Hopefully, we'll begin to see sense and give up killing animals for food or fun. — TheMadFool

Do you eat meat?

Because they feel pain and suffering. And we should not cause needless pain and suffering to another living being. But to be more clear, why do you eat animals? — chatterbears

But my question was about consciousness. You cut that part out of your quote. Do you base your moral foundation on consciousness, like Sam Harris, or not? If you do, then please address this aspect of my question, instead of changing the subject.

Being factually wrong is a big problem, don't you think? — chatterbears

Sure. But you only asked how a meat-eater can be consistent in accepting the 3 moral pillars whilst eating meat. And they can be consistent by rejecting the claim that animals feel pain (or that we can empathise with animal pain).

One of their premises might be false, but their position is consistent all the same.

Do you eat meat? — chatterbears

:grin: yes :sad:

Do you base your moral foundation on consciousness, like Sam Harris, or not? — Sapientia

Yes I do. That I consider the well-being of sentient (conscious) living beings. What exactly is your question?

yes :sad: — TheMadFool

If you don't mind me asking. Why do you eat meat?

And they can be consistent by rejecting the claim that animals feel pain — Michael

Oh, I am fully aware a person can be consistent and also eat meat, but that usually leads to absurd positions or factually wrong positions. I guess that was assumed that people would not want to be factual wrong or absurd.

Yes I do. That I consider the well-being of sentient (conscious) living beings. What exactly is your question? — chatterbears

It's on page one.

It's on page one. — Sapientia

So, if a species level of consciousness is to a point of being incapable to feel pain or suffering (maybe similar to a plant), then I wouldn't see a problem in killing it. But generally speaking, most animals (humans included) can experience a consciousness level that contains the ability to feel pain and suffering.

I guess that was assumed that people would not want to be factual wrong or absurd. — chatterbears

They don't want to be factually wrong or absurd. They will argue that it's true (and so not absurd) that animals don't feel pain (or at least that their pain is nothing like human pain). As I mentioned before, if Nagel is right then qualia cannot be reduced to physicalism/behaviourism, and so the evidence you present in favour of animals feeling (human-like) pain isn't evidence of this at all.

the evidence you present in favour of animals feeling (human-like) pain isn't evidence of this at all. — Michael

I'll argue the point with them when the time comes, but that statement in and of itself leads to an absurd position. But again, you are just playing devil's advocate, I assume. What is your position? Do you eat meat, if so why?

What is your position? Do you eat meat, if so why? — chatterbears

I eat meat because I like it.

So, if a species level of consciousness is to a point of being incapable to feel pain or suffering (maybe similar to a plant), then I wouldn't see a problem in killing it. But generally speaking, most animals (humans included) can experience a consciousness level that contains the ability to feel pain and suffering. — chatterbears

But they don't have the same level of consciousness with regards to pain and suffering, so why should one be empathic and compassionate to the same degree, rather than just to a degree appropriate for creatures of that level of consciousness?

I eat meat because I like it. — Michael

Do you think the justification of "i like it" is valid and ethically consistent?

But they don't have the same level of consciousness with regards to pain and suffering, so why should one be empathic and compassionate to the same degree — Sapientia

A severely mentally handicapped person, or a brain dead person, does not have the same level of consciousness with regards to pain and suffering than we do. But would that make it OK to kill them?

Do you think the justification of "i like it" is valid and ethically consistent? — chatterbears

It's not a justification. It's a motivation. Why would I need to justify eating meat?

Why would I need to justify eating meat? — Michael

Every action you initiate has a justification for why you commit that action. Especially when it comes to ethical/moral choices. Things like preferences (listening to different types of music), doesn't necessarily need a justification. But when it comes to decisions that may or may not cause harm, you'll need a valid justification for why you have initiated that action. Otherwise, your morality is based on nothing but feeling/motivation/desire. Which is scary.

But when it comes to decisions that may or may not cause harm — chatterbears

What harm does eating meat cause?

What harm does eating meat cause? — Michael

Many different types. 1. Harm to the animals who are being tortured and slaughtered for food. 2. Harm to the environment. One of the leading causes of global warming (climate change) is our factory farms. 3. Harm to your own body. We have healthier alternatives to eating meat, which are plant based. The science is out there, research it for yourself.

But the main harm it does, that we should consider, is harming the animals. We contribute to the slaughter and torture of these animals, every time we eat meat. We pay someone else to kill animals for our consumption. Yet, we have plant-based alternatives that negate the need for meat.

They can be arbitrary, but people can be inconsistent within their own arbitrary ethics. Which is part of the problem. — chatterbears

People are inconsistent in many things, including yourself. It is probably the result of how our modular brain evolved.

A severely mentally handicapped person, or a brain dead person, does not have the same level of consciousness with regards to pain and suffering than we do. But would that make it OK to kill them? — chatterbears

But we were talking about factory farmed animals, like cows, chickens, and pigs, as you specifically requested. So, why are you changing the subject?

We don't factory farm humans, and I have no desire for cannibalism, so it's not the same.

People are inconsistent in many things, including yourself — Harry Hindu

If I am inconsistent in something that is as easily changeable as a diet, I would change it.

So, why are you changing the subject? — Sapientia

This is why I asked you to clarify your question. You went to consciousness and I responded. Rephrase your question.

I don't. I'm not arguing that animals don't feel pain. I'm arguing that a meat-eater can "accept the 3 moral pillars while simultaneously eating animals" by rejecting the claim that animals feel pain (or at least the claim that animal pain is like human pain). — Michael

Okay, so you were playing devil's advocate?

My point was, on what grounds does one claim that animals do not feel pain? If you are playing devil's advocate then why stop playing when the questions get difficult?

It's not wrong to eat animals per se. For example, one could argue that it is morally desirable to consume roadkill, since, at least, the accidental death of animal would not be entirely without benefit.

The moral question is whether it's morally acceptable to rear and/or sacrifice animals for food.

It would be nice to think that we could eliminate pain and suffering from the meat supply chain, and that animals destined for consumption could have a 'meaningful' existence whilst alive. However, even if this were possible, it is still moot as to whether the euthanising of animals is morally acceptable.

Personally, I am unconvinced by any of the arguments for the consumption of animals, yet, for the record, I will admit to biting the bullet despite the fact that the green and speciesist arguments are compelling.

Yes. I was waiting for that one. But what's your point? We don't factory farm humans. They wouldn't taste as good. — Sapientia

The point was there in the post. You just cherry-picked the post in making your reply. I said that the degree of consciousness should not be a measuring stick for determining what lives or dies.

"Tasting good" is subjective. Human meat could be designed to taste like anything.

I will admit to biting the bullet despite the fact that the green and speciesist arguments are compelling. — jastopher

I am a bit confused on your position. Are you a meat eater?

If you are playing devil's advocate then why stop playing when the questions get difficult? — Harry Hindu

Because I only wanted to show how the meat-eater can be consistent in his position, given that that's what the OP asked for.

My point was, on what grounds does one claim that animals do not feel pain?

Perhaps that there's a lack of evidence.

Given that I do X when I feel Y, and given that you're sufficiently similar to me, I can be justified in inferring that if you do X then you feel Y.

But I might argue that a cow is insufficiently similar to me and so I am not justified in making the same inference.

Or one can argue that given the different nervous system and brain structure, it's likely that whatever they feel isn't like what I feel, and so empathy is impossible.

Or one can argue that given the different nervous system and brain structure, it's likely that whatever they feel isn't like what I feel, and so empathy is impossible. — Michael

Again, you can use this same logic between humans. Each individual human has different brain structure and a different nervous system (not identical). But empathy is NOT the ability to feel what another living being feels to 100% accuracy. It is about the practical and basic human/animal emotion and pain that we all feel. Adhering to this 100% absolute identical feeling of empathy is a red herring and is slightly absurd.

This is why I asked you to clarify your question. You went to consciousness and I responded. Rephrase your question. — chatterbears

It's okay to turn off the life support of someone in a permanent vegetative state, so long as it's in accordance with the outcome of a decision made by someone in the appropriate professional capacity, and so long as it's done by someone in the appropriate professional capacity, and in accordance with the relevant procedure.

People in permanent vegetative states are not treated as equals with other human beings, and neither are cows, pigs, and chickens, and there's an obvious reason for this, which is that they aren't equal in important respects. It's one thing to seek appropriate treatment, and it's another to seek equal treatment. If it's the latter you seek, then I think that you carry a burden of justification.

A hierarchical view of some form makes more sense to me than equal treatment.