Non-human animal activities should not provide a logical or moral foundation for our behavior and it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet they do, especially as most of them are obligatory carnivores killing for survival, whereas humans physiologically resemble frugivores. Also your reasoning would justify killing companion animals and also humans - after all, "circle of life".
More importantly, we recognize that unlike animals, we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences. So it is probably not useful to consider the behavior of fish when making decisions about our own behavior.
People have been killing each other since the beginning of time.
Are we living on the same planet? Why do I have to give eating salmon any thought?
Here's a question to ponder: what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for? For people to share common values so that we get along better, right?
That's created by humans, FOR humans, that we want to get along with!
For everything else, I don't really understand.
I am nice to squirrels, I just happen to like them. Rats, I don't like. Cockroaches I really don't like - when I see one in my house, I take a slipper and kill that sucka.
Am I supposed to justify stomping on a cockroach too? Where does this moralizing end?
>Here's a question to ponder: what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for? For people to share common values so that we get along better, right?
Thats not really how morals are defined. That is just one oversimplified and fairly self serving definition of ethics.
But lets try this with your own view point: Try pondering the question you posed:
>what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for?
Now since you believe common values help us get along, and you therefore believe that forms the basis of ethical decision, then your question needs to be:
"What common values do other people hold that may be different to mine?"
It may come as a shock to you, that there is whole world of people and even animals and insects, that don't share your views - that see the world through totally different eyes. If they don't contribute to your idea of a common value, does that make them worthless and irrelevant to the world, the world they live in.
By stomping on the cockroach (for no reason beyond what you like and don't like) - you are saying it has no value in your life, and therefore should not exist.
To be honest, this isn't about morality - its about having a basic respect for anything that lives. Why, given the chance, would you not have this respect?
Ok let's be very clear about this - I stomp on a cockroach because I feel like it. I don't think and ponder that it should not exist anymore than I wonder if tea in a cup should not exist in the cup as I drink it.
I happen to have what you call 'basic respect' for living things, I find a dude snapping the neck of a rabbit 'icky'.
I see that as me having grown up in a city and never having to snap necks to make a meal that evening. If I end up living on a farm, I'm sure I'll quickly get used to snapping necks of chickens and rabbits no problem.
See, your whole argument boils down to 'why aren't you more like me? Isn't being like me better than being like you?'
That's one point of view, I'd much prefer other people be more like me as well, so that I can get along with them better etc. I just recognize that that's simply a self-serving preference.
> See, your whole argument boils down to 'why aren't you more like me? Isn't being like me better than being like you?'
If you want to make that point, please support it with an explanation to why and how I have led you to believe that? because I genuinely don't follow your logic.
>Ok let's be very clear about this - I stomp on a cockroach because I feel like it.
And you call that respect?
That isn't what I call a basic respect for living things. Finding a rabbits neck breaking "icky", also isn't a basic respect. If you could provide a reason for killing, like a health one, I might start to understand.
Let me try another tack thats a bit more 'on topic'.
What behavior would a cockroach have to exhibit before you treat it like a human?
>What behavior would a cockroach have to exhibit before you treat it like a human?
Human behavior. Awareness of social context. Learning, speech, and advanced decision-making and planning skills. Is that just a poorly-thought-out question?
Humans who lack these skills tend to get boxed up, put in cells, and treated like cattle, too.
> Why do I have to give eating salmon any thought?
The same reason you would give thought to killing a Golden Retriever for food. Due to indoctrinated beliefs, people think it's alright to kill certain animals for food, but not others, and when asked why, the logical inconsistencies become very apparent. See http://www.carnism.org/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4
> Am I supposed to justify stomping on a cockroach too? Where does this moralizing end?
Any killing is self-defense in always justified. However, if there's an opportunity to practice non-violence, why not take it?
My answer is because I don't feel like it on that day. Sometimes I feel like practicing non-violence, other days I feel like practicing it and letting off some steam.
There is no inherent moral virtue in not picking up a stick when walking through a forest and slashing tall grass as you walk around.
Now if tall grass can express discontent similar to human discontent and you happily ignore it, then the issue is that you're likely to inflict human violence with no second thought.
THAT societies don't like. But don't get it twisted with empty moralizing - we want people to feel bad about violence to prevent violence to other humans within our tribe, that's it.
You've explained the inherent problem I believe to be facing humanity today - apathy and lack of empathy. We can't accept violence if we want to live in a free and peaceful society. All oppression has to eventually fall by the wayside and taking the opportunity to not torture many sentient animals is a good way to help.
> you can recognize that fantasizing about a world that's impossible given human nature is simply a waste of time.
I'm a vegan - I'm not fantasizing, I'm actually living in accordance with my beliefs.
I see where you're coming from - it's an idealistic point of view.
We have violence, violence is bad, if we want peace, we need to get rid of it.
Makes sense.
Is that realistic on any level? No.
So either you can stick to idealistic notions and claim that the world is messed up because people are not like you, or you can recognize that fantasizing about a world that's impossible given human nature is simply a waste of time.
Fantasizing about a better world is a good coping strategy that I use myself. I just don't believe it to be anything but a coping strategy. At the end of the day, I need a strategy to change the real world I'm living in, to my liking.
Telling people 'why not be more like me?' is not a very good strategy :) I dare say you actually lack the nuanced understanding of the world to actually make it the way you want it.
Let's put 100 people of your choosing, the ones with least apathy and most empathy on the planet, on an island. How well are you going to do?
What if they're a bunch of non-apathetic, empathetic idiots? They light themselves on fire trying to make a campfire, they chop off their own fingers cutting up salad, but they are so empathetic towards each other.
A few days later, you're all dead.
The inherent problem is people are dumb - your current beliefs on what's wrong with people falls in the naive category. THAT is the problem - there's no lack of empathy, there's lack of intelligence. Lack of empathy is mostly short sightedness - most people don't think of anything but themselves and their immediate family because they're dumb, not because they are apathetic, they don't have the capacity for much is all.
I see from another comment that you are Vegan, so how did you make the distinction of what living things are acceptable to eat, and which are not? Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects; so if it isn't 'life' that you are preserving, what exactly is it? some idea of consciousness? intelligence? How does something like Honey fit into your view of this issue?
Further, how do you justify your greater reliance than meat eaters on migrant underpaid labor? Is human suffering for your nutrition preferable to animal suffering?
Isnt this just a game of semantic false moral superiority until there is a nutrition source that is completely death and suffering free?
> Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects
Two things: plants aren't sentient and animals also eat plants - many, many times more plants than vegans do. So if you truly regard plant and animal life to be the same, it would behoove you to immediately stop eating animals! It's very obvious how this argument falls flat on its face when brought to the light of critical thinking.
> how do you justify your greater reliance than meat eaters on migrant underpaid labor?
This is just conjecture, but I'll try and answer anyway. You can be vegan and care about how workers are treated. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Personally, I grow most of my food myself, but obviously this isn't practical for most people. Why not turn this question around and ask, how are slaughterhouse workers treated and what their experience must be like?
> Isnt this just a game of semantic false moral superiority until there is a nutrition source that is completely death and suffering free?
Pretty ironic to hear this from someone who beliefs him or herself to be superior to animals, and justifies their destruction. It's not a game of semantics - in fact, it's not a game at all. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of climate change. You can be coy all you want, but you are actively contributing to the problem by consuming animal products.
Is a venus fly trap sentient?
Is a cricket sentient?
Is a starfish sentient?
Is a worm sentient?
How about trees that communicate with other trees nearby?[1][2]
>and animals also eat plants
Plants also eat animals[3] animals also eat other animals, so i dont understand how this is an argument.
>This is just conjecture
61% of all farmworkers have incomes below pverty level, average life expectancy subtanstially lower than rest of population[4]
cites migrants earning 7500$ per year, 52% having no legal status in US[5]
>Why not turn this question around and ask, how are slaughterhouse workers treated and what their experience must be like?
you could certainly make that argument, but i dont think its likely to mirror agricultural migrant labor
>Pretty ironic to hear this from someone who beliefs him or herself to be superior to animals, and justifies their destruction.
Thats quite a label to apply to someone you've never met and whose never said anything like that.
You seem to believe you are superior to plants though...
Unnecessary for your personal survival? That's true, but it's a very limited perspective to take. Cockroaches are known to affect our species' health adversely (e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11240940). If you wish to reduce their and other insects' unnecessary suffering without compromising the interests of humans, a better thing to advocate for is that we use more humane pesticides (http://effective-altruism.com/ea/nx/humane_pesticides_as_the...), not that we refrain from killing them.
You move in to a new apartment. Your first night, at 2 am, you hear a noise. You turn on the bedside lamp and see several cockroaches scurry under your bed. What do you do?
I used to live in India, that's the norm. We lived with them. The trick is that there's other things that eat cockroaches, that we also lived with, so it doesn't get too much of an issue. A house is part of an ecosystem, not a sterile environment.
For the record, it's almost guaranteed that any rice you eat in India has had cockroaches in the rice sack. Not a lot you can do about it. That's why we wash and cook things.
Now, admitting that I'm largely ignorant about conditions in India, and recognizing that it's a very large country with wide variations--is it not the case that public health in India is generally worse than in more developed nations where e.g. cockroaches would be considered a pest to be eliminated, partially for health reasons? If so, could that attitude toward them be part of the reason for the worse public health? I'm asking out of curiosity; this is not an assertion. :)
Why would you not seal the sack? Seriously. That is what I do with food if I know there are roaches in the neighborhood. Trust me, no roaches are getting in my food.
> Non-human animal activities should not provide a logical or moral foundation for our behavior
Why not?
What should provide a moral foundation for our behavior?
That's a trick question. There is no objective basis for morality. We can make it whatever we like, preferably optimizing our value preferences. As for me, I like meat, so I will continue to enjoy eating animals. On the other hand, I personally dislike unnecessary cruelty, so I am not adverse to treating farm-raised animals better, up to some point where the tradeoff between lots of cheap meat and well-treated animals starts looking bad for me. There is, of course, no objectively "correct" value-preferences either, but since humans are social animals, you should probably abide by the norms of your social group if you want to fit in. Morality as herd instinct in the individual and all.
> More importantly, we recognize that unlike animals, we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences.
Sure we can. I want to, and that's all the justification I need. What is your basis for claiming that I need some special justification?
There are victims which suffer as a consequence of your actions. I think that makes it clear the behavior is unethical. If "I want to" were all the justification needed, the world would be an even more terrible place to live. We wouldn't accept that excuse if made by a person kicking a dog, for example, so why should we for abuse of other non-human animal species?
Edit (can't directly reply):
> There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering
There is plenty wrong with causing suffering. I think in the case of eating animals, society is quite detached from the experience, though. That's why we shy away from watching slaughterhouse videos, why we put pictures of happy cows on cartons of milk - why such an unbelievably rosy picture must be painted to justify ruthless and horrific violence taking place all the time. Anyway, I would like to share with you that it has been my experience watching those videos and learning more about how animals are treated for food and other purposes changed my perspective, and it might interest you, too. Earthlings is a powerful documentary, is available free on YouTube, and I recommend it.
> The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets.
Exactly! To the same point, the reason it is acceptable to raise and kill billions of animals are also social norms and culture. Is the hypocrisy of it all not apparent?
> I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better.
It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior. Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of. Do check out the Earthlings documentary, it will really open your eyes.
It doesn't make it clear at all. There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering, however most of us personally don't like it or however much some of us might empathize with the victims. You're simply restating your position based on your personal value preferences (such as 'suffering is evil') which are by no means universal and certainly not binding moral edicts.
The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. That doesn't make our beliefs moral truths, or our arguments sound.
What you're advocating is that we change those norms to proscribe the eating of animals based on your value-preferences - you're advocating a change of our tastes, in both senses of the word. And you are not going to sway many people to make a fundamentally emotional decision with 'logical' or 'moral' reasoning, particularly when for many people the eating of meat (or even the killing of animals) is not only something they like but part of their cultural identity. Even so, people like me are still going to be steadfast in their opposition to your attempted revolution of social norms based simply on their value-preferences and because, frankly, I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better.
There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering
Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples.
The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets.
That's really the only reason you see for this? So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable? Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief? Is it always right, if popular opinion says it is?
> Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples.
Nothing. That's my whole point. Can you tell me where we can see what is objective evil? Or is it all just ultimately based on our contemporary feelings that "oh, that's awful"?
> So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable?
Correct, ethically acceptable is defined by your culture. If you're an ancient Aztec, human sacrifice is ethical. If you're a 21st century American, human sacrifice is not ethical.
> Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief?
No, because I'm not arrogant enough to declare myself somehow wiser and more able to see The Truth than the billions of humans who have lived on this earth over the past two million years who were also convinced they alone knew the truth of right and wrong while all holding very different moral beliefs from one another. Why do you think you're different? If there is a "true" morality, it is clearly not accessible to mere mortals by reason.
Unfortunately I waited too long to edit a response to your edit, so I have to engage in the discourtesy of double posting. :)
> There is plenty wrong with causing suffering.
What, specifically? What makes it wrong?
> I think in the case of eating animals, society is quite detached from the experience, though. That's why we shy away from watching slaughterhouse videos, why we put pictures of happy cows on cartons of milk - why such an unbelievably rosy picture must be painted to justify ruthless and horrific violence taking place all the time.
For millions of years, most people hunted down and slaughtered their own food. In many cases the animals suffered horribly, even as badly or worse than they do in our industrial farming environments.
I agree that most people are far removed from the experience of the suffering and killing of farm animals. I think that's exactly why people like you exist. Most people are raised up surrounded by puppies and kittens, not food animals, and grow up watching Disney movies full of friendly, talking animals. The majority of modern western society is far removed from the reality of life. No surprise that when confronted with excerpts from it, they respond with horror, it being utterly at odds with their prior experience.
> To the same point, the reason it is acceptable to raise and kill billions of animals are also social norms and culture. Is the hypocrisy of it all not apparent?
No. There is no larger moral framework. Morality is a social phenomena that manifests in arbitrary ways, though with humans (as with other social animals) it will always tend to some degree of in-group altrusim. There is no hypocrisy to be had because it is fundamentally arbitrary.
> It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior
This is my point. Our culturally contextual blinders generally prevent us from coming to objective conclusions about right and wrong. There is no objective right and wrong. There is no telescope science can use to inform us about moral reality. There are no sacred laws inscribed on our souls by God. Innumerable philosophers have tried to ground morality in something objective and all of them failed. This is why you keep repeating that the suffering and killing of animals is wrong, but cannot explain to me why this is so, except that is appalling that I need an explanation. It is a reality for you, insofar as it is a reflection of your feelings and tastes, but your feelings and tastes are not my feelings and tastes nor at they anyone else's; they are yours alone. History is the single best teacher of the subjectivity of morality.
There's nothing wrong (in my opinion) with having the feelings and tastes you do (and therefore the moral-philosphical positions), but you cannot convince me, or people like me, of your position by stamping your feet and asserting a moral superiority that not only does not exist but cannot exist.
> Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of.
My moral nihilism, or whatever you might choose to label it, came to fruition long before I had the vaguest idea of defending the eating of animals. Nor do I feel particularly strongly on the subject; if a law was passed tomorrow I would chiefly be annoyed at the difficulty of getting the protein/calorie ratio demanded by my workout and diet regimen.
I am not interested in the documentary, having seen plenty of examples of gratuitous animal cruelty myself, and having killed animals (legally) myself. There is no amount of suffering that a video could show me that would change my mind because I deny that the suffering is inherently wrong. I merely prefer that the suffering of animals be minimized to the extent that it can be done without raising the cost of meat significantly.
It seems to me, you deny objective ethics when it conveniently justifies your behavior. Only a very sad and miserable person must beg for an explanation as to why inflicting suffering is wrong. Perhaps you are yourself trapped in a cycle of fear, apathy and pain, so you don't recognize it in others? I'm not really sure what to make of it. It's quite bizarre when someone outright denies others' will not to be abused. To paraphrase another reply, the arrogance is stinky and quite palpable. I hope you will have the humility to watch the documentary I suggested after all, and perhaps even feel a little ashamed of some of the things you've said in your post.
> It seems to me, you deny objective ethics when it conveniently justifies your behavior.
I deny objective ethics always, regardless of whether it justifies my behavior.
> Only a very sad and miserable person must beg for an explanation as to why inflicting suffering is wrong.
This is what I mean. There is no real explanation as to why inflicting suffering is inherently wrong, so the natural resort (probably the evolved retort) is to assume I'm evil/wicked/sad/miserable. That's the natural response to anyone who doesn't fit in the prescribed norms, but that of course does not make it objective.
> Perhaps you are yourself trapped in a cycle of fear, apathy and pain, so you don't recognize it in others?
Well, I feel happy. :)
There is no connection between virtuosity and happiness, though many ancient writers dearly wished there was, unless society consistently punishes people who violate norms. That's been known at least since Ecclesiastes.
> I hope you will have the humility to watch the documentary I suggested after all,
Even disregarding what I said, I don't watch documentaries. Any documentary. It takes too much time for too little content that is too easily edited into propaganda, and though I don't think it is the case here, they are too often the sources touted by conspiracy theorists.
I recommend reading something more outside of your stream, perhaps Zhuangzhi or Nietzsche.
The assumption in every culture I've lived in has been that eating animals and their byproducts is not only acceptable, but the right thing to do. That is the default; the "presupposed" belief. But, it is a belief that requires no evidence to be accepted by the majority of people.
When shown evidence that animals experience suffering because of this behavior, and when shown evidence that animal agriculture is disastrous for the environment, you have evidence on which to make decisions from an ethical perspective, and not merely a cultural history perspective. What you do with that evidence is up to you, of course; the law will likely never, in our lifetimes, be strict enough to prevent animal suffering or environmental catastrophe. So, it's your decision to participate in it, or not, and to what degree.
First, condescending backslapping is rude and rationalization of ignorance is dumb.
The sheer volume of methane from animal production is raising the temperature of the planet dangerously.
Next, the Petri dish that is playing Russian Roulette by exhausing antibiotics and incubating the next pandemic are the two final nails in the coffin of meat.
Good luck with that belief that energy-intensive lifestyle should or can scale to 10 billion people.
We should be setting a better example for developing nations and choosing wiser diet and lifestyle behaviors which won't doom us to move entire cities inland.
More importantly, we recognize that unlike animals, we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences. So it is probably not useful to consider the behavior of fish when making decisions about our own behavior.