babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Actually, I'm not sure of that. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I've read quite a bit about ethics, and, when it comes to the subject of animals, I haven't yet found an ethical framework as consistent and comprehensive as Singer's.
And, yes, Singer is an atheist, and a much better one than people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.
Yes, there was a companion comment that was equally vile -- I totally agree with you there -- but that does not absolve Singer of his opinion, either. It often seems to me that people cherry-pick Singer's quotes in terms of support for animal rights while ignoring the totality of what he's saying.
I also want to make clear that I support animal rights to the extent that they should not suffer unduly. My life is partly ruled by the menagerie in my household -- 3 cats and two dogs, and I have a lifelong love of animals. I do my level best to source locally and humanely raised animals when I buy meat. The extremes seem to me to go past the point I think is reasonable. I sometimes find myself at odds with other pet owners who will take extreme measures to keep a pet going, for example. I've often thought that the steer in my freezer had a better life being raised on grass on the prairie than the arthritic one-eyed sheltie a friend pumped meds into to stave off the ever-present pain for years longer than she should have.
I suppose it's all in the perspective, but I have a hunch Singer wouldn't disagree with me all that vehemently.
Now, as for sex with animals that doesn't cause them suffering (which, remember, is a small subset of acts of bestiality, the majority of which undoubtedly cause animal suffering), I honestly believe that this is a rather trivial ethical issue when compared with the issue of eating animals. It's that whole major interest/minor interest thing again.
As for our evolution as omnivores, it seems rather obvious that although we can eat meat, the very fact that we're omnivores means that we don't need to eat meat. Indeed, we can be very healthy without it, especially given the number of meat-related diseases out there and the ecological damage being done to our planet by meat-eating.
Besides, we also evolved as animals prone to rape, murder, slavery, and all sorts of other cruelties that are considered ethically deplorable, regardless of how profitable these acts often are for the people committing them. A tyrant can become very "healthy" by exploiting the bodies and labour of other human beings, which is likely why sociopathy has never been weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection. Parts of our evolutionary heritage...like sociopathy and our capacity for ethical reasoning...are in conflict with one another, which is only to be expected, given the randomness and complexity of the process. I believe that meat-eating and our capacity for ethical reasoning are also in conflict with one another.
The reviewer concludes:
Sounds right to me.
Not the case for people with Downs, unless it is only one of many factors.
I'm not actually opposed to all eugenics - prenatal and even pre-conception testing for genetic diseases can be a great boon. And no, I would not condemn a mother for aborting a foetus carrying Downs, Spina Bifida etc.
But people born with such conditions should receive good care and education.
I wouldn't discriminate against a vegan or vegetarian. Mind you, I also wouldn't be shy about explaining why I'm an omnivor.
There is no doubt that most meat animals are raised in what humans consider to be appalling conditions. But I'm afraid that animals must be included in any sustainable food system, in some capacity. I don't know of a biodynamic, organic, or eco-farmer who doesn't raise\use animals. The oft repeated phrase that meat is bad for the environment has now become ingrained. The meat really itself isn't the problem - it's the manner in which the animals are raised which has led to critics to that conclusion.
People whose personal philosophies contradict the food chain might consider that there's no morality in nature; just eat or be eaten.
Also, I should add that mt belief system certainly does see morality in nature.
[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
What you've written above is an exhibit of cherry-picking. And again, if you've read Animal Liberation, you should also understand that Singer didn't actually say "don't eat meat". So you are, in fact, cherry-picking what suits your own viewpoint and ignoring the rest as "trivial".
Farmpunk has already mentioned that there is a flaw in the "meat is bad for the environment argument". It's definitely flawed. Feed lots and large industrial meat production is not environmentally sound, however you don't leave room for other sustainable options. You've framed it as an either/or, binary, black vs white sort of thing and it isn't. For example, I buy meat from local producers (less fuel in shipping) who run smaller operations and raise their meat naturally and in humane conditions.
And for all those vegetarians who like their organic produce, what do you suppose organic growers use to fertilize their fields? Cowshit, last I heard, does not grow on trees. Mixed farming is the most sustainable, not strict vegetable or grain farming. If we want to talk about ecological damage, farming the prairies has been far more destructive than letting it go back to grassland and raising cattle on it would be.
Now, as to health, yes, we can survive on limited diets, but optimal health is achieved by a varied diet. All traditional diets, whether they include meat or not, include some form of animal product. I will agree that the standard North American diet is too meat-heavy, but leaving out some meat can cause some people to have health problems. I do know from personal experience that my endurance and general energy levels are much better when I include meat in my diet. And there is a reason that vegan diets are not generally recommended for children. Most meat-related diseases are related to surfeit rather than moderate consumption, not that meat is consumed AT ALL. Just because fruitarians tend to have wretched states of health is no reason to give up fruit altogether -- if we are to apply your reasoning in another direction.
Sure, the logic stands up if you accept the premise. However, I don't think you can equate the financial well-being of a tyrant with the function of the human body. Very different basis. And in choosing your analogies, you're painting with some pretty broad strokes, here, not all of which I think would stand up to closer scrutiny. I disagree with the fact that meat-eating and ethics are somehow mutually exclusive -- as I've written above, we can make choices that minimize cruelty and suffering, choices that most certainly involve ethical reasoning.
But that's just the point of view of a tyrant and sociopath... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
People have been discussing animal rights. This is a pretty basic kind of question in that context. A person with an opinion in this area should be able to provide some kind of coherent answer.
[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Singer would say it is, in fact, as morally justifiable.
Yes, your statement is deliberately provocative -- practically trolling. I suppose your point is that pigs have thoughts and feelings, too. Be that as it may, we're ahead of them on the food chain. Sucks if you're the pig, but there it is. Now if you'll kindly keep your moralizing off my plate...
ETA:
I try not to "should" all over myself, and would appreciate it if you'd refrain from "shoulding" all over me, too.
I think my posts above have been pretty coherent. Was there something specific that is beyond your ken?
[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
I think I told the story here about how I drowned gophers who were eating my garden. I suppose killing animals to save my vegetables is somewhat ironic, but heck, I didn't eat the gophers.
Mme. Bong and I were married 18 years ago, and about a week or so later we decided to stop eating meat. How's that for compatibility?
I doubt if I could live with a carnivore, or even have a serious relationship with a meat-eater, although hypothetically I suppose I could have a one-night stand with one, to answer the question in the original post.
We are on the top of the food chain...except, of course, for bacteria...but that's hardly a natural given. We are on top of the food chain these days because our technology and social organization makes us very powerful. In contrast, at one time we weren't powerful, and so therefore we were prey, way down on the food chain.
So what? You can't get an "ought" from an "is". After all, for quite some time the West has been on top of the world's political and economic hierarchy. Does this mean that, ethically, we should be, and that we can console our conscience by saying that while this arrangement "sucks" for Africans, Asians, etc, that's just the way it is? Remember that for many people, this is exactly the logic they use to justify unjust social arrangements.
In other words, we need to ask whether our current power structure in any way justifies itself.
As for my tyranny comment: people who are able to hoard the resources of others' labour are certainly healthier than those who can't. Tyranny and sociopathy--such as the tyranny and sociopathy that has produced the global distribution of wealth--have very direct consequences for the health of those affected by these evils, both as benefactors and victims.
Health is, for this reason, largely socially constructed, and therefore questions of optimal health for a given population (classes, nations, ethnicities, species) are themselves subject to ethical criticism. For the benefactors of the global economic hierarchy, this arrangement certainly produces "optimal" health--but does this mean it's just?
This is directly relevant for meat-eating. We are able to consume so much meat because we have the power to super-exploit other species, without having to worry about being prey ourselves (well, except when it comes to bacteria). Our factory farms are expressions of this super-exploitation, just as sweatshops in the global south are expressions of economic super-exploitation. The fact that we could have a more "just" system of meat-eating...one that gave animals a fighting chance, for instance...is, given the way our society is currently structured, irrelevant: we could also have a more "just" global economic system in which products were produced in non-sweatshop conditions, but as long as we have this particular global economic system we have to seriously consider the ethical ramifications of, for example, our purchases from stores that depend on sweatshop labour.
Of course, animals are incapable of either considering the ethical dimensions of our meat industry or treating us ethically. Humans, however, have the capacity for ethical deliberation, and we typically see that capacity as being the highest expression of our humanity. To exclude animals from our sphere of ethical consideration, and to subject them to super-exploitation simply because of their membership in species incapable of what we consider rational thought, betrays this capacity and thereby debases us.
It also raises a host of ethical problems. If animals are fair game for super-exploitation because they aren't rational, then what of human beings who are incapable of rational thought (like people with profound developmental disorders or senility)? If we decide that rationality isn't the criteria that we use to separate those who are fair game from those who aren't, then what criteria should we use? Membership in a species? This strikes me as being arbitrary, and a slippery slope, because this is an arbitrary contraction of our ethical universe. If membership in a species justifies super-exploitation for tautological reasons ("all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation because all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation"), then why not use the same logic to distinguish among various human communities?
There is also a psychological cost here. The moment we declare that sentience is irrelevant when deciding whether or not a given entity is fair game for super-exploitation, we decide to numb our capacity for empathy. While this numbing is initially directed towards certain groups, it's all too easy for it to spread to other groups. Consider troubled children who torture animals, and the way this affects their later relationships with human beings. Through the super-exploitation of animals our global community is engaged in a massive project of empathic anaesthetization (anesthetization? sp.). This can't have good consequences.
Finally, regarding your comment about organic farms and cow dung: how much of the food we're producing, and the manure required to grow this food, is devoted to maintaining livestock? How much food could we raise if we decided to make better use of, for example, human waste, or the waste from animals we chose not to slaughter (and treated with greater consideration)?
I agree with much of what you're saying and i don't eat meat myself. But this is where you lose people. I think there is a natural inclination to view eating other humans as different than eating other animals. I can understand what you're saying, that humans are conditioned to "other" non-human animals. But this becomes a comparison, eating meat vs cannibalism. Would you say that they are morally equivalent?
Golly! (blush!) When are you moving to Toronto!?
(What? You're not moving to Toronto?? It's over!)
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Seriously though...I know lots of vegans have a really hard time with other people eating meat and dairy. I guess I never had the real visceral reaction to meat and dairy that others have. I could never train myself to be grossed out at the thought of those things, so it didn't freak me out watching people eat it. I wasn't all, "Oh my god, it's a corpse!" at holiday dinners. I guess maybe if I had been like that, I wouldn't have been able to switch back so easily. It was simply an "ethical consumer" decision on my part.
Which is why I feel guilty these days about not doing it. When I eat meat and dairy, it feels to me like I'm shopping at Walmart. I don't have a physical revulsion reaction to it, but I feel like I'm not living up to my principles. I doubt I'm going to shake that feeling any time soon. I don't even really want to shake that feeling.
I say they can, provided a minimal level of maturity and mutual tolerance. I am a meat eater and my spouse was a vegan (when we met, but no longer now). I eat cow and sheep brains, I eat rabbits, I eat beef testicles, I eat fish heads (including brain and eyes). I am not joking. Sorry, it is still morning.. I stop here so I won't further gross people out.
Even now, she eats meat but what I eat is still gross to many Canadian (and North American) born people, by any standard. If any sharp and contentious differences, what we each eat is never one of them.
Human's have been living/working with/using had a relationship with domesticatic animals for likely thousands of years.
There are/have been a diversity of different breeds of things like Chickens, sheep, ducks, cattle, swine etc etc.
If people all gave up meat and became vegan..no animal products many if not most of these would simply become extinct. In fact right now many breeds are at extinction level with in some cases only several hundred animals in existence.
This mostly because of the development of the the types of chickens and breeds used in factory farming. The similar sort of homogenization of our food systems that's happened with veggies and the loss of upwards of 80% of the vareties that were available 100 years ago.
Just wondering how people feel about actual extinction of types of these animals that humans have had a relationship with for eons.
I don't mean it to be an uber provocative question that's suggesting anything one way or another about people's different food choices. I myself was veggie at one time and aimed to be vegan. Changed though for a number of reasons.
I'm just interested in pondering the ethics and some of the questions behind the mere existence of these animals in the first place. There's talk about sentience and responsibility. Do we have a responsibility to ensure them living in the first place? Especially considered that there mere existence is because of the relationship that humans have with them for eons. Or is it okay to simply let them die out of existence because they are no longer necessary. If say we moved to a point where we simply conserved for the sake of their own life itself, like say pets is that viable in a ecological sense?
I'm not saying I have the answers either, ethically speaking. Some of these questions I've been pondering myself.
For instance Micheal brought up this point in reference to Farmpunks comments about organic farming.
Many of these comments are actually things I considered myself in my own life in setting up a small sustainable homestead within the framework of permaculture and creating the circular and ecological system of waste to food to waste to food and so on. What I learned though when I got into the nuts and bolts of ecologically and basic biological principles of the not only human but the lifecyle of the animals themselves is that it is not so easy to just say..no killing..just use the waste. In order to perpetuate the very existence of the animals over the long term in both health and welfare both physical and psychological it's not necessarily a good option to say leave and let be.
For instance, ever seen a flock of chickens with a over abundance of roosters? It can get really nasty. Like lots of death and carnage type nasty. The roosters will fight and kill each other for dominance and breeding rights. There is nothing unatural about this either. Feral and wild chickens act the same way. So in relation to humans, if we leave and let be do we just let it happen or do we integrate in with the natural tenedecies that happen anyway and create a relationship that can provide benefits for both us and the animals.
In the case of roosters a small flock owner generally will cull the males for food when they are big enough.
Now in factory farming systems it's another story, the male chicks as soon as they are able to be sexed are pretty much killed and thrown out in the garbage.
I actually seriously considered the possibility of having a chicken flock that could provide the waste for the overall system as well other things like weeding and pest control and not introduce killing into the cycle. I also wanted to be a part of trying to conserve some of the breeds that are facing extinction. That was before I understood the life cycle and nature of the animals themselves in terms of their own birth and death cycles as well as health and welfare. Genetics, in terms of breeding and inbreeding is also important..that plays into the overall health of the animals as well as the potential to keep having babies and existing perpetually. Short term no killing would work, but long term, the sustainability of the animals themselves is another question entirely.
I'm not that knowledgeable about other domesticatic animals but I expect the patterns are similar.
I also want to make it clear that I'm speaking about the existence of animals in a non-factory or industrial type operation.
You know, given the role I try to give to sentience and empathy in my ethical economy, I have a hard time finding a morally relevant difference. This is difficult to say, because of course I've eaten meat and, to my shame, I continue to consume non-meat animal products.
There are, of course, some pragmatic differences between cannibalism and meat-eating that can have serious ethical consequences: the moment we allow human cannibalism (with the caveat that we're NOT talking about survival-based, non-murderous, emergency cannibalism), we ruthlessly reinforce our own social hierarchies, because (if history is any guide) inevitably the people cannibalized would be the powerless, and the people cannibalizing would be the powerful. This would make things worse for us, but also for animals.
I think it's very likely that while, from an ethical perspective, animals are just as deserving of our empathy as human beings, from the perspective of evolutionary psychology we're better primed to empathize with other humans. If, as I've suggested, the cauterization of our capacity to empathize with animals has negative consequences for our capacity to empathize with human beings, then the cauterization of our capacity to empathize with human beings must have catastrophic consequences for our capacity to empathize with animals. As an extreme example of the cauterization of empathy, human cannibalism must be seen as an evil that transcends species boundaries.
What? Humans are responsible for destroying our animal population, not helping it. As an FN person, we have a responsibility to treat our equals with respect, and animals are our equals. The way you are talking is foreign to me as a human and as a caretaker of the land.
They are in a "mere existence" because of our relationship with them? Seriously, read the list of endangered species, read what pollution, urban sprawl etc is doing to our animal friends, then get back to me on this totally man vs nature theory it seems you have. No offense against you but to me, this line of thinking is repulsive.
Sure I did. Right from the first post:
I mean, I can't speak for ALL vegans (especially not now!) and ALL meat-eaters, clearly, as we've got a meat-eater in this thread who says she couldn't live with a vegan, and there are vegetarians/vegans who say they couldn't have relationships with meat-eaters. I can only speak for myself. When I was vegan, I didn't have any problem with dating meat-eaters. Now that I'm not, I would have no problem with dating a vegan.
[ 20 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
I lived in residence at Trinity College (Toronto's main Anglican seminary) for a year in the 1970s. Every Saturday was roast beef evening, with blood dripping from the meat interior. I had to have a small piece of meat carved from the outside of the roast as I would get sick from just looking at the red (pink, actually) portions. I wasn't the only one, apparently, as many students simply left the red/pink portions on their plates when finished eating. A few of the Trinity women simply bypassed the meat altogether and feasted on the veggies (including roasted potatoes).
A non-meat eater can have all ethics nailed down but where will their food come from? Gathering nuts? I can imagine a non-meat, non-exploitative food system, but that's about as far as I get - imagining.
If we're going to create sustainable food systems that aren't reliant on fossil fuels (or at least less reliant), they must include animals.
Now, that's where I usually start to have trouble with vegans-vegetarians of the opposite sex. For one, not too many of them have ever been on a farm, much less attempted to grow food for themselves or other people. So I get a little pissy and defensive after being told I'm a freakish redneck conservative killer a couple times, even if in jest.
Michelle, maybe I should start a Flirting With Vegans thread, where I can anonymously try out some techniques and have my attempts critiqued.
I think you're misunderstanding what animals I'm speaking about here. I actually agree entirely with what you're saying. I'm talking specifically about domesticated breeds and not the wider animal population of which I totally one hundred percent agree that humans are responsible for destroying and not helping.
Over time in various regions there has been the development of a diverse amount of types of domesticated animals, like chickens that are suited to the various climates and other environmental factors. They all came from the wild at one time, but over time have developed into specific breeds unto themselves because of the relationships between humans and them. That's what I'm speaking about. For instance right now there are numerous types of chickens, all with different attributes, here in Canada there are specific ones that do well in cold climates, or ones that are better foragers. They all at one point came from wild. The same way that pets such as dogs and cats all came from the wilds at one point.
Because of the homogenization and industrialization of the food systems many of these are now threatened. The chickens that you find in a chicken factory have actually been breed on purpose to produce more eggs or more meat and thats it. In many cases they have been breed to the point where the mothers won't even go broody and raise their own young. That instinct isn't necessary in this type of system so it's thrown out. I find this incredibly repulsive because it goes against the very nature of the chicken and would never happen without human manipulation. That is an example of man vs. nature and something I find utterly abhorrent.
Other non-industrial chickens, who actually can and do raise their young and function closer to what a wild chicken does, are actually severely threatened with extinction. This situation is connected with humans and I do actually feel responsibility for this situation because of all the reasons you state.
The same goes for sheeps, cattle, goats, swine and pretty much any other animal that has been a part of subsistence farming all over the globe.
As specific types they do exist because of the relationship between humans and animals that has been occuring since the dawn of agriculture.
I'm actually looking at this question from the perspective of caretaking and looking at it from a position of responsibility because it's a relationship that does exist now and not something that would likely have occured without human contact. This isn't man vs. nature, it's man with, alongside, a part of and trying to figure out how to live with, integrate with etc etc.
I don't consider the animals that live with me as things, but as part of the whole. I'm not above them, nor is it a competition. The same goes with wild animals. My own food system actually takes wild animals into account and they are part of it and not something that I have to fight against.
For instance we have a lot of deer around. In the terms of a garden deer can be problem from my perspective because they eat the food I'm trying to grow. From the deers perspective they are just being deer and there's no way I can get angry at that. We also live on a deer path that goes from one lake to another so they come through all the time.
From a man vs nature mentality an option would be to set up a fence and just block them out of the property. Nope ain't going to do that. So I spent the time to observe the paths that they've chosen and am building around that. A cardinal rule in our household is no blocking animal paths. Along the paths I've planted or just left the plants they already eat. Instead of a fence I've planted a barrier of shrubs and other plants that they like and behind those and between the actual veggie garden, plants that they don't like. So they have their space and I have mine and so far it seems to be working out just fine. Some of the other people around here think I'm friggin nuts because yes I'll admit it publicly I actually talk to them and make the request.
I did the same with rabbits at another place I lived. I purposely left a patch of lawn with all of the plants they like between where they lived and the garden and made a request. No problems for the two years I was there. So what happened when my mom moved in the next year? She mowed it all down and boom, rabbits all over her garden. She was all prepared to start fencing and blocking until I told her and the next year she did what I did previously and there hasn't been a problem since. No fighting is needed.
Again a public admission that for many will cast us as nuts but I don't really care. My husband is actually FN's and he speaks and works with the animals around us all of the time. We had an issue with coyotes coming and bugging our dogs, so he went for a walk, had a conversation and we haven't had a problem since. We see them all of the time on the edges of the marsh but they stay there now. We don't bug them and they don't bug us.
Sorry this is a bit a tangent to the topic but I really want to illustrate that my questions about the relationship with domesticated animals is not coming from a man vs nature place. If anything it's the exact opposite place.
BTW, I talk to my animals all the time, including my turtle Pepper. I know they understand. I guess we are both the "crazy cat ladies".