For some reason, all my posts seem to be Ethics and Morals issues. Sorry about that.

So my brother attended a colloqium lecture on species-ism, which is basically what it sounds like. The speaker was saying that it's wrong to discriminate animals. And he was, as you could guess, a devout vegan.

I know Athiest Nexus has a lot of strong vegetarians/vegans and a lot of carnivores as well. The reasons for both have been debated often. Species-ism, however, is a completely different genre.

In particular, I wonder how making the decision to be vegan isn't completely species-ist in and of itself. The moral reasoning of many vegetarians and vegans is that we can make a conscious decision not to eat our fellow creatures and live just fine. But humans are animals, and I've heard this argument from meat eaters, but the general defense is that we're smarter, we have more logical and ethical capabilities and therefore we have more responsiblity and more choice. I think that's true, but I think it's also species-ism! If we're saying that we're above eating animals, we're still putting ourselves above the animals, are we not? Again, this isn't really a vegetarian/meaty discussion, I respect both decisions.  But is species-ism something you could get behind? Does it even make sense?

There are the other obvious arguments, such as the fact that you kill animals every day, and the majority of us are species-ist in how we don't care if we step on a bug but we certainly do if we step on a cat. We don't flinch when we kill living bacteria with our hand sanitizer, but when you shoot Bambi's mum we've got a problem. Maybe the whole purpose is to get beyond that, or maybe it's about just doing what you can. I don't know. But I don't really understand it.

Thoughts? Arguments? Rude remarks? Compliments on my adequate grammar?  Does speciesism contradict vegetarianism? Is it a viable idea?

Views: 430

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The steak on my plate lived a comfortable, carefree existence in fields that look like default XP wallpaper. It's life was terminated in a nanosecond by precision high velocity lead without any fear or foreknowledge that it would happen.

My steak had a death more merciful than most humans can ever dream of. Go visit a palliative care ward and talk to some anti-euthanasia loons sometime.

Stop talking gibberish.

No, the steak on your table most likely lived a miserable existence in confined quarters (free range livestock is still the minority practice) and was most likely killed while being hung upside down, feeling frightened and confused in its last moments of life.

Now, if you went and hunted down a wild steer and consumed the entire body and all its parts in some fashion, good. Otherwise, your steak is most likely a product of life-long pain and suffering.

No wonder you never find any steak-eating peaceniks.
"No wonder you never find any steak-eating peaceniks."

How many logical fallacies can you find in this statement?
Audiodef: No, the steak on your table most likely lived a miserable existence in confined quarters

uɐƃoɹƃ ɥɔןǝɟ:I have always consistently stressed that humane farming and slaughter should be the number one issue for any carnivore. I know precisely how my meat is farmed and killed. I urge every carnivore to do the same.

Audiodef: Now, if you went and hunted down a wild steer and consumed the entire body and all its parts in some fashion, good. Otherwise, your steak is most likely a product of life-long pain and suffering.

If causing suffering is immoral, it should not matter what you do with the corpse when the animal is already dead. It should be all about minimizing suffering when the animal is alive and when it was killed, because a dead animal can't suffer.

Audiodef: Now, if you went and hunted down a wild steer and consumed the entire body and all its parts in some fashion, good.

Have you actually ever hunted an animal? It's actually very difficult to hit an animal in such a fashion that it is killed instantly. It is quite common that the animal survives the wound, or that the animal dies a while later, being tormented by pain and fear before that happens.

For instance, the suffering of a steer that was hit in the lungs is not to be trivialized when compared to the suffering of a cow that is being slaughtered in an abattoir.

Can you please explain to me why it is okay to cause suffering to an animal if you use all the parts? Does the economy of not wasting parts of the animal somehow cancel out the moral obligation of not causing suffering to animals?

Where is the consistency in that?
First, he or she is a living being, not a steak. Where do you get the crazy idea that this creature had a swell life? What fantasy lets you think he died painlessly? Cattle can live over twenty years. We let them live a few months in horrifying conditions. (Dairy cattle a few years). Please do some research on factory farming and animal slaughterhouses. Don't pretend your choice does not result in misery and pain. That is dishonest.
We, as the ones who can make moral decisions about how to behave, are responsible for the decisions we make and for the effect they have on others. Controlling the necessary behavior of the other animals is not our duty. I don't understand why the members who do not think we need to consider the ethics of our behavior have chosen this particular thread - ETHICS & MORALS.
"It is "wired" into our evolved emotional set to wish to care for others."
Like our varying degrees of intelligence, maybe the ability to feel compassion is more evolved in some people, than in others. Maybe compassionate, empathetic people do less damage to our planet and have an evolutionary advantage.
"The only thing we get from our compassion for animals is the good feeling we derive. Otherwise, animals are no more than a resource." Maybe acting only to get something is more primitive, and seeing other beings as more than resources is part of our continuing evolution. Surely, despoiling the earth and wiping out our fellow species is not advantageous to the continuation of our species.
Well said.
(To robbrownsyd.)
I think 'll take up hunting again. mmmm, bunnies.
I don't want to be rude, but I see this kind of response an awful lot in these debates - a vegan will make an argument, and in response, instead of a counterargument, an omnivore will promise to go out and be extra carnivorous, even though they wouldn't do it normally, just because the vegan suggested it might be wrong. What's the psychology behind this? I have some ideas, but it's probably best not start with my speculations, lol.
Aaron: I have some ideas, but it's probably best not start with my speculations, lol.

Yes, you've done more than enough as it is.

And I don't want to be rude either, but you make it so fucking hard. You are not making an "argument". Vegans never make "arguments". You clutch at straws to construct something meaningful out of irrelevant flatus. So far, you have made the claim that you have both scientific and philosophical support for your stance (you have neither), and you are now devolving to the point that carnivores have tiny brains incapable of understanding the deepness and complexity of your position and so resort to ridicule. This is also false. For the 3rd time, I deny you even have a reality based position to begin with. You are part of the psychedelic, post-modernist miasma that has completely overwhelmed the non-starving, semi-literate world with gibberish about 'entitlement' to personal opinion and demanding 'equality' for all opinion, no matter how ludicrous. Harlan Ellison says it best -

Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks.

And for all of your gymnastics, you do have nothing, other than your chosen personal belief. You have selected a conclusion and then reverse engineered reality to fit it. This is not science, it is not philosophy. It is religion.

“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” -- Robert Anton Wilson

Your methodology is sickeningly familiar. It is the same as that of the Dworkin school of femi-nutjobs that similarly contort themselves to prove all penetrative sex is rape. It is the quackery that anti-tobacco maniacs are now using to prove 3rd hand smoke is KILLING OUR CHILDREN. It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with emotional attachment to an issue. But it goes beyond mere attachment and becomes an obsessive compulsive disorder that demands, as it's unqualified right, to be above the established conventions of reason - because the cause is it's own god. This is venturing deep into the same territory as conspiracy crackpots.

And as with the Dworkinites, you are also driven primarily by the puritan impulse - that vile little voice buried deep in all of us that has caused more needless misery than any other in history. This is what lies at the very core of the nonsense you are spouting. You, in your own eyes, are pure and good. We, the carniverous, are moral degenerates. Even when you don't say so overtly, it oozes out of every word you utter. You are the same as the sex-hating gender politicians and the booze hating teetotallers that have ranted identical rants on these pages, like Limber Lightfoot who equates drinkers to subhuman maniacs just waiting for a chance to ignite into a postal shooting frenzy. You are a moral fascist that is so convinced about the rightness of his cause that anything that disagrees with it can only be labeled as "evil", and, given limitless power and no consequence for using it, would enforce his idealogy on all he sees.

Here you paint yourself into a corner - human exceptionalism is apparently the reason we kill animals for meat with emotionless and guilt free ease. Yet your "reasoning" (for want of a better term) could not be possible were you not a human exceptionalist yourself. What a pickle. Animals do not concern themselves with these issues. They are above them. And nor do I as I accept I am an animal myself. You are practicing philosophical nihilism - constructing something out of nothing for no good reason other than to restrict others, frown upon them as moral failures, whilst at the same time elevating yourself to a completely fraudulent position of sanctity. Now what does that remind you of ? Dunno, I have my finger on it, just can't quite think of it right now...



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service