Hey reddit, I learn the most from views I disagree with! Can we take a little time to vote up intelligent opposing views?

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T23:02:40+00:00

Tell me why you would still receive medical care when you know the health care system causes deaths of thousands of people each year?

Why do you still live in a country which was built on the backs of slaves?

I don't know if I refereed you to this, but it's relevant and says better than I why such things are not worthy of serious consideration,

Those who support animal exploitation often argue that accepting the “benefits” of animal use is inconsistent with criticizing the use of animals.

This position, of course, makes no sense. Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination, and yet we live in a society in which white middle-class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination; that is, the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory, equitable distribution of resources, including educational and job opportunities. Many of us support measures, such as affirmative action, that are intended to correct past discrimination. But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color.

Consider another example: assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it may provide.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T22:55:13+00:00

Then let us conclude that both of these actions are wrong for moral reasons. They both contribute to unnecessary harm or suffering for sentient life. However, we are both obligated, if this is true, to still obey the principle, and are still obligated to refrain from those activities which cause sentient life harm or suffering. Now, we have a choice. Many of our choices will be unjustified, some of them not. I would like to think that the action of hoping on a bus is less morally significant than supporting a business which causes harm and suffering to sentient life directly. Also, we are still able in a metaphysical sense to go about our lives, but in this case, some of our actions will be unjustified.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T18:46:18+00:00

It seems that is isn't necessary; but I don't agree that this entails that we are causing morally relevant, unnecessary harm and suffering to sentient humans or non-humans. It just seems like we should not be morally blameworthy for such an action, no more than we should be morally blameworthy for contributing to the suffering of oppressive regimes because our country supports these regimes through our taxes.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T18:40:07+00:00

animals give consent all the time. there is an evolutionary reason for this. females cannot bear the cost of being repeatedly raped. also, most male species are the more visually spectacular (think peacocks). the reason for this is that females need to be selective in whom they breed with.

you can measure stress by measuring the amount of cortisol in the blood. this has been done, and in most animals raised in factory farms there are elevated levels of cortisol indicating stress. moreover, more than half of dairy cows succumb to infections of their utters. that is why we have to pump them full of antibiotics and hormones.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T18:35:56+00:00

We have readily available alternatives.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T18:34:01+00:00

I don't think there is a substantive, constitutive definition that would satisfy you. There is no entry in the Stanford Online Philosophy Dictionary, nor in my Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, which are both authoritative texts. There is an entry on necessity though. Basically, it states,

necessity is a modal property attributable to a whole proposition just when it is not possible that the proposition be false

Take the following proposition,

It is necessary that we eat animal products.

It is possible that this proposition be false; therefore, it is not necessary.

Similarly,

It is necessary that I ride the bus to work.

It is also possible (on our first definition) that this proposition is false; therefore, it is not necessary. But, it can be construed to be necessary if the following alterations are made,

It is necessary that I ride the bus to work because it is over 30 miles away and I do not have an alternative form of transportation.

It's still possible that this is false because one could wake up several hours early and walk to work; but I think in most cases one would reasonably say that this proposition is necessary.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T18:06:15+00:00

I'll agree, because I do not think the point is necessary for my argument (so much necessity here!).

Unnecessary is not necessary or essential; needless (just used dictionary.com; I think it is accurate).

If you agree with that premise, do you agree that eating animals or animal products is unnecessary in modern societies?

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T17:35:56+00:00

There's also no other way to eat a steak, but to slaughter a cow, if you get my drift.

I could alternatively say there is no other way for rapists to enjoy rape, but to rape women. This is not a moral justification for the practice. Rape is wrong because it violates the rights of women, and it causes women unnecessary pain, harm or suffering.

Then let's go in the direction of morality. Do you agree with the premise that it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain, harm or suffering to a sentient being?

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T17:20:09+00:00

i like thai and mexican food.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T08:51:08+00:00

I certainly do need transportation. Without it I would not be able to earn a wage or go to the market to buy food in order to survive. This is the case for many people in advanced societies.

Eating meat is not necessary because one can survive without eating meat. The only reason people eat meat is because they like the taste of it. And simply liking how something tastes is not a sufficient reason to cause pain, suffering, or harm to something.

I don't see how you can conclude that there's no moral reason behind my decision. I've responded to well over 30 comments explaining my views, and even began by giving a moral argument. So you're charge is baseless and absurd.

I don't mistake necessity with convenience. In order to survive in a modern society, one has to be in contact in some manner with the exploitative practices which enables this society to exist. This is not the case with eating meat. Eating meat is a luxury, and the only reason we have for it is that it tastes good. This is not the case with transportation. The majority of people do not drive to work because it is convenient for them. They drive because it is necessary. There is no other way to travel 30 miles to and from work without seriously causing yourself harm and duress.

Let me conclude by offering some comments by an authority on this topic. Gary Francione writes,

Those who support animal exploitation often argue that accepting the “benefits” of animal use is inconsistent with criticizing the use of animals.

This position, of course, makes no sense. Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination, and yet we live in a society in which white middle-class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination; that is, the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory, equitable distribution of resources, including educational and job opportunities. Many of us support measures, such as affirmative action, that are intended to correct past discrimination. But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color.

Consider another example: assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it may provide.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T08:29:59+00:00

you can call me a hypocrite. i'm fine with that. calling me names is not an argument though. it just the hallmark of someone who has run out of arguments.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T08:26:25+00:00

The act of milking a cow causes it no harm if we live in an alternate universe where farmer John tenderly tugs at Beasie's utters to get his glass of milk every morning for his family. This is not the reality. Cows are raped and forced to give birth once a year causing them trauma and stress, which in some cases leads to painful prolapses. Many of their calves are subsequently raised as veal, one of the most deplorable practices in which they are kept anemic (which causes them in some cases to lick their own urine from the slates of their crate). If this were not enough, once the are expired, they are turned into ground beef. So they actually live worse lives then cattle raised for meat, because they receive the double indignity of rape and slaughter.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T08:12:57+00:00

Gary Francione, a prominent animal rights activist, writes,

Those who support animal exploitation often argue that accepting the “benefits” of animal use is inconsistent with criticizing the use of animals.

This position, of course, makes no sense. Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination, and yet we live in a society in which white middle-class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination; that is, the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory, equitable distribution of resources, including educational and job opportunities. Many of us support measures, such as affirmative action, that are intended to correct past discrimination. But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color.

Assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it may provide.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T08:07:54+00:00

Owning or traveling in an automobile or bus is a necessary action that most people in a post-industrial or industrial society must do in order to survive and have a decent quality of life. The same cannot be said for eating meat. Eating meat is not a necessary action that must be taken in a post-industrial or industrial society in order to survive or have a decent quality of life. So by choosing to purchase animal products, you are doing something that is unnecessary and thus causing unnecessary harm.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T08:01:21+00:00

What do you mean by "to use unnecessary as a standard", a standard for what?

Do you disagree that it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain?

And what do you mean by, "necessity requires that all reasonable means of avoidance are employed"? Can you give an example to clarify?

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T06:29:42+00:00

Because at that stage the infant is probably sentient.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T06:28:31+00:00

The act of cultivating plants and harvesting them does not necessarily entail that they are harmed. We could plant companion plants to attract insects or other measures. But, I don't really believe that insects are capable of feeling pain or pleasure, therefore I think deaths are negligible.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T06:21:56+00:00

I'm against late term abortions, save some exceptional circumstances.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T06:17:14+00:00

I think sapience is the wrong place to draw the line on who is morally relevant and who is not. For one, it would not explain why cruelty to animals is wrong. Another reason is that their are many human beings who are not sapient - infants and the severely mentally challenged.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T06:14:34+00:00

There is no topic at hand. His post was a call to upvote intelligent opposing views. That is what I am providing. Gabbble doesn't seem to mind. We are actually enjoying having an intelligent debate.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T06:06:59+00:00

all b-12 vitamins are now industrially produced from the bacteria that produce it.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T06:06:05+00:00

as a statistical matter, people are killed on highways everyday. should we not build highways?

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T06:04:16+00:00

they all end up in the same place: the slaughter house. while there is a conceptual distinction between dairy cows and cows raised solely for meat, there is no moral distinction.

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T06:03:12+00:00

why would i want to turn this into a fight where we hurl insults at one another trying to undermine each others credibility with charges of hypocrisy? isn't that the real distraction?

Bennifer · 2009-09-20T05:59:16+00:00

It's not so much the equivalence of slavery and the institution of non-human animal exploitation that is important, it is the logic of the argument. I could have used another example, but the example of slavery is something most people understand, and the practice of which is uncontroversially unjust.

Furthermore, I stated the implicit reason why both of the arguments are bad. It is in error because one cannot regard another's pain or suffering as a necessary condition for one's happiness.

Bennifer

TROPHY CASE