[Eisenstein]

> Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals?

The one in which human comfort takes precedence over that of a domesticated species which have been selectively bred over generations to produce meat for consumption. The industrial process is tertiary to the slaughter itself and the economics of meat consumption. You can argue about 'industrialization' of anything -- resource extraction and industrial agriculture at large destroy life on a massive scale.

> When you say "some people have different values" you probably mean "some people have simply not thought it through"

No, some people don't value animal life that has been domesticate specifically for food production. Not many people want a domestic pig in their house, so why do they exist? Not by natural selection and not for their own sake. We made them and we eat them and we don't care because we also don't care about paramecium and the pigs certainly wouldn't care if you were being fed to it, it would just eat you.

> Now, most people have inconsistent ethics.

Sure, I will grant you that and go one further -- all people have inconsistent ethics.

Why do you care about pigs and not amoebas? Is it because one has a brain? Is it because one is multicellular? Is it because one is cute, or intelligent? What are the criteria? List all of your ethical criteria for food consumption and 'willing to argue that people who do it are bad people' and then list the features of everything you do and the consequences of those things and cross reference -- now, when you find a conflict, highlight it and then stop doing it. I bet you can't without seriously inconveniencing yourself to the point where you justify not following through.

> It's a struggle but we should be more honest with ourselves and the rest.

Absolutely agree. Self-awareness is the most important trait. I think that the term 'good person' can be roughly defined to mean 'self-aware and willing to correct after reflection'.

[devb]

>> Under which ethical framework is it possible to justify industrial slaughtering of animals?

> The one in which human comfort takes precedence over that of a domesticated species which have been selectively bred over generations to produce meat for consumption. The industrial process is tertiary to the slaughter itself and the economics of meat consumption. You can argue about 'industrialization' of anything -- resource extraction and industrial agriculture at large destroy life on a massive scale.

How is human comfort an "ethical framework"? I'm not sure you understand what ethics are.

[Eisenstein]

I'm willing to learn. Please teach me why 'human comfort' is not a value to which one can prescribe a an ethical weight.

[boston_clone]

So, in short, most people think it’s wrong to permanently end a creatures life because you get some temporary good feelings out of it.

You can prescribe a value, but if temporary sensory pleasures truly outweigh the entire lives of other beings, there may be neurological issues affecting compassion.

[Eisenstein]

'Comfort' means 'lacking hardship', not 'hedonistic pleasure'.

[boston_clone]

Then I would argue that there is no difference in comfort when living a life fueled by dead animals and their excretions versus a life fueled by plants.

See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/

Most individuals are comfortable admitting that they prefer to not abstain from things like steak and cheese because those things simply taste good. That, to me, is hedonistic pleasure: unnecessary, and an invalid argument for the continued abuse and slaughter of billions of animals around the world.

[Eisenstein]

> That, to me, is hedonistic pleasure

Many people (including me) do not take any pleasure in eating. In fact it is a chore. If I had to conform to a vegan diet I would literally not get enough nutrients for lack of motivation.

Your own perspective is not the only perspective.

[jerojero]

It's pretty appalling to see such disregard to non-human life. As if the fact that animals have been domesticated somehow made them lesser beings.

I mean, I guess you come at it from a sort of utilitarian maybe epicurean perspective? The idea of maximising human pleasure? What does the word "comfort" really means in this context? For example, people who take heroin or morphine feel great comfort; should we administer a lethal dosis of morphine to everyone at once? And of course we can argue that industrialization brings destruction I mean a big argument against mass agriculture is precisely that. Some argue that we should go back to more local food sources for this reason, de industralise our society a bit and I can see merit to that.

But really, the question I guess I'm asking is why do you place humans on the center to begin with? Is it because we are capable of overpowering other species and do with them as we want that there is justification to our actions? It seems you're really hammering on the concept of domestication, but why? Why is for example a domesticated pig less worthy of living than a domesticated dog, or a domesticated plant or a human? If someone commits a crime, is it okay for society to punish them in return? What if that person didn't know they were committing a crime, is it still okay to punish them? What if the person does not have the capability to understand that they are committing a crime? What if the person is not a human, but a pig? Is it possible to assign the category of person to an animal? Some philosophers and scientists believe that's a discussion worth having.

It's funny to me that you're taking such a defensive position just at the mention that maybe meat consumption requires a more thorough examination of our personal ethics. I think veganism is a very tough fight in modern society, which is why I think this is an issue that needs to be tackled in a much more systemic way. The first step is just making a societal decision on these questions you ask me. Is a chicken okay? Is a pig okay? Is an amoeba okay? Is a human okay? I think most people will feel disgusted and repulsed at the notion of eating another human being; but why? Is it as significantly different from a pig as a pig is to a plant? Is an amoeba capable of suffering? Do they feel pain? We know for certain that pigs feel pain as we've studied their brains and behaviour but amoeba, for example, don't have any of the necessary cellular components to feel "pain" as animals experience it. But this position can be challenged as well, why pain?

Like you said, there might be a myriad of reasons why someone would find eating animals objectionable and there might be reasons why we might find it necessary as well (for example, health reasons). I am simply wondering "is pleasure reason enough to eat animals the way we eat them?". For you, it seems like pleasure is reason enough, I wonder if you're in favour of the legalisation of all drugs? What about killing people for pleasure, if a serial killer finds infinite pleasure in the act of killing... should he be allowed? Or should we also take into account the suffering of the victim?

I actually find the term "good person" a bit... i don't know. I don't like it. The way I position myself in the world, I'm not a deontologist, I think a lot of these things are subjective. Consistence is important to me and I try to be consistent; we all have failings but I think admitting that we are flawed is the first step. And personally, I believe eating meat is an ethical failing as there are many others. People lie and cheat all the time, it doesn't necessarily make them bad. People hurt others in the pursuit of pleasure, it doesn't mean they are bad. I agree with you when you talk about the importance of willingness to correct after self reflection.

Ultimately my point is that eating meat is actually a really challenging philosophical problem that I don't think we really take it as seriously as we should, because it's much easier to ignore the problem than face the reality of our actions and think of the consequences that course correcting them might have on our lives and societies as a whole. I view our meat eating an addiction at the societal level, and I think in order to get to a healthy consumption (which might mean little or none) we would need to treat the issue the same way we treat addiction problems on communities. That's why to me acknowledging that we have a problem is such an important first step. I've realised now in this thread that many people don't think we even have a problem at all, that's a bit of a surprise for me.

[Eisenstein]

> But really, the question I guess I'm asking is why do you place humans on the center to begin with?

You don't? Please tell me that you are not advocating reallocating half of all hospital funds to animal shelters in order to equalize the balance between us and domesticated animals.

> It seems you're really hammering on the concept of domestication, but why?

Because it explains the value system. We domesticated animals to eat them. Pigs ate the food scraps we couldn't and we ate them. I'm not sure what is unclear to you about this setup.

> Why is for example a domesticated pig less worthy of living than a domesticated dog, or a domesticated plant or a human?

Everything has life worthy of living. My question to you is why you don't cry over the single celled organism holocaust every time you wash your hands? Are their lives not worthy? We compartmentalize and prioritize -- you do it just as much as I do, you just feel like judging me for being honest about what mine are.

[jerojero]

I thought I was clear in saying that life in itself might not be enough?

Why would you say something "everything has life worthy of living" why? I actually disagree with this statement. Animals like pigs or dogs or humans are not just living beings, they also have complex mental processes. Did you know pigs are very much aware of deaths in their close families? These are complex animals that feel both physical and emotional pain. I'm sorry you think domestication has turned pigs into walking meat but that's simply not the case. So it's not difficult to justify the ending of lives of bacteria as opposed to pigs, but it is much more difficult to justify the ending of the lives of pigs as opposed to humans.

And I think you really haven't been able to justify your human exceptionalism, instead you simply attack me as if I'm supposed to convince you that this is not the case simply because you "feel" that it's right. And that's my point, you have a dogmatic belief that you're not willing to even challenge.

Obviously I get the instinct of human exceptionalism, but instinct does not make for good reason. Should we allocate half of our hospital resources to animal shelters? I mean, how about we stop eating meat instead? How about we stop the mass consumerism we are trapped in? We don't have to sacrifice the well being of humans to improve the well being of animals. Well, we might have to sacrifice some comfort, because the way we live is simply unsustainable.

[Eisenstein]

> Why would you say something "everything has life worthy of living" why?

I'm confused. You qualify some life as exceptional and other life as not. Because of 'complexity'? How is one thing different from another?

> So it's not difficult to justify the ending of lives of bacteria as opposed to pigs, but it is much more difficult to justify the ending of the lives of pigs as opposed to humans.

According to what? Because they have emotions and care about family? How do you know? You anthropomorphize an animal and use that to justify your stance -- and complain about human centric thinking.

> And I think you really haven't been able to justify your human exceptionalism

I never even attempted to do so. I said it is innate to humans to do that. You just did it without even realizing it by ascribing human qualities to pigs to justify why they should be treated better than other animals.

> instead you simply attack me as if I'm supposed to convince you that this is not the case simply because you "feel" that it's right.

Oh please. I haven't been emotional even a tiny bit here and I haven't attacked anyone. You feel attacked, but if you re-read this entire conversation what is being attacked is a push to see that there is no absolute moral decision one can make about animal life and food without contradiction on many levels. I happen to pick the dubious morality accepted by the vast vast majority of human society throughout recorded history and I acknowledge that it is flawed, and I have no qualms picking my own species comfort over those lower in the food chain which have been adapted by us for utilitarian purpose.

> Obviously I get the instinct of human exceptionalism, but instinct does not make for good reason.

No, but it doesn't have to, because you can't escape it. It is innate.

Look, I don't agree with industrially processing animal life to be a mass commodity but I can't separate 'killing a whole lot of them at once centrally' with 'killing a few in disparate locations'. But I will defend eating meat against vague philosophical word salads that do nothing but claim the same thing I am but with a different set of qualifications for what is and is not worthy of our empathy for reasons just as dubious as mine. At least I admit it.