The Ethics of Eating Non-Human Animals

[ronthecivil]

In other words, the moral wrongness of the videos isn't predicated on emotion. The support the arguments I've given because they show what is the case

[TheAntar]

Time and again the ethics if how animals are treated are being brought up as if they are part and parcel with the morality of eating meat.

They are not. Mistreatment of animals during their time being raised, to be eaten, are far more often the result of corporate greed and bottom-line thinking that hasn't got much to do with the morality of actually eating meat.

As for the morality: if we stopped eating meat today, globally, do you honestly think the lives of cows would improve? Do you think the Eco system as it exists today could support NOT slaughtering those cows? I think not.

[Common sense]

It has become apparent that you are out to lunch. The video displays states of affairs. States of affairs are what is the case. What is the case are facts. Hence, the video displays facts.

Now exactly what is an appeal to emotion:

source

It is common practice to dehorn livestock. source. And the practice can cause significant agony. The videos are evidential support for /topic/336595-the-ethics-of-eating-non-human-animals/">my arguments because i) they show how cattle dehorning is commonly practiced and ii) cattle dehorning does cause significant agony.

The videos are clearly evidential support fr this claim: given the agony cattle dehorning causes weighed against the reasons for subjecting animals to it, we have sufficient moral reasons not to act this way.

Hence, it is not an appeal to emotion.

Stop arguing about this unless you enjoy thinking like a nincompoop.

Given what I have shown above this is a non sequitur on your part. Given how difficult it is for you to understand what facts are, I'm not surprised you don't apply fallacies properly either.

In other words, the moral wrongness of the videos isn't predicated on emotion. The support the arguments I've given because they show what is the case.

Funny that you say this and yet somehow I've managed to complete a masters degree in philosophy on this very topic. In any event, rather than point fingers, you need to think more carefully. And change your name.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Cattle dehorning does not cause significant agony - Fact.

Source: I've dehorned a cow before without it even flinching.

Showing a video and saying this it what it's like always or even commonly is like showing this thread and saying this is how stupid vegetarian philosophy students are always.

So Silly Goose it has become apparent that you are out to lunch. The video displays states of affairs. States of affairs are what is the case. What is the case are facts. Hence, the video displays facts.

Go away, start another account and try again next year. You're arguments haven't gotten any better or made any more sense.

[Common sense]

By the way...calling me a nincompoop? That's pretty low for a PHIL101 student, let alone a M.Phil holder. Thought your prof would teach you to avoid the ad hom arguments in lecture 1, or were you too busy posting on CDC to have listened?

[Angry Goose]

Cattle dehorning does not cause significant agony - Fact.

Source: I've dehorned a cow before without it even flinching.

Showing a video and saying this it what it's like always or even commonly is like showing this thread and saying this is how stupid vegetarian philosophy students are always.

[Angry Goose]

Who makes you the supreme ruler on what is moral and what isn't?

[Shift-4]

is waiting for the ethics of eating human animal topic...........

[ronthecivil]

I don't. Reason does

[ronthecivil]

The video uses local anesthetics AND it is performed by a veternarian. By contrast, common practices for cattle dehorning do NOT use local anesthetics OR have it performed by veternarians (who have a professional obligation to mitigate animal suffering).

It is a straw man on your part to say that I implied always. I did say that cattle dehorning is commonly practicised. Within this practice I implicitly assumed without local anesthetics or veternarians. It is a standard practice, especially on large industrialized dairy farms. Why? Because local anesthtics and veternarians are expensive. If you want clarification that's fine. I'm not gonig into great detail here because I prefer simplicity over gory amounts of detail. Still, my points all follow.

You've only showed that cattle dehorning can be practicied in a more humane way. I never said that this wasn't or couldn't be the case. I did say that the less humane way of cattle dehorning is a common practice. That fact stands. So you havn't really demonstrated anything, other than trying to cherry pick non standard examples. You easily forget that everything you say is still consistent with what I have been saying all along. Keep trying though.

Oh and as for my arguments, funny that you are now ridicule them and yet you already have rationally accepted them.

[GodzillaDeuce]

Unless your morals state that it's immoral to de-horn the cow. Pretty sure the reason they do that is so they don't injure each other with said horns. It's not done for fun, it's done for a legitimate reason.

Ergo it's moral. Why? Because me and my culture think so.

If you don't like it, too bad.

[Angry Goose]

It's in my culture and biology to consume some meat as part of my diet.

[D-Money]

This goose is cooked.

MMMMMmmmmmm....

[ronthecivil]

Who says culture justifies whether it is morally permissable to cause sentient beings unnecessary suffering? That's begging the question. Also, what do you mean by biology? Are you implying that you unless you eat meat you will die? What exactly do you mean? That's being vague.

Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying here. You should elaborate if you can.

Snap judgements if you ask me. See above.

I respect that cultural values vary to some extents. However, regardless of culture I do think there are some things that can be morally agreed upon. Regardless, you havn't specified what cultures nor what cultural values are at hand. Again, you're being vague.

Agreed that one reason why it is done so that they don't injure other cattle or handlers. But that just begs the question whether that justifies the agony it causes for the sake of slaughtering them for food.

Well I'd like to see you explain how your culture actually thinks that causing great agony to animals is morally permissable. I think we would all like to hear why.

[ronthecivil]

You are taking a position of moral relativism, which is fine if that is what you believe, but you can't judge silly goose for how he feels about eating meat, since he may not have the same moral code as you. Maybe his culture and heritage deem eating meat to be amoral.

Ergo it's amoral. Why? Because Silly Goose (and his culture) says so.

If you don't like it, you can........(looks at title)......... eat crow.

[aeromotacanucks]

the poin is cultural...

the man is an animal like any other. and our "class" is eat everything, vegetables or meat. in old times (very old times) the man had to hunt animals and grab fruits from the nature to survive. with the time our inteligence "discovered" that it´s much easier farm them, it´s simple math, you create a lot of animals and vegetables, grow them up and them eat them. you don´t have to hunt/grab anymore...

with the time the population increased and the necessity become bigger to obtain more food. the population increased and more and more food become necessary...

this is why we have enourmous farms around the planet. it´s simply impossible to tell everyone on every country "hunt your food and grab fruits from the nature". many people simply don´t know how do this or are too dangerous to hunt...

and of course, in many cultures/countries "eat meat" is the only alternative. you must be addict to "the taste of death" or you are banned from the society. kill an animal imposes that "man who can fight and kill" and many cultures really take this serious...

many people simply don´t like the taste of vegetables and will not accept a barbecue made with toffu. they need a cow/bull/fish/srimp killed on their plates because the flavour is better...

the human body needs protein and the easiest way to get this is from other animal. if you need get protein from vegetables you have to eat large quantities to get the same amount, but if you eat large quantities of vegetables somebody will be without food. and even with the large production of food of these days few people have too many food and many people don´t have enought to survive...

the "dignity" of kill an animal is controversial. the simple act of kill some animal without givving an option to the animal protect himself is a crime. BUT hunt your dinner could be dangerous since the number of weapons on the society will increase very much...

soo the biggest question is. "the man is a killer animal by nature or the modern society made this?"

many people will say yes, many people will say no...

I like meat, the society on my country simply made this standart. Brazilians love all types of meat. cow/bulls/srimp/fish/snakes etc. if some animal walk, fly, swin or jump our culture says "you can and must eat". a vegetarian will face real problems to mantain his/her diet here. because food for vegetarian is expensive and our society see this as "non natural habits".

just respect each side. meat lover or vegetarian...

[M A K A V E L I 96]

Now if we ignore industrial farming practices, (which I personally don't care for very much), and focus on simply the ethics of eating meat vs plants, there is no argument to be made. They are, in essence, the same thing.

[Angry Goose]

I mean that biologically humans eat meat. When found in our natural environment (some remote tribes actually do still exist) humans hunt and consume meat. Our digestive systems are made to consume it. A healthy, natural diet includes meat. It is also a part of many cultures.

[Common sense]

conclusion: you're an idiot. (and that would be an ad hominen if it were irrelvant to the argument at hand, but based on your continuing denial of what facts are, it is relevant.)

[Salmonberries]

I eat animals, and my justification is that they are delicious.