I hate Vegetarians. Watch

samatkins
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#141
Report 8 years ago
#141
(Original post by splunket)
your point?
i wouldn't eaxtlly consider that 'sentient' in the same way a human is 'sentient'
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#142
Report 8 years ago
#142
(Original post by samatkins)
i wouldn't eaxtlly consider that 'sentient' in the same way a human is 'sentient'
Why make a speciesist divide?
I don't think our sentience is the same as Hawkins, maybe we should let him **** all over us (please don't, I'm not into scar).
Furthermore what about the marginal cases, if you're making a divide based on awareness, they're as aware as many non human animals, do you suggest we screw them over?

If you're interested I just pm'd someone a post on the topic of speciesism (with related issues to that). I can forward it on to you, or even post it somewhere.
0
reply
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#143
Report 8 years ago
#143
(Original post by samatkins)
i wouldn't eaxtlly consider that 'sentient' in the same way a human is 'sentient'
I think my brother's dog is more satient that the severely mentally ill. Food for fuel? You're telling me you'd eat any animal for food then?
0
reply
splunket
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#144
Report 8 years ago
#144
(Original post by samatkins)
i wouldn't eaxtlly consider that 'sentient' in the same way a human is 'sentient'
You have agreed with me that non human animals and humans share sentience. Your ethical gymnastics in order to justify what you want them to start to collapse when you then set aside human sentience from non human sentience. The difference between animals and us in terms of sentience is one of degree, not type. As 'there's too much love' said, there are varying degrees of awareness and intelligence even amongst humans, but this does not mean we should operate a sliding scale of morality with the stupid at the bottom.

Also, when you say that "an animal's desires don't really extend past sex, food, terrortory [sic]" you are ignoring some of the other more complex desires some animals have. Most dogs definitely have a need for companionship and get lonely without it. During his extensive studies observing animals of all kinds, Darwin noted many times what he considered examples of more complex emotions including trust,fear, surprise, sadness, anger, love, submission and disappointment.

We could explore this path much further, but aside from inviting cries of false anthropomorphisms or setimentalism it is completely irrelevant if you believe this or not. This is because you have already agreed that non-human animals posess sentience. Even if all an animal's wants encompasses nothing more than food, water, shelter, or sex this is because they are not just in the world, but they are aware of it. They experience their surroundings subjectively, centred around their own consciousness. No matter how unintelligible they are compared to human minds, this is sentience. This is why my dietary choices are moral ones and not just preference.
0
reply
Frieza
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#145
Report 8 years ago
#145
(Original post by splunket)
You have agreed with me that non human animals and humans share sentience. Your ethical gymnastics in order to justify what you want them to start to collapse when you then set aside human sentience from non human sentience. The difference between animals and us in terms of sentience is one of degree, not type. As 'there's too much love' said, there are varying degrees of awareness and intelligence even amongst humans, but this does not mean we should operate a sliding scale of morality with the stupid at the bottom.

Also, when you say that "an animal's desires don't really extend past sex, food, terrortory [sic]" you are ignoring some of the other more complex desires some animals have. Most dogs definitely have a need for companionship and get lonely without it. During his extensive studies observing animals of all kinds, Darwin noted many times what he considered examples of more complex emotions including trust,fear, surprise, sadness, anger, love, submission and disappointment.

We could explore this path much further, but aside from inviting cries of false anthropomorphisms or setimentalism it is completely irrelevant if you believe this or not. This is because you have already agreed that non-human animals posess sentience. Even if all an animal's wants encompasses nothing more than food, water, shelter, or sex this is because they are not just in the world, but they are aware of it. They experience their surroundings subjectively, centred around their own consciousness. No matter how unintelligible they are compared to human minds, this is sentience. This is why my dietary choices are moral ones and not just preference.
Allow me to jump in, briefly.

I get what you're saying, it's your opinion. You think a dog has feeling, I think it has not. But that's not the point.

The point is the justification of the LAW. That is, what grants the State the power to enforce violence, either as a punishment or as a prohibition?
Social theories said that blah blah...Locke...blah...social contract...blah blah...

In brief, human beings are born free, but have created the State to prevent an individual man from thwarting the freedom of another man.

Thus, there is no justification whatsoever for the State to punish me when I do something against an animal. I'm not violating the freedom of any other human being.
You might find it disgusting if I stomp on a kitten, exactly like I find disgusting people getting drunk. But in both cases, there is no moral justification to enforce punishment/prohibition.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#146
Report 8 years ago
#146
(Original post by Frieza)
Allow me to jump in, briefly.

I get what you're saying, it's your opinion. You think a dog has feeling, I think it has not. But that's not the point.

The point is the justification of the LAW. That is, what grants the State the power to enforce violence, either as a punishment or as a prohibition?
Social theories said that blah blah...Locke...blah...social contract...blah blah...

In brief, human beings are born free, but have created the State to prevent an individual man from thwarting the freedom of another man.

Thus, there is no justification whatsoever for the State to punish me when I do something against an animal. I'm not violating the freedom of any other human being.
You might find it disgusting if I stomp on a kitten, exactly like I find disgusting people getting drunk. But in both cases, there is no moral justification to enforce punishment/prohibition.

Actually it was man. Therefore you can stomp on women and kittens all you like. Infact white man.
White upper class man.
Roayality.
OH NOES THE CATEOGRISATIONS HAVE FALLEN APART!!!
:p:

Just take a look at speciesism and the argument from marginal cases.

Most social contract theorists take it as a given that animals ought to be included up to an extent.

Two things can grant a state power, voting in a democracy, military power. Shall I presume you're not talking about the latter.
The justification for the latter of course is entirely internal, but I doubt you're talking of an objective justification unless you're appealing to morality, and as you seem to be appealing to social contract theories I find it more probable you'd appeal to self interest and constrained maximisers. Which again, could easily justify stomping on women, on non whites, on almost anything.
0
reply
splunket
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#147
Report 8 years ago
#147
(Original post by Frieza)
Allow me to jump in, briefly.

I get what you're saying, it's your opinion. You think a dog has feeling, I think it has not. But that's not the point.
I was pointing out the extent of many animals capacity for emotions goes beyond that which most realise. But you're right, thats not the point.

That a dog feels has never been in dispute. It is not a matter of opinion or something which can be defined through our subjective views. As beings which experience the world from their own perspective animals are sentient. Just as my opinion that they are does not change it either way, your opinion that they are not does not take away from their sentience. The point was that to seperate sentience for arbitrary reasons is flawed.

There was no justified reason for 'samatakins' to draw a line at animal sentience and place human sentience above it, with a different set of moral rules for each.
0
reply
samatkins
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#148
Report 8 years ago
#148
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
I think my brother's dog is more satient that the severely mentally ill. Food for fuel? You're telling me you'd eat any animal for food then?
yep...seal is nice
0
reply
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#149
Report 8 years ago
#149
(Original post by samatkins)
yep...seal is nice
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hilli-dip.html

You'd eat that would you? Doubt it.
0
reply
Frieza
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#150
Report 8 years ago
#150
(Original post by there's too much love)
Actually it was man. Therefore you can stomp on women and kittens all you like. Infact white man.
White upper class man.
Roayality.
OH NOES THE CATEOGRISATIONS HAVE FALLEN APART!!!
:p:

Just take a look at speciesism and the argument from marginal cases.

Most social contract theorists take it as a given that animals ought to be included up to an extent.

Two things can grant a state power, voting in a democracy, military power. Shall I presume you're not talking about the latter.
The justification for the latter of course is entirely internal, but I doubt you're talking of an objective justification unless you're appealing to morality, and as you seem to be appealing to social contract theories I find it more probable you'd appeal to self interest and constrained maximisers. Which again, could easily justify stomping on women, on non whites, on almost anything.
"Man" means human being. Sorry if you're too sexist to realise it, but in English (and in other languages) man, in this context, means human.
And I know of no social theory that discriminates against other races (apart the Untermensch ideology), or sex, and even less about social classes.
But I don't even know why you're talking about this: if you don't see the difference between a human being (being he white, poor, or woman, etc.) and an animal..I think you've got some serious issues.

inb4 chimps have 99% of our DNA etc.

Can you please link me to some source of a social theory that consider animals to "be included up to an extent" ?




But let's not go too philosophical.
My question was, if X kills a man the state has the moral ground to punish him. But if X kills an animal, why would the state be entitled to punish him? On what reason? Only because some of us find an animal "cute" ?
0
reply
samatkins
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#151
Report 8 years ago
#151
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hilli-dip.html

You'd eat that would you? Doubt it.
no but i try to avoid putting phallic shaped things in my mouth.

on the opposite side of the coin.... you'd eat pond weed then? or stinging nettles? or poison ivy?
0
reply
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#152
Report 8 years ago
#152
(Original post by samatkins)
no but i try to avoid putting phallic shaped things in my mouth.

on the opposite side of the coin.... you'd eat pond weed then? or stinging nettles? or poison ivy?
If it's suitable and fit for human consumption then I don't care. Trying to compare hazardous and poisonous plants is just a facepalm moment though. :facepalm2:
0
reply
samatkins
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#153
Report 8 years ago
#153
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
If it's suitable and fit for human consumption then I don't care. Trying to compare hazardous and poisonous plants is just a facepalm moment though. :facepalm2:
why is it a facepalm moment?

i'll make you a deal... i'll eat fugu (fushu, what's it called?) and you can eat poison ivy. we'll both die but i bet i know which meal will taste better.
0
reply
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#154
Report 8 years ago
#154
(Original post by samatkins)
why is it a facepalm moment?

i'll make you a deal... i'll eat fugu (fushu, what's it called?) and you can eat poison ivy. we'll both die but i bet i know which meal will taste better.
If you eat the right parts of fugu you will not die, unlike poison ivy there are not right parts to eat without dying as far as I know.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#155
Report 8 years ago
#155
(Original post by Frieza)
"Man" means human being. Sorry if you're too sexist to realise it, but in English (and in other languages) man, in this context, means human.
And I know of no social theory that discriminates against other races (apart the Untermensch ideology), or sex, and even less about social classes.
But I don't even know why you're talking about this: if you don't see the difference between a human being (being he white, poor, or woman, etc.) and an animal..I think you've got some serious issues.

inb4 chimps have 99% of our DNA etc.

Can you please link me to some source of a social theory that consider animals to "be included up to an extent" ?




But let's not go too philosophical.
My question was, if X kills a man the state has the moral ground to punish him. But if X kills an animal, why would the state be entitled to punish him? On what reason? Only because some of us find an animal "cute" ?

Did you miss the point completely?
Are you touched in the head?
Me thinks so.

Did I say that animals are the same?
Or did I perhaps say instead that animals have the same moral equivilance...
...did I also show you how categorising it on the grounds you're doing is ridicoulous (see my bit about all humans, some humans, that you didn't get at all)? Why yes, yes I did .

Now you're talking about political systems and morality like they're intrinsically entwined. My argument is that we have a duty to all moral patients, and some moral agents in our society can be afforded rights.

Meaning I encompass children for instance, in this. They lack the capacity to understand what rights are so many arguments don't include them. So we have duties to them, as well as the other marginal cases.

Can you tell me exactly what you mean by social theory, a definition as opposed to an example.
Even if there isn't currently a social theory that encompasses animals, that doesn't mean that one ought not to exist.
The debate is about if they are or are not to be considered morally. The next step after that will be to see how that will effect societies.

If we did that the other way round I dare say we'd still have the slave trade active in the same way. Fortunately we're not completely backwards (or at least, most people aren't...).

So can you please properly engage with my points and defend your speciesist view point or admit that when expressed it is utterly ridiculous?
Again, a reminder, look at the argument from marginal cases, and reply to that as well.
Look up what speciesism actually is.
Don't straw man and claim I've said animals are the same as us, if that were the case, they'd obviously be human. In the same way that women obviously aren't men etc.
You may also want to make a comparison with how we're doing things, and how an alien might do the same to us because they have in general a 'higher level of intelligence' or some generalising ******** like that.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#156
Report 8 years ago
#156
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
If you eat the right parts of fugu you will not die, unlike poison ivy there are not right parts to eat without dying as far as I know.
The shadow, we can't eat anything that casts it, so that just leaves it to eat.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#157
Report 8 years ago
#157
These are my notes from applied philosophy on the animals topic, it concentrates on Singer, it may help some people understand the view better:
Spoiler:
Show

Notes:
Applied Ethics Lecture 4; Singer on animals.
General over view:
He categorises all moral patients into one big category, the other option available is to do things on an individual basis. The common species divide that is made is too inaccurate and is thus arbitrary.
He's a consequentialist.
Duty based arguments instead of rights based. Thus the action lies with how we treat animals, instead of animals being protected. For example: To say they have a right to X would mean we have to protect them from that being taken away not just from our own actions, but other animals. Instead it is just how we act towards them, as opposed to blind universal protection.
All beings with interests are moral patients. The same rule applies to all moral patients. If it is acceptable to do x, it is acceptable to all moral patients to do x, not just our own species.
Speciesism is:
Basing worth on what species a subject belongs to, instead of what capabilities that individual subject has.
This does not mean that all animals/moral patients are morally equal, but if it is acceptable to treat some in a certain way when it is not necessarily, the same rule applies, regardless of worth.
e.g. if it’s acceptable to use cows as meat when we don’t need to then it’s also acceptable to use humans.
If speciesism is acceptable so is sexism and maybe racism (depending on the way we categorise race).
Singer bases morality on experience, how subjects feel due to being treated in a certain way.
Racism:*There are no race divide genetically speaking, skin colour isn’t accurate, as it changes, and there are so many different skin colours. Nationality is based on where social boarders are. There is no race divide so you can’t be a racist, just very ill informed. Whereas there are sex divides (not necessarily in the binary sense) and species divides.
But it would be a logical impossibility to subscribe to all bigotry, any number of ridiculous categorisations could be made in order to demonise subjects.
Basic over-view of preference utilitarianism:
It is the relisation of our preferences that is a good thing. If I want to eat an ice cream, it is better for me to eat an ice cream instead of not eating an ice cream. However if the preference passes before I get an ice cream it is no longer good to give me an ice cream. Who wants ice cream half way through a snowball fight? I mean, apart from me.
We also have preferences to not be in pain.
Conditions for moral patients.
To be a moral patient you must be self aware. You must have interests of some kind (long or short term). You must be able to experience/percieve/have awarness of/be conscious of, happiness, pain or both.
*His main arguments are:*“The thrust of his argument is not that we should be killing humans, but that we should not be killing animals (unless we need to).” There is no intrinsic worth in humans (to say so would be meaningless).
“He accords priority not to humans (in the simple biological sense) but to creatures that person-like or that we may have reason to believe are person-like.”
“...there is no morally-relevant property that all humans have to a greater degree than all animals.”
5 properties we may use to say why one subject is more morally important than another:
Language.
Intelligence level.
Autonomy-self driving, free thinking.
Self conscious
Rationality-applying logic.
Thought experiment controversy:
Human A has less capacity than animal B. One can be saved. Animal B ought to be saved. It is arbitrary to say because human A is human that they should be favoured over animal B. Animal B seems closer to personhood than human A.
If the same rule applies to all interested parties (1)*on the sheet) then the following seems to follow:
If it is acceptable to test on animals because they don’t have some criterion/criteria to make them more morally worth then any humans with the same ability, or lack of ability, should also be included in the tests and should not be favoured above animals.
Whilst this is radical it is not necessarily wrong, and if anything highlights the prejudice that’s accepted in western societies.
Objections (at least 4):
If we are to be consistent and not have moral logical impossibilities implemented in everyday life then we may move past speciesism.
Objection 1:
Farming animals causes them to exist, without farming many of the animals currently in existence would not be brought into existence.
Reply 1:
However this presupposes the idea that animals should continue to be brought into existence for our enjoyment. If we truly feel that more animals ought to exist it would seem apparent that the animals that hold more moral importance ought to be brought into existence. As more beings can be fed on a vegan diet than a meat eat based diet we ought to be killing of the marginal cases, and not producing animals unless crops cannot be grown on that land and animals can. Thus we could feed more humans and breed more humans into existence where their needs are met. Currently we feed around 50% or more of our staple foods to animals and then eat the animals, meaning we can currently feed around 5-10 times less in the way of humans.
Reply 2:
If some humans wouldn’t exist without concentration camps existing because they were bred to be in them, would that mean we should continue to have concentration camps?
What if humans were being farmed, would that justify their existence? This goes against what most people want to show, that humans are above animals.
Reply 3:
The meat industry is not fully in the interests of the animals, taken from my TSR thread:
“That is to say that the animals wouldn't exist without it therefore the meat industry does them a favour. First it is important to point out that this can only be true on an individual level, and not true of the species as a whole. We continue to selectively breed animals so that we can get the best of them, often at the species expense. On an individual level we're left with a more abstract argument:
-------------------------------*
a......b........................ .........c

At point A the animal is not alive.
At point B the animal is alive.
At point C the animal is to be slaughtered.

If interests are held before existence then it is true that at point A it is in the animals interests to be a part of the meat industry. However it does not continue to be in their interests at point B. What is therefore happening is that the interests are being forced fully into existence and then forcefully removed.

Essentially if it was in the animals interests the meat eater would also be in favour of making more and more cows without killing them.”
Link:*http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...3#post23986643
Objection 2:
Animals harm each other so why can’t we?
Reply 1:
Many animals need to harm each other to survive, we are not in a survival situation when we subscribe to the meat industry, therefore this isn’t applicable to Singer’s view.
Reply 2:
Animals don’t show signs of having a sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ with regards to morality. Singer is talking to moral agents and not just moral patients. Whilst all moral agents are moral patients not all moral patients are moral agents, Singer’s view only applies to animals that are moral agents. If it can be shown that a lion is a moral patient and they do not need to kill another animal, then they are not responciable for their actions. But there is little to no evidence to show that any lion is a moral agent, most humans show signs of being a moral agent, so said humans are responciable for their actions, as all moral agents are.
344-companion to ethics.
Reply 3:
Perhaps the animals ought not to harm each other in some cases, but if they continue to do so this would not be an excuse for you to do it arbitrarily. In the same way that there are some rapists and child molesters in the world, this does not mean it is acceptable for you to also rape or molest children.
Objection 3:
Non-human animals show no signs of being persons in the same way humans are. Therefore most humans are worth more morally than non-human animals. As a result we cannot rule out actions for them or us, but if it’s one or the other with regards to survival, then it is better for animals to receive bad treatment than for humans. And better for humans to receive pleasure than animals. If the pleasure we get from eating animals is greater than their pain then it is acceptable. If more of our preferences are met than theirs trampled on then it is acceptable.
Reply 1:
Why draw the line at species, some people have a higher ability to suffer, or use logic/reason than other humans, should they get to trample on other humans interests in favour of their own? The divide is not one of species.
Reply 2:
It seems a lack of pleasure is not as bad as being put in pain. It is difficult to show that you would get more pleasure than they would pain as there is no way of measuring experience accurately.
Objection 4:
We have a special bond with other humans therefore we ought to favour them more. We are entitled to treat members of our family with more priority, in the same way we are entitled to treat humans with more priority than that of subjects in other species.
Reply 1:
This can change from subject to subject. Even if you do hold this view it does not mean animals are to be used arbitrarily (as opposed to survival), just that in a survival situation it may be acceptable to favour humans more.
I may hold that animals are part of my family in a social sense, and thus may favour them over humans I don’t know. This objection can be not be automatically universalised to all moral agents.
Reply 2:
It seems more favourable to include animals into a mixed community instead of simply keeping them outside of it (at least according to our lecturer).
Reply 3:
What is the nature of a shared community? I know my family (in the social sense of the word) and general close friends. I do not know all humans. There is no rational reason why I ought to favour other humans simply on the fact that they are human. But perhaps on if they are a person or not, or closer to being a person than the other moral patients involved.
0
reply
tillytots
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#158
Report 8 years ago
#158
I've been a veggie all my life and have stayed that way because, I honestly don't feel the need to start eating meat, I've never tasted it so what is there to miss? I don't eat quorn, tofu, fish or any supplements to make up from eating meat and I'm one of the healthiest people I know, I've never broken a bone, I probably get the odd cold once a year and have no problems with iron and protein levels etc. So it annoys the cr**p out of me when people assume I'm unhealthy because of my vegetarianism.

The only thing that often annoys me with my fellow veggies is the ones who are against things like the fact that eating meat is immoral, fur and leather shouldn't be worn etc and yet they find every possible medium to make their food taste like meat or to eat 'artificial meat'. It totally defeats the point in my opinion, you're against eating meat but want your food to looks and taste like it? Honestly, wtf?
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#159
Report 8 years ago
#159
(Original post by tillytots)
I've been a veggie all my life and have stayed that way because, I honestly don't feel the need to start eating meat, I've never tasted it so what is there to miss? I don't eat quorn, tofu, fish or any supplements to make up from eating meat and I'm one of the healthiest people I know, I've never broken a bone, I probably get the odd cold once a year and have no problems with iron and protein levels etc. So it annoys the cr**p out of me when people assume I'm unhealthy because of my vegetarianism.

The only thing that often annoys me with my fellow veggies is the ones who are against things like the fact that eating meat is immoral, fur and leather shouldn't be worn etc and yet they find every possible medium to make their food taste like meat or to eat 'artificial meat'. It totally defeats the point in my opinion, you're against eating meat but want your food to looks and taste like it? Honestly, wtf?
The issue regarding morallity is that there is suffering involved in making the meat most of the time.
However if the fake meat does not involve the suffering, what is the problem with that?
Now quorn involves suffering through the egg industry, so I'm against that, but say, red woods organic pork style sausages...what's missing the point there? They're vegan.

Do you still eat eggs and milk?
0
reply
Mithra
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#160
Report 8 years ago
#160
(Original post by tillytots)
The only thing that often annoys me with my fellow veggies is the ones who are against things like the fact that eating meat is immoral, fur and leather shouldn't be worn etc and yet they find every possible medium to make their food taste like meat or to eat 'artificial meat'. It totally defeats the point in my opinion, you're against eating meat but want your food to looks and taste like it? Honestly, wtf?
This viewpoint has always REALLY confused me. As you do I have never eaten meat so have no desire to do so due to taste or anything, but if veggie stuff is made to taste like meat what is the problem? If you were vegan and refused to eat anything containing milk would you refuse to eat something which looked and tasted exactly like ice-cream but didn't actually contain any milk?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (292)
37.63%
No - but I will (55)
7.09%
No - I don't want to (56)
7.22%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (373)
48.07%

Watched Threads

View All