Plants

[john9blue]

Yes, scientists because of trust in logic have the higher ability of determining what is and isn't ethical. After all, it was scientists who developed nuclear weapons. It was scientists who developed weaponized bacteria, poison gas, chemical weapons and a whole host of others things that kill people.

And of course, it's all good to use animals as test subjects in the name of science, but God forbid eating animals because they feel pain.

No, I don't think because one calls themselves a scientist gives them any better understanding of ethics. No more than any individual. Hell, farmer Bob probably has a better grasp on right and wrong than the average scientist. IMO.
Science develops things and doesn't really ever consider the ethical ramifications of what is being developed, that's for someone else to figure out, not the scientist.

Mets can be a vegetarian and list off whatever reasons he wants. Those reasons don't even have to make sense. More power to him. He makes his mistake thinking that he somehow has a better grasp and knows what's better for everyone else than they do themselves. His problem is that he can't even begin to consider all that it is that he doesn't know. Which, like pretty much everyone else on the planet, is a whole lot more than he knows. Taking one tiny snippet of information and without even considering anything else thinks he knows the "solution" but doesn't bother to consider the consequences or the trade offs.

It certainly appears as though Mets has decided to be a vegetarian (which is fine for you) for whatever reasons and then cites information that reinforces his decision. You don't need to do that, Mets. Just live your life as you see fit and give the same consideration to everyone else, to live their lives as they see fit.

And if the suffering of others elsewhere disturbs you, then do something about. No one is or should stop you. You can even argue to try and convince others to see your point of view. All that is fine, just don't get a bug up your butt if people roll their eyes at you and say "whatever dude" or just flat out disagree with you. Simply nod your head and go about your business.

And since you are a scientist, then you should be able to see that human beings are designed to consume a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable. If we were designed to be strictly herbivores then our stomachs wouldn't produce HCL (which herbivores do not produce as there is no need) nor would the human pancreas produce such a wide range of enzymes designed to handle both plant and animal material. We do not have multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud. We are clearly designed as omnivores and scientifically, there is no getting around that fact.

Imagine, Mets had you been born an Nunamiut, you wouldn't be a vegetarian that's for sure! Even if you wanted to, because of the inaccessibility of plant foods. Your diet would be 95% or more animal matter because that's all there would be to eat. So, should the Nunamiut get with the times and become vegetarians?
Hahahah!

also, what the f*ck is this post?

do you actually believe this or are you trolling?

[Woodruff]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

I thought it had already been well-established that plants feel pain?

No, it has not been established. There is no conclusive evidence of this in the literature. There are often bunk claims of plants feeling pain, but you won't see such claims coming from respected scientists. Plants do respond in many of the same ways that an animal would when they are being killed. We all have these instinctual biological responses, thanks to the wonders of billions of years of evolution. But when an organism lacks a central nervous system, it can't feel pain in the mind like an animal can.

I think this is more of a definatory/philosophical discussion than anything else, but I'm not sure that last is entirely summative argument. Yes, it's true that it can't feel pain in the mind like an animal for the reason you noted. However, if you look at pain as "a response to physical stress aimed at reducing that stress" (which is really what pain is designed to do, to help us avoid that physical stressor), then plants certainly do have that.

Please don't take this argument as an attack - I don't mean it that way at all.

As an aside, I did not realize you were a vegetarian/vegan (not that it matters).

It does not matter, but yes, I maintain a vegan diet.

I apologize if parts of this thread turn into an anti-vegetarian thing...that definitely wasn't my intent. Regarding veganism, I've always been curious about it as opposed to vegetarianism. Now realize that I'm fairly ignorant of it, so the answers to my questions are probably easily found with the Google Machine. Keep in mind that I'm not particularly interested in converting to it personally, but I am still curious about it.

But do you find that the vegan diet is difficult (not from a taste perspective so much as a monetary and dietary one)?

Am I right in thinking that a vegan doesn't even eat things like eggs?

[Woodruff]

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Ah. Otherwise, y'all couldn't eat. That's really the justification underlying the reasoning here.

There is always going to be a level of "we have to eat to survive", so I don't think it's fair to come down on him because he has selected that as his distinction. Survival does come first, of course.

[Woodruff]

2) I alluded in the other thread to the fact that there is much more human suffering as a result of our wasteful food system, because up to 90% of the food we feed to produce our meat is not returned, pound-for-pound. That food could be sold and consumed by humans directly. Furthermore, livestock production alone is responsible for a staggering 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming and the inefficient food system disproportionately affect the poor in developing nations, as developed nations have enough resources to adapt with less difficulty. What BBS refers to as "human suffering," I can only imagine, as I would not classify the inability of a Westerner to eat a steak to be actual suffering compared to the 1.2 billion humans who survive on the purchasing-power-parity equivalent of less than $1.50 per day. The ivory tower moralizing may work for you, BBS, but there are actual humans out there who would suffer less if we all ate less meat.

I don't plan to stop eating meat myself, but I do agree with all of this.

[Woodruff]

You ignore individual tastes and preferences because obviously you just assume what's best for everyone. People in ivory towers do that, not me.

You don't? Is this a different BBS than the one I've seen in these fora for so long?

[BigBallinStalin]

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?

Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

i don't see why not. but can they feel emotions like loneliness, despair, etc.? those are painful to some extent.

They're as painful as you can imagine them to be.

[BigBallinStalin]

You ignore individual tastes and preferences because obviously you just assume what's best for everyone. People in ivory towers do that, not me.

You don't? Is this a different BBS than the one I've seen in these fora for so long?

I do ignore the tastes and preferences of people similar to Hitler, so you definitely caught me, Woodruff.

Key context here: "Ivory Tower."

[Woodruff]

I am also cognizant of the fact that individual tastes and preferences are often constructed, not inherent. No one living in rural India grows up liking Big Macs or soda, because they don't have them. That "taste" developed in places like China not because these people grew up with a thirst for Coke, but because of an extensive marketing campaign by McDonald's, Coca-Cola, etc., and the desire to emulate the traditions of the more affluent Western cultures.

Interestingly (at least to me), I find that if I can go for a couple of months or so without drinking soda (my cyclical dieting motivation <smile>), I actually don't care for the taste that much. But the more I drink of it, the more I like it. So it's definitely a developed taste. Sort of like alcohol, I suppose, which I have never developed a taste for.

This is also not a serious problem anymore. Go to your local supermarket and you are bound to see all types of delicious meat substitutes. Look for products made by Gardein, Nasoya, Beyond Meat, etc. Try it, I promise it won't kill you

I have thought about it. I've quite honestly figured that because things like this that I've tried in the past have been...well, awful...that these would be too. Not necessarily fair, I know, but I am sort of a "foodie". Do you think it may also be more of an acquired taste to them (and I'm not sure if I'm motivated enough to go through the acquisition of that taste)?

[Woodruff]

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?
Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

Interesting. I'd never heard of this before.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. You failed again to address the fundamental problem with your ethical system (i.e. adjudication, inability to make interpersonal/inter"animal" comparisons of pleasure/pain, etc.). Without being able to do so, you still advocate for that approach. Obviously, it's not just logic guiding you.

I addressed that already in the other thread. We give rights to infants and the severely mentally disabled, even when these beings cannot consent to things or cannot express their opinion. Your response was quite literally confined to this:

Insert concepts of guardianship, ability to exchange, contract law, etc. Problem resolved.

Unless you're willing to do more than say "insert X, I win" to participate in an argument (infants cannot exchange things or engage in contracts, so it's hard to see how these things are relevant), I'm not really going to engage you.

And who gives the rights? Who exercises that authority? And when there's a conflict of interest at play (yourself), then how can you control for your own bias? You can't with utilitarianism, and utilitarianism itself won't resolve issues of ownership or politics.

Simply saying, "well babies have guardianship" doesn't resolve the faults. This goes back to my criticism of you fitting words into other beings' mouths. There's no control for your own feelings in the matter, and even with utilitarianism, one can choose the humans over certain animals anyway.

Guardianship/stewardship for animals works---only if the property rights are delineated. By rights, I'm talking about the formal and informal rules which grant one the ability to make decisions for others (e.g. children, or pets). We already have this with some animals and children, and it's not grounded in some moral framework, which isn't necessary. What is necessary are the rights bestowed through the institution of guardianship.

The problem is what to do with the animals outside of ownership, and your ethical system doesn't address this matter--nor can it resolve it (unless of course we do something arbitrary, e.g. you just say, "well, we do X for all animals because... I somehow know so because my particular interpretation of ethical system X says so.").

One way of overcoming this problem is by delineating ownership, but that won't achieve what you specifically want, which you define as what's best for all animals (not for others, but you and your vegan group's worldview). Another outcome is that cows become slaughtered because they are owned. From a utilitarian perspective, even that is justifiable.

Furthermore, you even failed to address this fundamental flaw earlier, and the guardianship argument doesn't settle it:

One must adjudicate between relative pains and pleasures of various parties (e.g. my shooting someone who is trying to kill me). We can either choose self-defense or total pacificism. Either is fine with your system of ethics, which can't reveal to us how to make the proper comparison. Now, apply that problem to a group of living creatures---nearly all of which do not understand your language and are not capable of sufficiently understanding, and then the system of ethics becomes useless/dysfunctional, so fill in the gaps with what you want the animals to say and do, and enjoy your self-serving ethical system.

The fact that this is a non-trivial problem doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to solve it. We can draw many conclusions by analogy, and by studying the biological nature of non-human animals, we can learn about what happens in those animals in response to certain stimuli. Suggesting that we cannot do this implies a collective understanding of science that dates back roughly to the time of Aristotle. We've moved on.

You still can't reveal the correct choice in matters involving pain and pleasure between two parties in particular (perhaps, all) circumstances. That's especially difficult when the other party can't use the human language and when its many "interpreters" fit their own words into their mouths. You presume to know what's best in these matters without even demonstrating that you possess a solid foundation for the means of your adjudication.

That's like me saying, I know what's best for everyone, but I have no standard for determining this--other than I want to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, and that somehow I know the interests of those who I represent (animals).
"Well, how do you make interpersonal comparisons of those feelings? How do you measure it? And how do you know that your interpretation of the animals' interests is correct--while all other animal interpreters' are false?"

I have no idea, but we'll keep trying, and my ethical system is correct.

That's nonsensical. Until that fundamental problem is resolved, then you shouldn't be pushing your ethical system onto others--because it's dysfunctional at the moment. I'd be glad if you only attempted to resolve such a problem, but you don't, and that is troubling because without the science/objectivity you still advocate for this approach. What kind of scientist does that?

There's no need to address the secondary issues if the fundamental problem can't be resolved.

[patches70]

@ patches: Mets didn't say that scientists as a rule have a better understanding of ethics, he provided his stance on the topic in regard to his personal ethical system with explanation. Incidentally, the thread is speaking for itself as to which individuals have the better understanding.

Here's what mets actually wrote:

I didn't construct the ethical system to match my preconceived ethical beliefs; I'm a scientist, that's not what we do.

Whoa there. Mets says it's better for everyone if everyone is a vegan. BBS calls this out as just a matter of preference as opposed to ethical and it's a bunk ethical system. Mets counters that it has nothing to do with personal preference because he's a scientist and his point of view is based on pure logic which leads him to a natural code of ethics. See, here is the rest that you left out-

I found an ethical system that I think is logically sensible, and I obey what conclusions come from it

Mets is the one who said that because he is a scientist things like personal preference don't have any affect on his decisions, which is BS right from the go. Mets is a vegan because he's gotta eat which is all the justification one needs.

There is nothing wrong with Mets being a vegan. He can choose as he wishes. But he goes on to say the rest of us, the collective, should abide by his code. Because it's only logical supposedly. And how much better off the world would be and for that he cites something or other about the inefficiency of meat production. That's all fine and dandy, but he thinks "we" should give "our" food away.

I am concerned with people living in absolute poverty in developed nations. Many hundreds of millions of these people are malnourished or simply go hungry. Instead of selling our food crops to developed nations, or even giving it away (we really ought to if there's no way to engage in markets with these people -- try living on $1.50 per day for even a week, and I hope you'll agree that the desire to have enough to eat every day is pretty universal), we waste most of it in raising of animals.

So since those who are suffering is because we waste our crops on feeding animals for later consumption and because they have no money, then we should be giving away our crops. Don't sell to developed nations, sell to the poor nations and if they can't afford it then give it away.

That's a nice fantasy, but that's what it is. A fantasy. Why would a farmer go to the expense of purchasing seed, working the land, tending the crops, just to give them all away? There is a cost, someone has to pay it. Mets is happy to advocate giving it away but he's not the one growing those crops, is he?

It's true enough I suppose that there are plenty of people starving because they can't afford to buy the food. But the reason they can't buy the food isn't simply because we waste all our crops on feeding animals. If that were the case Mets should definitely be against things like converting corn to ethanol. (He might be, I don't know).
If he's against eating animals because animals feel pain, he should be against animal testing in the name of science as well. (He might be, I don't know).
But that suffering isn't cause exclusively because people eat meat. Turning everyone into vegans isn't going to magically give people who have no money the ability to suddenly purchase food. There is a long list of reasons why, reasons that Mets ignores.

But the excuse that he is a scientist and as such doesn't or can't base his ethical code on personal preference is simply not true or logical.
Logically, human beings are omnivores. That's science. As omnivores it makes logical sense that we'd eat animals. Those who choose as matter of preference to be vegans is fine as well.

Utilitarianism or his "preference utilitarianism" doesn't make much sense internally when we have to adjudicate between other people's and animal's interests. It just falls apart because it's incapable of revealing such answers, so Mets will substitute the requisite objective arbitration with what he feels and thinks about warm, fuzzy animals and pretty fish. It's a bunk ethical system, but it's prevails because it fits ideal worldview of how the world should be--regardless of the shortfalls, nonsense, and consequences of his ethical system

So forgive me if I am skeptical that Mets position just happens to fit into his own personal world view even though that world does not exist.
There is nothing wrong with Mets saying he wants to be a vegan because he does not want to contribute to the suffering of animals. Logic has nothing to do with that at all. Since logically, I can easily envision that though he does not consume animals, he still uses plenty of products that are produced using animal by products from animals that were definitely harmed. But he has no choice in that matter because no alternatives exist.

[john9blue]

"utilitarianism is wrong because it's too hard for our brains to comprehend" is a fucking stupid reason to dislike it

sorry that morality doesn't come in a nice, easy to understand, gift-wrapped package.

[patches70]

"utilitarianism is wrong because it's too hard for our brains to comprehend" is a fucking stupid reason to dislike it

Not sure where that's coming from.

sorry that morality doesn't come in a nice, easy to understand, gift-wrapped package.

Morality doesn't? If simple logic can determine morality as Mets seems to believe, then apparently it is in a nice easy to understand packaged. Gift wrapping optional.

If people want to eat meat, the only justification they need is "I gotta eat".
If people don't want to eat meat and eat only plant material, the only justification they need is "I gotta eat".

Seems pretty simple.

[john9blue]

it was directed at BBS for the most part.

you just suffer from a short-sighted understanding of utilitarianism (for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

[patches70]

you just suffer from a short-sighted understanding of utilitarianism (for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

Oh sure, I'm not against animal testing. It can increase knowledge that can be used to benefit human beings. Hell, if I'm happy enough to eat animals why would I care if they are used as test subjects? I wouldn't eat the test subjects though.....

You know what else benefits human beings and increases happiness? Eating a steak and not starving to death. And anything can be justified. Even horrible abuses, the recent NSA spying on innocent Americans a case in point. But there are far worse examples throughout history.

I never called mets thinking utilitarianism nor mentioned utilitarianism, but it certain appears that Mets is advocating a specific ethical code and claims specific benefits that he cannot be sure will even come to fruition if everyone acted upon that ethical code.
He just doesn't have all the information. Which I believe is one of the shortcomings of utilitarianism, a lack of being able to predict the unintended consequences of certain actions.

[Metsfanmax]

There is nothing wrong with Mets being a vegan. He can choose as he wishes. But he goes on to say the rest of us, the collective, should abide by his code. Because it's only logical supposedly. And how much better off the world would be and for that he cites something or other about the inefficiency of meat production.

Well, I won't deny that the purpose of having ethical beliefs is that you would prefer other people to act in accordance with those beliefs. I think the world would be a better place if people ate less meat and less dairy. I do not know why you would directly attack me simply for having such a preference.

That's all fine and dandy, but he thinks "we" should give "our" food away.

So since those who are suffering is because we waste our crops on feeding animals for later consumption and because they have no money, then we should be giving away our crops. Don't sell to developed nations, sell to the poor nations and if they can't afford it then give it away.

That's a nice fantasy, but that's what it is. A fantasy. Why would a farmer go to the expense of purchasing seed, working the land, tending the crops, just to give them all away? There is a cost, someone has to pay it. Mets is happy to advocate giving it away but he's not the one growing those crops, is he?

I argue that the farmer is going to the expense of purchasing seed, working the land, and tending the crops, just to waste it on an unnecessary process. The farmer could do more good for the world by selling those crops to be eaten directly, rather than eaten by livestock on factory farms.

It's true enough I suppose that there are plenty of people starving because they can't afford to buy the food. But the reason they can't buy the food isn't simply because we waste all our crops on feeding animals. If that were the case Mets should definitely be against things like converting corn to ethanol. (He might be, I don't know).

I am against putting corn-based products in our fuel. It is quite unfortunate.

And, I agree that the issue is hardly as simple as "stop feeding the animals, and the poor people get the food." We would still need to figure out just how to make that transfer work, in an efficient manner. But I don't doubt that the transfer can occur, at least in principle. People gotta eat, as you say.

If he's against eating animals because animals feel pain, he should be against animal testing in the name of science as well. (He might be, I don't know).

I am against animal testing in science, except in cases where it can be proven conclusively that this testing would be of specific benefit to a much greater number in another species. This is difficult to do, but I think there are some cases where it can be justified. My rule of thumb is, if you wouldn't conduct the test on a severely mentally disabled human, you should be very wary of conducting the same test on an animal that could well be equally or more intelligent.

But that suffering isn't cause exclusively because people eat meat. Turning everyone into vegans isn't going to magically give people who have no money the ability to suddenly purchase food. There is a long list of reasons why, reasons that Mets ignores.

I don't ignore them, so much as to say that we need to agree on the broad strokes before we can get into the details. We would have more food if we stopped eating meat, all other things being equal. There are many people that need more food. The food won't magically get to them, but the food is definitely not getting to them now.

There is nothing wrong with Mets saying he wants to be a vegan because he does not want to contribute to the suffering of animals. Logic has nothing to do with that at all. Since logically, I can easily envision that though he does not consume animals, he still uses plenty of products that are produced using animal by products from animals that were definitely harmed. But he has no choice in that matter because no alternatives exist.

I do my best to avoid products where animals were harmed, and I am careful not to purchase products that contain animal by-products. It is true that it is nearly impossible to avoid some instances of harm to non-human animals when you participate in the market (for example, animals are inevitably harmed whenever we have large-scale farming). My goal is to minimize the amount of harm that I inflict on others. Completely giving up on that goal because I can't zero it out, is not what I am about. We humans can't be perfect -- we just do the best we can with the information and resources we have available to us.

If people want to eat meat, the only justification they need is "I gotta eat".
If people don't want to eat meat and eat only plant material, the only justification they need is "I gotta eat".

Seems pretty simple.

I don't have a strong objection to people who consume animal flesh because it is their only method of survival. I do find it unfortunate that in a land with plentiful resources such as the United States, where everyone could easily consume a plant-based diet without ever going hungry, we consistently choose the more inefficient and harmful product. That's all there is to it.

[tzor]

Oh sure, I'm not against animal testing.

I'm against animal testing; especially when you make them fill in those computer forms with pencils. For any animal without an opposable thumbs, that's cruel!

[Metsfanmax]

No, it has not been established. There is no conclusive evidence of this in the literature. There are often bunk claims of plants feeling pain, but you won't see such claims coming from respected scientists. Plants do respond in many of the same ways that an animal would when they are being killed. We all have these instinctual biological responses, thanks to the wonders of billions of years of evolution. But when an organism lacks a central nervous system, it can't feel pain in the mind like an animal can.

I think this is more of a definatory/philosophical discussion than anything else, but I'm not sure that last is entirely summative argument. Yes, it's true that it can't feel pain in the mind like an animal for the reason you noted. However, if you look at pain as "a response to physical stress aimed at reducing that stress" (which is really what pain is designed to do, to help us avoid that physical stressor), then plants certainly do have that.

Please don't take this argument as an attack - I don't mean it that way at all.

The important difference between plants and most animals is that there is a psychological element to pain, in the latter. If you define pain as simply an instinctive biological response to a stress, then almost all organisms feel pain. But there's an additional element of psychological distress when an organism has a central nervous system. When you are hurt, you don't just instinctively move your body. You also feel something in the mind, and it is that feeling that we all dread. Animals are capable of that too, to varying extents, and that is what I refer to.

It does not matter, but yes, I maintain a vegan diet.

I apologize if parts of this thread turn into an anti-vegetarian thing...that definitely wasn't my intent. Regarding veganism, I've always been curious about it as opposed to vegetarianism. Now realize that I'm fairly ignorant of it, so the answers to my questions are probably easily found with the Google Machine. Keep in mind that I'm not particularly interested in converting to it personally, but I am still curious about it.

Not a problem. I am happy to talk about my veganism, and to tell people about how it's not that hard. I just didn't want to derail the thread, if you still wanted to talk about the science.

But do you find that the vegan diet is difficult (not from a taste perspective so much as a monetary and dietary one)?

I will answer this, and the foodie comment. Maybe 15-20 years ago, being vegan was difficult. The meat substitutes that existed weren't that good, because there wasn't a large market base. Nowadays, the meat substitutes are really something else. Next time you're in a supermarket, look for Beyond Meat vegan chicken (I've found that at Whole Foods), and Gardein meat substitutes (I've found that at many of the food-based supermarkets). Give them a fair try and let me know what you think. Many of them don't necessarily have the same texture or taste as its analog, but they really have gotten the food products much better. Beyond Meat fooled Mark Bittman in a blind taste test

Monetary: If you compare a healthy vegan diet and a healthy omnivorous diet (with the caveat that the latter is really only healthy if you consume relatively small amounts of animal proteins), there's not a substantial difference either way, in my experience. But see below.

Dietary: I was a vegetarian for over 10 years, and cheese (pizza, pasta) was one of the last things I had a difficult time giving up. But there are now wonderful cheese alternatives on the market. Daiya shredded cheese really turned the market around for this -- it looks, tastes and melts like mozzarella. Follow Your Heart brand cheese is also pretty good, if you can find that one. And since then, I've found that just by eating cheese, you crave it less (cheese is naturally addictive because of its casein). If you buy lots of these processed foods, then yes, your food bill will add up. But they're useful transition foods. I've stopped buying them as much lately, just because I don't feel like I need them. I am satisfied by eating a more raw and wholesome diet. I feel full on less food. I've lost 50 pounds or so in the year that I've been vegan.

Am I right in thinking that a vegan doesn't even eat things like eggs?

That is correct. We do not consume eggs, dairy, or meat products.

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?

Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

I won't comment on whether I am in favor of it -- there's too many complications (see, e.g., the Matrix). As I mentioned above, it is not just physical distress that is the issue here. It is also psychological distress. It would be quite hard to engineer an animal that did not feel that, and I'm not too interested in the fringe cases. There is a substantial amount of suffering going on now, and that's what I am mainly interested in. I can say that I am in favor of producing vat meat on an economical scale.

And who gives the rights? Who exercises that authority? And when there's a conflict of interest at play (yourself), then how can you control for your own bias? You can't with utilitarianism, and utilitarianism itself won't resolve issues of ownership or politics.

Simply saying, "well babies have guardianship" doesn't resolve the faults. This goes back to my criticism of you fitting words into other beings' mouths. There's no control for your own feelings in the matter, and even with utilitarianism, one can choose the humans over certain animals anyway.

Guardianship/stewardship for animals works---only if the property rights are delineated. By rights, I'm talking about the formal and informal rules which grant one the ability to make decisions for others (e.g. children, or pets). We already have this with some animals and children, and it's not grounded in some moral framework, which isn't necessary. What is necessary are the rights bestowed through the institution of guardianship.

The problem is what to do with the animals outside of ownership, and your ethical system doesn't address this matter--nor can it resolve it (unless of course we do something arbitrary, e.g. you just say, "well, we do X for all animals because... I somehow know so because my particular interpretation of ethical system X says so.").

One way of overcoming this problem is by delineating ownership, but that won't achieve what you specifically want, which you define as what's best for all animals (not for others, but you and your vegan group's worldview). Another outcome is that cows become slaughtered because they are owned. From a utilitarian perspective, even that is justifiable.

We're putting the cart before the horse here. There is a more fundamental issue to discuss before we even get to utilitarianism. I am making a much more basic point. Most of us feel that infants ought to be given some basic protections, despite not being able to communicate or consent. So I ask, in what way can we defend the stripping of these rights from non-human animals, many of whom are identical in morally meaningful ways, and may be significantly more intelligent anyway? I see it as an arbitrary distinction. The pertinent issue here is, how can you logically justify this hypocritical stance? We can get to what more complete system we should be obeying later. For now I'm just saying that intuitively, most of us believe in rights for some who aren't as intelligent as adult humans, so why are we keeping that only within our species?

[patches70]

Well, I won't deny that the purpose of having ethical beliefs is that you would prefer other people to act in accordance with those beliefs. I think the world would be a better place if people ate less meat and less dairy. I do not know why you would directly attack me simply for having such a preference.

I didn't attack your ethical beliefs. I just don't believe your ethical beliefs are based purely on logic and not your personal preferences.

I argue that the farmer is going to the expense of purchasing seed, working the land, and tending the crops, just to waste it on an unnecessary process. The farmer could do more good for the world by selling those crops to be eaten directly, rather than eaten by livestock on factory farms.

The problem, Mets, is that the farmer isn't going to the expense for the hell of it. He has a goal. He wants to make a living. So he grows food and sells it. He can't give it away or he won't be able to pay his mortgage, take care of his family and all those other things.
If we eliminated the need for feed to animals, we wouldn't have all that extra food to be used to feed people, all that extra food wouldn't be grown because there is no incentive.

I am against putting corn-based products in our fuel. It is quite unfortunate.

That was a really, really bad idea and people tried to tell everyone that it wasn't a good idea. But we went along with subsidizing and pushing that because we wanted to combat global warming and didn't consider the unintended consequences. Now food is diverted to ethanol instead of being sold to people to eat because the people producing the corn get a better price selling it for biofuel. Which simply raises the price for that food to be consumed for people.

And, I agree that the issue is hardly as simple as "stop feeding the animals, and the poor people get the food." We would still need to figure out just how to make that transfer work, in an efficient manner. But I don't doubt that the transfer can occur, at least in principle. People gotta eat, as you say.

Food spoils. Transportation costs are high. Storage is costly. The best way is to make sure enough food is grown or produced locally. And again, there is incentive. The feeding of people is the by product, the reason people produce the food for sale is to make a profit so that they can afford just regular old stuff, like a house, education. It's a whole economic system that has to be considered. Charity if fine and dandy, but that charity has a cost. And someone has to pay that cost.

I am against animal testing in science, except in cases where it can be proven conclusively that this testing would be of specific benefit to a much greater number in another species. This is difficult to do, but I think there are some cases where it can be justified.

I'm kind of against animal testing for cosmetics. Animal testing for science, meh, whatever the scientists think they need. But no matter how much testing is done on animals, the product still has to be tested on people eventually. Probably best to figure out if it will kill us right from the get go by testing on animals at first, but there is only so much that can be determined from animal testing. The real tests always come from human trials. As I'm sure you are aware.

I don't ignore them, so much as to say that we need to agree on the broad strokes before we can get into the details. We would have more food if we stopped eating meat, all other things being equal.

See, this is where you start to get into trouble, IMO. All other things aren't equal. Never have been, never will be. If we don't need feed grains for livestock, then far less feed grains will be produced. It really comes down to money. Take yourself for instance, imagine you are poor and have no money. You want someone to feed you, but would you expect that someone should go to the expense to feed you and you offer absolutely nothing in return? For my part if I had no money, I'd at least offer some service of benefit to the person who went to the expense of feeding me.

One meal, no big deal. Feeding me for days, weeks, months, years, would it be fair for me to expect that and offer nothing in return? I should pay, if not with money then with something else of value, like my time and talents.

And that is how it is, the brutal truth of the world, nothing is free nor should it be. The people who produce the food deserve compensation. Without that compensation the people lose the ability to produce the food, as well as the incentive.

That's why if you don't need the food to feed the livestock, then that food won't be extra, it simply will not exist as there is no point growing it.

I do my best to avoid products where animals were harmed, and I am careful not to purchase products that contain animal by-products. It is true that it is nearly impossible to avoid some instances of harm to non-human animals when you participate in the market (for example, animals are inevitably harmed whenever we have large-scale farming). My goal is to minimize the amount of harm that I inflict on others. Completely giving up on that goal because I can't zero it out, is not what I am about. We humans can't be perfect -- we just do the best we can with the information and resources we have available to us.

I don't blame you or hold that against you at all. You do what you can and harsh realities sometimes conflict with or ethical beliefs. That's life. It's nothing to lose sleep over, IMO.

I don't have a strong objection to people who consume animal flesh because it is their only method of survival. I do find it unfortunate that in a land with plentiful resources such as the United States, where everyone could easily consume a plant-based diet without ever going hungry, we consistently choose the more inefficient and harmful product. That's all there is to it.

That's fine, just so long as you don't go trying to force other people or even try to convince the State to force other people. You live your life as you wish to live it, let others live their lives as they wish. That leads to far less conflict in life when people stay out of each other's gardens.

Hell, a person could survive just fine eating raman noodles everyday of their lives and the expense would be tiny. but that ain't really living, is it? Just because you won't enjoy a tasty steak doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to (especially if they pay for it, any inefficiencies are certainly priced into the product).

But mets, there are certain economic realities that I don't think you consider or really understand. That's not me bashing you, that's just how I see it. I don't know shit about outer space and it doesn't bother me, but I do know a little bit about economics. We all have our areas of experience. That's why one must be careful trying to advocate "solutions" for problems that they don't know all there is to know about that problem. It leads to unintended and often dire consequences.

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't attack your ethical beliefs. I just don't believe your ethical beliefs are based purely on logic and not your personal preferences.

They're based as much on logic as I think they can be -- I am an intensely rational person, and I do the best I can to make my decisions be in line with that. I am not vegan because of a bleeding heart; I am vegan because I know in my head that it's wrong to inflict substantial pain on others without commensurate benefit.

I argue that the farmer is going to the expense of purchasing seed, working the land, and tending the crops, just to waste it on an unnecessary process. The farmer could do more good for the world by selling those crops to be eaten directly, rather than eaten by livestock on factory farms.

The problem, Mets, is that the farmer isn't going to the expense for the hell of it. He has a goal. He wants to make a living. So he grows food and sells it. He can't give it away or he won't be able to pay his mortgage, take care of his family and all those other things.
If we eliminated the need for feed to animals, we wouldn't have all that extra food to be used to feed people, all that extra food wouldn't be grown because there is no incentive.

The logic here is almost Soviet style. "What does it matter if we're wasting lots of food -- we need to give people things to do!" People will recover. They'll produce new products. People won't stop eating food, and people in other nations need more food. The world moves on, and people adapt or they lose out -- that's capitalism.

And, I agree that the issue is hardly as simple as "stop feeding the animals, and the poor people get the food." We would still need to figure out just how to make that transfer work, in an efficient manner. But I don't doubt that the transfer can occur, at least in principle. People gotta eat, as you say.

Food spoils. Transportation costs are high. Storage is costly. The best way is to make sure enough food is grown or produced locally. And again, there is incentive. The feeding of people is the by product, the reason people produce the food for sale is to make a profit so that they can afford just regular old stuff, like a house, education. It's a whole economic system that has to be considered. Charity if fine and dandy, but that charity has a cost. And someone has to pay that cost.

We should all be paying that cost. People are suffering in developed nations, and we can help them if we choose. We are significantly wealthier than they are, and we can significantly raise their standards of living without decreasing ours by too much. This is one of the ways that we can help them, but not the only way. Recall also that it's not just food that is the issue here. There's also, for example, global warming, which will disproportionately affect people in developing nations. I recommend the movie The Island President if you'd like to learn more about that.

I don't ignore them, so much as to say that we need to agree on the broad strokes before we can get into the details. We would have more food if we stopped eating meat, all other things being equal.

See, this is where you start to get into trouble, IMO. All other things aren't equal. Never have been, never will be. If we don't need feed grains for livestock, then far less feed grains will be produced. It really comes down to money. Take yourself for instance, imagine you are poor and have no money. You want someone to feed you, but would you expect that someone should go to the expense to feed you and you offer absolutely nothing in return?

Yes. That is part of my ethical system. If we can help people without sacrificing anything of comparable nature, we should do it, even without expecting compensation. Most of us (all of us?) would jump into a pond to save a drowning toddler, even if it meant ruining a brand new pair of shoes. I don't see this as morally different.

And that is how it is, the brutal truth of the world, nothing is free nor should it be. The people who produce the food deserve compensation. Without that compensation the people lose the ability to produce the food, as well as the incentive.

In an ideal world, perhaps. We don't live in that ideal world. There is suffering now, and we should address it.

But mets, there are certain economic realities that I don't think you consider or really understand. That's not me bashing you, that's just how I see it. I don't know shit about outer space and it doesn't bother me, but I do know a little bit about economics. We all have our areas of experience. That's why one must be careful trying to advocate "solutions" for problems that they don't know all there is to know about that problem. It leads to unintended and often dire consequences.

The economic benefits of less meat-eating have been well established by people much more knowledgeable than myself about the issue, so calling me out on it may not be the best way to understand the issue. But anyway, I want to point out that it's not my main motivation. I have an ethical system that suggests that I should try to do less harm to other beings.

[BigBallinStalin]

"utilitarianism is wrong because it's too hard for our brains to comprehend" is a fucking stupid reason to dislike it

sorry that morality doesn't come in a nice, easy to understand, gift-wrapped package.

It's not that it's too difficult to comprehend. Utilitarianism does not and cannot provide what Mets wants it to provide. Why?

It's incapable of providing a means for adjudicating manners in a fashion which is conducive to some clear, logical procedure. For example, others can use preference utilitarianism and come to the opposite conclusion of the same situation, hence my scenario about self-defense or total pacifism. In other words, the world is messy, but utilitarianism--as used by Mets--overlooks that. He simply pushes for an approach which ultimately is not usable (except for promoting one's emotionally held worldview--e.g. veganism). If one is a "scientist," and uses his "science" without a scientific method, then we don't call that person a scientist. It's the same with Mets and his ethical system.

Moral decisions are context-specific, and all that can be provided are a set of guidelines--each of which has limited impact or scope in dealing with everyday problems.* However, those overarching plans for morality/ethics (e.g. Mets' interpretation of utilitarianism, Marxism, Natural Rights libertarianism) are ridiculous because they forget about the circumstances of time and place, and they ignore the lack of soundness for their premises. It's like Rousseau and the French Revolution ("Oops, we forgot that our assumptions about human behavior were guided by our own interpretations of human behavior"). They didn't control for their own bias, which Mets' system fails to do. ("Gee, everyone just needs to be a vegetarian, and it all works out." = "Gee, everyone just needs to be a communist, and it all works out"). That's a useless approach.

*My favorites are Aristotelian virtue ethics and Nietzsche's Übermensch.

[BigBallinStalin]

it was directed at BBS for the most part.

you just suffer from a short-sighted understanding of utilitarianism (for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

You don't need a highly developed ethical doctrine to tell you that. In comparison, Mets is going through leaps and bounds to justify some nonexistent guardianship over specific kinds of living creatures. There's a significant difference in the two forms of utilitarianism at play here.

Also, if you applied utilitarianism as consistently as Mets, then you couldn't come to the conclusion in your example. You have to consider the interests of the millions of animals as well--the test subjects and their furry families, john! Yet, you concluded in favor of humans. Why's that? Upon what is your valuation of humans and animals grounded?

[BigBallinStalin]

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?

Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

I won't comment on whether I am in favor of it -- there's too many complications (see, e.g., the Matrix). As I mentioned above, it is not just physical distress that is the issue here. It is also psychological distress. It would be quite hard to engineer an animal that did not feel that, and I'm not too interested in the fringe cases. There is a substantial amount of suffering going on now, and that's what I am mainly interested in. I can say that I am in favor of producing vat meat on an economical scale.

That's a good response, but if we want an ethical system which is consistent, then what? You'd be in favor of genetically modified animals which feel no pain at all, correct?

Zero pain which would be offset by some pleasure ("om nom nom" all day).

[Woodruff]

(for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

I'm not against animal testing in SOME instances. I do have a problem with using animals to test things like makeup and shit like that, though. For me, it's very dependent on the potential benefit, and I don't really weigh "happiness" in with that benefit.

[Woodruff]

No, it has not been established. There is no conclusive evidence of this in the literature. There are often bunk claims of plants feeling pain, but you won't see such claims coming from respected scientists. Plants do respond in many of the same ways that an animal would when they are being killed. We all have these instinctual biological responses, thanks to the wonders of billions of years of evolution. But when an organism lacks a central nervous system, it can't feel pain in the mind like an animal can.

I think this is more of a definatory/philosophical discussion than anything else, but I'm not sure that last is entirely summative argument. Yes, it's true that it can't feel pain in the mind like an animal for the reason you noted. However, if you look at pain as "a response to physical stress aimed at reducing that stress" (which is really what pain is designed to do, to help us avoid that physical stressor), then plants certainly do have that.
Please don't take this argument as an attack - I don't mean it that way at all.

The important difference between plants and most animals is that there is a psychological element to pain, in the latter. If you define pain as simply an instinctive biological response to a stress, then almost all organisms feel pain. But there's an additional element of psychological distress when an organism has a central nervous system. When you are hurt, you don't just instinctively move your body. You also feel something in the mind, and it is that feeling that we all dread. Animals are capable of that too, to varying extents, and that is what I refer to.

Sure, that makes sense to me. I don't think that makes it a complete description, but I would certainly agree that it is a valuable distinction.

Dietary: I was a vegetarian for over 10 years, and cheese (pizza, pasta) was one of the last things I had a difficult time giving up.

Oh...cheese! Of all the things, cheese would be VERY difficult for me. Cheese pretty much goes with everything, in my mind. I could eat cardboard covered in cheese (and I do...pizza!).

If you buy lots of these processed foods, then yes, your food bill will add up.

Oh, that brings up a good question. Granting that my current diet is NOT particularly healthy (yes, I realize it, but I'm a selfish little foodie and if I live five years less but I'm happier with my food...), but are the meat and cheese substitutes healthier from a sodium perspective (I know they're healthier overall, or at least the meat substitutes certainly are)?

I do actually like most raw vegetables (and don't care for many that are cooked, other than corn and peas). Raw vegetables are my snack food, and especially when I'm in my diet phase.

I've lost 50 pounds or so in the year that I've been vegan.

That's great. Seriously. That alone is a huge health benefit.