply cause they want to rather than cause they need to.

    I think another bias alot of humans have especially westerners is that it's "wrong" to eat certain types of animals, but what's wrong with eating dolphins, tigers and leopards?

    The only argument I'd make against killing an animal is if population numbers are low but if it's a non endangered species like a dolphin or dog there's nothing Morally wrong there's just a strong cultural bias by people who've been brought up to see it as wrong but a cows life is not worth any less than a dolphins.

    Conclusions :1.If it's okay to kill one animal it should be okay to torture it (unless you want to reverse our moral laws on how we treat assault vs murder)
    2.If it's okay to eat one animal it should be okay to eat all of them.

    I'm not advocating either of these I'm just saying don't be a hypocrite on the fence. Don't enjoy your beef while mocking me for my dolphin sandwich

    Ps I don't actually eat dolphins or abuse animals. But thats by the by.
  • Judaka
    610

    Personally, a lot of the motivation to be moral is the recognition of how society functions best when I'm looking out for both my best interests and the best interests of others.

    I kind of view animal cruelty as a subset of this as being basically that rather than talking about how well society functions, talking about the kind of society we want to live in. I don't really want to see my neighbour setting his cat on fire but I'm happy for him to eat as much steak as he pleases.

    Finally, animals entirely outside of our society like dolphins, tigers and whatnot fall under a similar category where due to a variety of factors such as kawainess, sentience and interpretative value. By interpretative value, I mean, for instance, you can call a tiger majestic, beautiful, strong and that kind of image makes us look bad when we're killing them and it makes more people love the animal who get angry about those animals being killed.

    I think the Western cultures view animals and nature in this way more than others probably because we've been past the point of actually needing to kill most animals in our culture for a longer time. As opposed to China for example which faced starvation multiple times in the 20th century or Africa where poaching has been a way out of extreme poverty.

    I don't think these are double standards, it's simply not true that our culture values all life and is opposed to any type of harm.
  • Outlander
    358
    Great. A new theory. A hypothesis must be formed. I'll supply the animal.
  • zookeeper
    68
    Of course, I agree about people generally holding a massive double standard with regards to treatment of animals, but I'll try to have something else to say as well:

    In principle, it's no different.whether you breed, raise, slaughter and eat a cow or a dog. However, in our culture when you do that to a cow I can't know whether you're being actively amoral or simply ignorant (I suspect most people would fall somewhat into the latter category). But, if you do that to a dog, then, due to the cultural double standard, I know it's not ignorance but that you're instead making a much more intentional choice than a typical cow-eating layperson, even if the act itself is not worse per se.

    In addition to judging you by your actions, I can also judge you by your intent. Flaunt your beef-eating and I think you're probably callous and probably ignorant; flaunt your dog-eating and I think you're definitely callous and not ignorant.
  • Gitonga
    57
    but how is the person ignorant? I mean they know the cow is dead don't they? And how is it more of an intentional choice? And how're they more callous?
  • Gitonga
    57
    I thought the hypothesis comes before the theory
  • Gitonga
    57
    Personally, a lot of the motivation to be moral is the recognition of how society functions best when I'm looking out for both my best interests and the best interests of othersJudaka

    What about the interests of the animals? As well as applying logic to the moral standards we set for ourselves? Could you really say society is functioning better if it's not functioning logically? Is that not a faulty assumption?

    I don't really want to see my neighbour setting his cat on fire but I'm happy for him to eat as much steak as he pleases.Judaka


    You don't want to see it but that's only because your used to it even if it's not morally right. What about the moral repercussions that has? Like if you lived in a society where women don't have rights but since that's what your comfortable seeing you end up not supporting equality?
  • Judaka
    610
    What about the interests of the animals? As well as applying logic to the moral standards we set for ourselves? Could you really say society is functioning better if it's not functioning logically? Is that not a faulty assumption?Gitonga

    Are you 100% sure it's in the best interests of livestock to not be eaten? That would mean not being born in the first place right? Depends on their living conditions I'd say.

    Also, what logic are you talking about, yours? I laid out my logic and it's consistent with raising and killing livestock ethically.

    I can see how doing what's best for me and you helps me but doing what's best for a cow is just me being a nice guy. The logic of kindness and the logic of being self-serving is different. Your confusion about this may stem from a misunderstanding that morality is simply about being kind, caring, charitable or whatever?
  • Gitonga
    57
    Well my first question is when you mentioned the cat vs the beef, was that a matter of preference or would you judge the person lighting the cat as morally wrong while the one eating the beef is morally right?
  • Judaka
    610

    No, it's a matter of what kind of society we want to live in, you're focusing on the actual killing itself but I'm not. People see killing a cat or breaking a duck's leg as a cruel, sadistic, near-psychotic thing to do whereas killing a cow is seen in a totally different light. It's the same as dogs, the West sees killing dogs as horrible whereas other cultures don't see it that way.

    Your focus on the end result (death of the animal) is unhelpful to actually understanding the motivations at play.
  • Gitonga
    57
    But isn't that just the bias you're already used to? You only recommend it because that's what you grew up with.

    Think about men who don't support women's rights because that's not the society they grew up in and not the society they want to live in.

    It's wrong for you to judge a meat eater as being morally clean while an animal abuser as wrong they're either both right or both wrong. If you were vegan it would be understandable.

    It doesn't matter if you feel more comfortable with it or not that's just appeal to emotion.
  • Judaka
    610

    You assume much, I'm a nihilist/moral relativist and I think morality just comes down to human sensibilities and culture. Morality only exists because it exists in our nature, if evolution went down a different path, morality could simply not exist at all.

    What I do believe in is pragmatism and that when people work together and do what is best for themselves and others that this is best for all. Compared to when people only do what is best for themselves and no one is well served.

    I also believe that we need to work within our sensibilities and not in a dream world. If seeing a cat being set on fire terrifies children and makes people cry but then they also salivate greedily at the sight of a juicy steak then that's going to be part of even an entirely pragmatic approach to things. To characterise this reality as "an appeal to emotion" is simply disingenuous.
  • unenlightened
    5k
    Eh how is me breaking a ducks leg worse than me eating a cow?Gitonga

    I'd better declare a lack of interest here; I am vegetarian. Having said that, I see nothing wrong with eating dead animals; if humans don't eat them then vultures or worms or bacteria will. Killing animals to eat is what I would compare to torturing them. And killing I suggest is less immoral at least. The same can be said to apply to humans; there is a UN convention forbidding torture, but not war or execution.

    But also the psychology of animals is different; animals do not identify with their future death, but live in the moment. The gazelle fears the claws and bite of the lion, but has no notion, and thus no fear of death. It is the innocence of the un-fallen, as the bible has it. A stress free death is no hardship, and no immorality to an animal.
  • Victoria Nova
    27
    wow, then domestic animals, used as food, were saved from being eaten by wild animals back then, sort of brought by humans into a domestic kind of heaven, where they live safely and then pay for it with their lives.
  • Judaka
    610

    The truth is that if the whole world went off meat, animals raised to be livestock absolutely cannot be released into the wild because it would destroy ecosystems. Those populations would get massively reduced and that's it. It's simply a lie to say that veganism/vegetarianism saves lives, it would stop livestock from being produced and killed as commodities, which can still be a valid moral position.
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.