tsearcher,

yes...that is premise 3 from the op...

is allows for the possibility, like kimball says, that a gorilla can have more ethical interests than a fetus/infant/severely ******ed human etc...

this is probably true at the moment...but say that you are hit by a car and are left with a detached spinal cord with no brain function, but are still able to breathe w/o aid...you have no consciousness remaining, but your body still "lives"...

we are saying that your ethical interests are now less than those of a gorilla/cow/etc that can feel pain, has consciousness, understands that it is the same being it was 5 minutes ago etc...this is the difference between a speciesist view and a non-speciesist view...if we base things on species then your lifeless body has more interests than an intelligent non human animal...

You could also say that about 5-year-old humans, but you don't eat them.

Stephen Hawking could say that about us, but he doesn't eat us.

In the abstract, that makes sense to me. And I can't think of a good argument against it, but I still don't agree. Irrational, I know. I'll have to mull it over for a while

its an issue of consistency...you have been raised a certain way, and in a certain culture that mostly ignores the interests of non humans in preference for simple pleasures...you can, since you accept the argument on hand here, continue to eat meat or you can be consistent with your new beliefs and make a lifestyle change...

this isn't easy and is something im still dealing with...in some pms with ILOVE we talked about the two main changes we have made...hopefully he doesn't mind me discussing our PMs...

the two changes:
1. donating to charity
2. being a vegetarian

we were opposite in what we thought was the easier one to adapt because we are in different life situations with different goals...for me, donating to charity is no problem, im not giving much at the moment (it will likely increase soon), but it was quite easy to convince myself to do this (i can explain why if you are interested), but it is much harder for me to go veggie because of my history and diet up until now...for him, being a vegetarian was much easier than donating...

perhaps it takes small steps such as removing chicken or eating meat at one less meal/day etc to get to your goal, but doing something is better than doing nothing...


I even posted a question in the SMP NC thread a while back after beginning to think about these things...something ot the effect of "what am I, if i hold a belief, but don't act on it?"...didn't really get much response, but the issue of consistency bothered me enough that i have decided to make changes...

I don't think this is true. I'm sure Michael Vick would argue with that statement. Also, I wouldn't say providing nutrition to our bodies, although often pleasurable, is a simple pleasure that can be easily dismissed.

you are correct, there are some laws in place to prevent the most unsettling in your face types of cruelty to animals...in my opinion the suffering all animals raised in poor circumstances due to factory farming etc is greater than the suffering caused by michael vick...i don't necessarily believe that farmers are despicable or should be jailed, just that the overall suffering they cause is greater...

simple was probably the wrong word...the eating of meat is definitely an unnecessary pleasure...this is proven every day by people that don't eat meat, i don't think it can really be argued against...you have to decide if the suffering caused by your desire to eat meat is less the suffering you would feel were you to become a vegetarian...

I must now go scrounge the company kitchen for a veggie dinner...i think they ordered mexican food tonight, we shall soon find out...

Could you guys describe in more detail what is meant by suffering? Thanks.

I think a more accurate statement would be, that I've been raised in a society that practices speciesism. One that values cats, dogs, horses and humans more than other animals and it's difficult for me to get my mind around that.

Ditto. Also, does Singer posit his own expanded definition?

LOL I just realized what the **** in "**** sapiens" stood for. Stupid 2+2 filter.

I hope Fish throws some thoughts our way.

Is someone a speciest if they think it's okay to eat meat but would not accept cannibalism?

What about cultures that practice appreciation and humane treatment of nature and animals but still eat meat? Do the veggie-eaters here think there can be a balance in treating animals with kindness, such as with their living conditions, while still breeding them for consumption?

that works too...

i think suffering would encompass all kinds of pain and distress...

some types of suffering/pain are unavoidable as i wrote earlier...we go through the distress of dentist appointments because it causes less suffering that having all our teeth fall out etc...but some types of pain are preventable and we should do what we can to prevent them...

Same boat. Similarly, if I found out that human meat was more beneficial to my health than ground beef, as a meat-eater I would logically think it better to eat my fellow man (though not murder him to do so). However, I would feel an ingrained resistance that I recognize is a product of social conditioning.

In what ways does animal husbandry cause pain and distress besides slaughter.

i suppose its possible, although i don't imagine there would be a way to continue providing veal and things requiring extraordinary circumstances...

im not an expert in factory farming, but there are definitely ways to decrease the suffering of animals raised for food and that would be a step in the right direction...such things as proper diet, exercise, proximity to relatives, decent sized pens etc would reduce suffering or possibly increase pleasure/happiness in animals raised for food to such a point where it would be better that they were raised on farms than to be released in the wild...

as for cannibalism, i could see there being other arguments against it...such as the distress of the remaining family or perhaps it was against the wishes of the now dead person...

Places like that do exist. And it's not much effort to limit your dead animal purchases to farms that use those practices.

i addressed a couple of these things in my post above...but lack of proper exercise and diet can cause cows to get certain diseases at a higher than normal percentage, cramped living spaces, separation for relatives...its possible to have less than swift slaughter practices that cause the animals to suffer etc...

you are right, there are places that take better care of their animals than others...i think there were some laws passed in britain to increase pen sizes for animals...this is definitely a step in the right direction...

do you limit your meat buying to those types of farms?

Although "the wild" doesn't mean much to a chicken or cow, who has been optimized by evolution, and maybe genetic engineering, for dependence on humans. It wouldn't do well in the wild, which is fine because that's not where we're sending it. By becoming vegetarian, we are not causing the next cow to be born in the wild, we are causing it to never be born in the first place.

Yes along with dairy and eggs. I also try to stay on top of what fish stocks are sustainable and what aren't.

For the most part I rely on the labels and the agencies that do the accreditation to tell me the truth. And vegan societies and peta and peta-like groups will argue that it's mostly a sham or that they don't go far enough in providing for the animals.

I grew up in a farm community so I know a few farmers that sell "ethically raised" meat, poultry and dairy and I've been to their farms. When their products are available I buy from them.

I agree that cows have been selectively bred to the point that they couldn't really exist without human intervention. But there are wild chicken populations and I think at least some of the heirloom breeds of chicken could revert to their natural state.

it is commendable, imo, that you go through the effort of buying from those places...but when the products are not available do you buy normal meat, or do you go for something else?

i really don't like this part of it because its so "holier than thou" and its especially weak coming from me since i have been a vegetarian for less than a week, but i still think the comments are valid...hopefully im not coming off as a douche on a pedestal...

When I can't buy from farmers I know, I buy on good faith, based on what the labels and/or the signs at the butcher shop say. Some restaurants will also make a point of only serving ethically raised animals. Again there's a bit of faith involved there also. And I don't limit myself to those places.

Wait....WHAT?!?!? You love his politics but take issue with his linguistics? Is it bizarro opposites day or something?

FWIW I dont know why you have such an objection to the whole "plants suffer" line of reasoning. Or more accurately, I think I do know, but I dont know why it doesnt make you uncomfortable that your argument relies on a nervous system. Why isnt "thwarting of goals" a form of suffering? Why do you only recognize "pain signals sent down action potentials" as a legitimate source of suffering? I think its clear that plants suffer to some extent. This doesnt mean you cant eat them, and it doesnt mean you cant be a vegetarian.

isnt the ability of the being to understand and perceive the suffering an issue? Im not certain on the wording, but it seems that a brocolli doesn't feel or perceive pain or understand that its "goals" are not realized if we eat it...and since it can't perceive of the pain that it could potentially suffer it doesn't get the same moral interest as the other beings we have discussed...

Meet your meat.

What people agree with is not 1. Suffering is bad

What people agree with is 1. MY suffering is bad

How they go about making sure they don't endure suffering is different. All are playing the same game... Some are more annoying and self righteous about it than others