Farm animals under communism [Archive]

Chris

12th May 2014, 18:10

I'm quite a beginner to revolutionary thinking, but one issue that has me wondering quite a bit is how animals (particularly farm animals) would be treated in a communist society.

From my understanding, raising livestock to use as food is very resource-inefficient. The food that a cow eats could feed many more people than the cow's flesh ever could. Furthermore, the land that livestock live on could be used to grow crops that would feed far more people than the livestock could. However, as long as capitalism is driving the food industry, people's demand for meat will always outweigh the long-term benefits of using the land differently.

If capitalism is abolished, will we still need farm animals? Or could their use be reduced in favour of producing more plant-based foods? Would their use, if deemed necessary, become more ethical?
Not all land used for raising livestock can be used for other food production (at least, not efficiently). Secondly, farm animals have a lot more uses than simply being raised for their meat: cows provide milk and butter, pigs and goats are an efficient way to get rid of trash (not mention goats also provide milk), sheep are very useful for their wool, etc. Land which is too poor in nutrients to support cultivation of crops, is often usable for animal husbandry simply because animals can survive on grass, while humans cannot.

As for the resource-efficiency of raising livestock, it depends on the scale and the livestock in question. Pigs are terribly energy-inefficient (not necessarily resource-inefficient though, depending on what food one gives them. Looking only at how much biomass consumed translates into viable meat, pigs are among the most efficient livestock). The problem with looking merely at biomass-efficiency (which most studies which decry animal husbandry as a huge problem for the world) is that most of them don't take into account whether or not the biomass consumed would be usable for other purposes. On a global scale, half of all biomass used to feed livestock is grass, while a quarter is grains. Pigs and poultry consume more grains than grass, while cattle mostly consume biomass in the form of grass.

In short, quite a lot of land used for animal husbandry can't be used to produce crops (although, a worrying amount of land that could be used for production of crops, are used for production for livestock), and animal husbandry is not necessarily resource-inefficient (as animal husbandry may utilize resources we otherwise would have no way of gaining from, making it the most efficient alternative).

As for how farming would be organized in communism... I'd suppose it'd be up to the farmers themselves. If capitalism is abolished, we would still need farm animals, both for meat production, as well as dairy, fabrics, fertilizer and other uses. Ending animal husbandry, especially in areas ill-suited for crops production (such as arid land, cold climates, etc), would lead to a far less resource-efficient agriculture than a mixed approach. However, I do think current production of meat isn't, globally, the most efficient way to produce food, we still produce far more food than is actually needed. Poor distribution and waste in transport, retail and consumption are far bigger problems than the production process itself.

ComradeOm

12th May 2014, 18:41

So widespread vegetarianism or certainly meat-reduction would be a win-win situation from both an environmental, public health and animal rights standpoint.Everyone wins... except for the hundreds millions of people who currently eat meat as part of their daily diet.

If there is anything "unsustainable" about meat production (and I don't believe that there is) then it's because rates of meat consumption tend to increase with industrialisation levels. That is, it's driven less by grossly unhealthy diets in the West (where rates of meat consumption are generally stagnant or declining) and more by increases in the developing world.

This isn't due to evil capitalists flogging dead horses but because now more people can afford a more varied and richer diet than they traditionally could. I have a very hard time seeing this as a Bad Thing. Meat-eating is not a capitalist conspiracy.

I'm quite a beginner to revolutionary thinking, but one issue that has me wondering quite a bit is how animals (particularly farm animals) would be treated in a communist society.I'm not sure why they'd be treated much differently than they are now. Western agribusiness is already run as a corporate venture (ie as opposed to peasant freeholding) and is therefore ripe for worker management. How the farms are run will change massively but I don't see that as having much impact on the animals.

To use an analogy, a typical factory will be run entirely differently post-revolution but the actual mechanics of assembling a car are unlikely to change much.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

12th May 2014, 19:08

Poor distribution and waste in transport, retail and consumption are far bigger problems than the production process itself.

Reformist. No but seriously though you are referring to animals - sentient beings as goods. It's sick.

Some questions for all of you.

Is it worse to kill a young person than an old person (or is it the same)?
Is it worse to kill a baby or an adult (or is it the same)?
Is it worse to kill a baby or a pig?
Would you eat a pig? (Not necessary for survival)
Would you eat a baby? (Not necessary for survival)
If yes to pig, but no to baby, why?

My feeling is that there is widescale speciesism in the world, and that one day we will come to view this in a similar way to how we view racism today (and it's prevalence in the past). Let us take Marx for example - racist. People say it's not a big deal because that was the common opinion of the time. It is hard to escape our conditioning but we must try.

Aristotle could not fathom a world without human slaves. Surely these kinds of opinions are unforgivable to you. You will be viewed the same one day. There is no excuse. Us who have rejected capitalism, patriarchy, heteronormativity and more must examine everything. Because it is so does not mean it will always be so, or that it should be so.

"When ancestors in ages beyond recollection killed stags, the descendant still finds pleasure in this occupation. But my ancestors did not belong to the hunters so much as to the hunted, and the idea of attacking the descendants of those who were our comrades in misery goes against my grain." - Heinrich Heine

Everyone wins... except for the hundreds millions of people who currently eat meat as part of their daily diet.

Why do you feel entitled to the flesh of others? Many people nowadays feel entitled the fruits of other people's labour. There are two classes. The exploiters and the exploited. Why must you force divisions on sentient beings? Species, race, sex. These things mean nothing.

ComradeOm

12th May 2014, 19:39

consuming negativity

12th May 2014, 19:40

Meat production will have to go down for several reasons. One of those is health reasons - we eat a lot more meat than we actually should be. Another is economical reasons - you can feed a lot more people with veggies and grains than with meat. And a third is humanitarian reasons, which involve getting rid of factory farms and animal rights abuses, but will exponentially decrease overall meat production. What I'm counting on to provide us with delicious protein in the future is science. We've already discovered how to pretty effectively grow big slabs of hamburger in a lab that, apparently, taste pretty good. Nobody has to suffer or die and we get to have a healthy amount of meat in our diet, without taking up large tracts of land to raise cattle or pigs on. It seems like a win-win-win situation if you ask me, although I don't think the farming of animals will ever completely die out. There's a lot fewer people against free-range cattle farms in comparison to factory farms or the clothing industry, and I'm not sure how many people would be willing to risk their lives to free animals who chill out all day eating grass and enjoying the sunshine. Although I do not mean to discount the ethical considerations that are always at play with the commodification of animals as food or pets or anything else.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

12th May 2014, 19:51

Poster labels meat-eaters as 'sick reformists'. Goes on to compare eating pork to eating a baby. Only on RevLeft...

Edit:
The day a pig can articulate a coherent argument as to why I should stop eating rashers is the day that I'll consider calling said pig a comrade.

The reformist tag was a joke.

Why is eating a baby worse than eating a pig? Answer my questions.

A pig is more intelligent than a baby, both emotionally and cerebrally. Answer my questions.

PhoenixAsh

12th May 2014, 20:00

I divide the world into three categories: stuff I eat, stuff I don't eat, stuff I can't eat.

We only eat on average 42 kg of meat per year globally and 120 kg of meat per person in the industrialized countries...which averages...less than 1 sheep globally and 2 sheep in industrialized countries being consumed per person per year. Which is 7 to 14 billion sheep. 25% of all meat consumption is consumed in China. Luxembourg consumes the highest amount of meat per person (137 kg) and India the least (3.5 kg...yes...you read that right)

Lions on the other hand eat an average of 913 kilo a year per individual.

I don't see the issue.

And unless animal rights activists are going to argue we need to teach animals not to eat other animals...I am going to continue to eat meat.

ComradeOm

12th May 2014, 20:02

A pig is more intelligent than a baby, both emotionally and cerebrally. Answer my questions.A baby is a human being, a member of homo sapiens. Give the baby a few years and he/she will be perfectly capable of laying out an argument as to why eating them is Not Nice. You can give a piglet a century and a library of books and it will still be incapable of forming or expressing an intelligent thought. Which is not a surprise given that it's a pig.

This should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

The reformist tag was a joke.I'd like to think that your entire post was a joke. Unfortunately it's not the first time I've encountered something like this on RevLeft. Some people either completely anthropomorphise animals or are just that misanthropic.

Rosa Partizan

12th May 2014, 20:04

Have you tried soy-based products? They're getting better :)

they're even free of cholesterol and some of them you couldn't distinguish from real meat. It's all about the spices. I got it all, vegan sausages, burgers, lasagne, bolognese etc...

The reformist tag was a joke.

Why is eating a baby worse than eating a pig? Answer my questions.

A pig is more intelligent than a baby, both emotionally and cerebrally. Answer my questions.

I don't understand that, either. Animals have a nervous system. They have a conscience for family, at least I know that about cows, who suffer severely when you take their calves away from them. They feel pain and why should their pain be marginalized and ours not?

Rosa Partizan

12th May 2014, 20:05

bropasaran

12th May 2014, 20:06

And unless animal rights activists are going to argue we need to teach animals not to eat other animals...I am going to continue to eat meat.
Unless we can teach animals to wear clothes... we shouldn't wear them either. If we should look up to animals, then we should do so in everything else that we do that animals don't (like, civilization) and what animals don't shy from doing, but we generally do (rape, murdering mating rivals, eating one's young, etc).

A baby is a human being, a member of homo sapiens. Give the baby a few years and he/she will be perfectly capable of laying out an argument as to why eating them is Not Nice. You can give a piglet a century and a library of books and it will still be incapable of forming or expressing an intelligent thought. Which is not a surprise given that it's a pig.
Speciesism is not only arbitrary, it's inconsistent with what almost all people (psychopaths excluded) already accept, as Rousseau said: "It appears, in fact, that if I am bound to do no injury to my fellow-creatures, this is less because they are rational than because they are sentient beings: and this quality is common both to men and beasts."

ComradeOm

12th May 2014, 20:11

Let me change your last sentence to:

You can give a mentally challenged child a century and a library of books and it will still be incapable of forming or expressing an intelligent thought. Which is not a surprise given that it's a mentally challenged child.I want to clarify this before I do anything. Are you suggesting that people with learning disabilities are a) "incapable of forming or expressing an intelligent thought" and/or b) of equal value to a pig?

Rosa Partizan

12th May 2014, 20:14

I want to clarify this before I do anything. Are you suggesting that people with learning disabilities are a) "incapable of forming or expressing an intelligent thought" and/or b) of equal value to a pig?

there can be mentally challenged children that will hardly ever be able to form a coherent sentence, and this is nothing that makes them less valueable. The same goes for animals. Both "creatures" feel physical and many animals even emotional main.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

12th May 2014, 20:15

A baby is a human being, a member of homo sapiens. Give the baby a few years and he/she will be perfectly capable of laying out an argument as to why eating them is Not Nice. You can give a piglet a century and a library of books and it will still be incapable of forming or expressing an intelligent thought. Which is not a surprise given that it's a pig.

This should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

I'd like to think that your entire post was a joke. Unfortunately it's not the first time I've encountered something like this on RevLeft. Some people either completely anthropomorphise animals or are just that misanthropic.

Why must one be able to lay put an argument to this effect for it to be wrong? I don't imagine this was on your mind when you first started eating animals - you do because you were taught to. Like a Christian is a Christian because that is how they are brought up, and a slaver owner a slave owner. All of you will find barriers and arguments to fit your inherited views, and use all manner of dogma to protect the status quo. Your attempted ridicule will not knock me.

If a slave has their tongue cut, should they remain a slave because they cannot communicate the reasons why not?

If a slave is not taught to speak, should they remain a slave because they cannot communicate the reasons why not?

Your distinctions are arbitrary and reactionary.

Some people have disabilities, mental and physical that prevent them from ever reaching the capacity of a pig. Would you eat them?

Sentient life is sentient life. Thinking is thinking and feeling is feeling.

Ridicule me when I petition to stop violence against wardrobes.

Rosa Partizan

12th May 2014, 20:16

Xena, I appreciate it a lot more when meat eaters say, fuck that ethic shit, I eat meat out of hedonism and don't care about reason or moral. That's at least an honest confession and not that shit one's reading here, these lame excuses and justifications.

PhoenixAsh

12th May 2014, 20:20

Unless we can teach animals to wear clothes... we shouldn't wear them either. If we should look up to animals, then we should do so in everything else that we do that animals don't (like, civilization) and what animals don't shy from doing, but we generally do (rape, murdering mating rivals, eating one's young, etc).

Animals wearing clothes. Check.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=animals+wearing+clothes&FORM=HDRSC2

also...don't google hamster fur coat.

PhoenixAsh

12th May 2014, 20:29

Mentally challenged children can't form a coherent argument because they are mentally challenged...pigs can't form a coherent argument because they are pigs. There is a huge qualitative difference.

People like to eat meat. I like to eat meat. I won't stop eating meat. I don't see anything wrong with eating meat. Eating meat is natural. Meat is an important part of human diet.

Then vegans come along and start to make moral and ethical arguments about how wrong it is to eat meat and kill sentient beings for their meat. Fine. Don't eat it. I won't force you to eat meat. Unfortunately vegans have a huge tendency to try and force non vegans to stop eating meat.

I really want to push them into a crocodile pit and argue with the Croc that it is wrong to kill and eat humans because they are sentient.

Don't want to eat meat. Don't. I do and I will.

And I will eat Bambi too.

Rosa Partizan

12th May 2014, 20:32

Mentally challenged children can't form a coherent argument because they are mentally challenged...pigs can't form a coherent argument because they are pigs. There is a huge qualitative difference.

People like to eat meat. I like to eat meat. I won't stop eating meat. I don't see anything wrong with eating meat. Eating meat is natural. Meat is an important part of human diet.

Then vegans come along and start to make moral and ethical arguments about how wrong it is to eat meat and kill sentient beings for their meat. Fine. Don't eat it. I won't force you to eat meat. Unfortunately vegans have a huge tendency to try and force non vegans to stop eating meat.

I really want to push them into a crocodile pit and argue with the Croc that it is wrong to kill and eat humans because they are sentient.

Don't want to eat meat. Don't. I do and I will.

And I will eat Bambi too.

my friends often call me Bambi, because of my big hazel eyes :crying:

will come back later at the rest of your post, gotta finish something else beforehand.

Broviet Union

12th May 2014, 20:42

I hear more complaining about vegan proselytization than I do actual vegan proselytization.

It might well be worthwhile for a socialist society to incentivize vegetarianism as much as possible, but in the immediate future socialism must come before rehabilitation of eating habits.

ComradeOm

12th May 2014, 21:05

there can be mentally challenged children that will hardly ever be able to form a coherent sentence, and this is nothing that makes them less valueable. The same goes for animals. Both "creatures" feel physical and many animals even emotional main.You know, fuck off. There are some things that I just have no enthusiasm for. One of them is having to explain to the deliberately obtuse as why we shouldn't eat children with learning disabilities.

Your distinctions are arbitrary and reactionary.No, I think my distinction is pretty clear-cut and obvious. Humans are better than other animals. That's it. Human beings possess an intelligence far, far in excess of any other species on this planet. We are able to put forward arguments and craft tools that other species cannot even comprehend. Or at least, I've not yet seen the lemurs' take on Les Mis.

Homo sapiens. I don't think that you can get a distinction more clear-cut than that. When another species is capable of questioning this distinction then I'll similarly reconsider it.

Speciesism is not only arbitrary, it's inconsistent with what almost all people (psychopaths excluded) already accept, as Rousseau said: "It appears, in fact, that if I am bound to do no injury to my fellow-creatures, this is less because they are rational than because they are sentient beings: and this quality is common both to men and beasts."Which is by some distance the most interesting thought in the thread.

However distaste at cruelty towards animals has little to do with the animals and everything to do with the cruelty. It says more about us and our application of violence than it does the welfare of animals. It's not that animals are the equals of humans but that, by their nature, violence employed against them is violence employed against the vulnerable. Something that few particularly like.

(Example. When a small boy tortures a puppy or other animal then the concern turns first and foremost towards the boy - what sort of violent urges is he harbouring? Is this a prelude to violent tendencies in later life? It's not that he's hurt a puppy but that he's proven capable of employing violence and cruelty.)

Wanton cruelty has never been a particularly attractive trait and societies that venerate it have historically been few. But Western societies have seen a prolonged decline in the use of violence in everyday life, to the point that it is almost certainly at an historic low in many parts of the world. The employment of violence in such an environment, regardless if it's against animals, always needs to be justified in such a context.

So the concern with animal cruelty has less to do with animals and more to do with humans. But even this does not excuse the equating of humans with animals, as if we were no better than each other. What do you think that "almost all people" feel about the argument that eating a pig is no better than eating a human baby?

Rosa Partizan

12th May 2014, 21:08

Mentally challenged children can't form a coherent argument because they are mentally challenged...pigs can't form a coherent argument because they are pigs. There is a huge qualitative difference.

according to the poster's logic, it would be fine then to eat those mentally challenged children, since they aren't capable of the same cognitive skills as healthy children. If he uses intelligence as an argument, he must be prepared for such objections.

People like to eat meat. I like to eat meat. I won't stop eating meat. fair enough.

I don't see anything wrong with eating meat. Eating meat is natural. Meat is an important part of human diet.
meat was eaten because there were no alternatives in terms of proteins, fat and so on. People haunted the animals down, killed them by themselves, diesemboweled them and prepared their meat, used the fur for clothing and blankets. This could be called natural. Going to the supermarket and buy packaged meat from animals that suffered weeks or months ain't. Furthermore, we got a ton of alternatives to receive enough protein and stuff.

Then vegans come along and start to make moral and ethical arguments about how wrong it is to eat meat and kill sentient beings for their meat. Fine. Don't eat it. I won't force you to eat meat. Unfortunately vegans have a huge tendency to try and force non vegans to stop eating meat. I know lots of vegans, really, really many. In Germany, being a leftist and not eating meat (and dairy) is kinda almost a matter of course. Not one of them starts those discussions by themselves. Almost always, they are the ones that have to justify for NOT eating meat, being attacked in that passive-aggressive manner many meat eaters tend to have against vegans. I know that from my own experience. In 95% of all those discussions, I was the one being attacked first.

I really want to push them into a crocodile pit and argue with the Croc that it is wrong to kill and eat humans because they are sentient.
common sense vs instinct, you know :rolleyes:

PhoenixAsh

12th May 2014, 21:20

:ohmy:

my friends often call me Bambi, because of my big hazel eyes :crying:

...

I...am...not entirely sure if there is an answer/reply that doesn't run the risk of offending you one way or the other.

PhoenixAsh

12th May 2014, 21:34

according to the poster's logic, it would be fine then to eat those mentally challenged children, since they aren't capable of the same cognitive skills as healthy children. If he uses intelligence as an argument, he must be prepared for such objections.

I think it is more the gist of the argument than the exceptions based on uncommon circumstances.

fair enough.

Jeeeej :)

meat was eaten because there were no alternatives in terms of proteins, fat and so on. People haunted the animals down, killed them by themselves, diesemboweled them and prepared their meat, used the fur for clothing and blankets. This could be called natural. Going to the supermarket and buy packaged meat from animals that suffered weeks or months ain't. Furthermore, we got a ton of alternatives to receive enough protein and stuff.

I would prefer to hunt my own food. Unfortunately there are laws against doing so...plus the huge disadvantage of having to work 10 hours a day which kind of prevents me from doing so (well that and the actually lack of prey animals which aren't owned).

All the alternatives don't taste as good though.

I know lots of vegans, really, really many. In Germany, being a leftist and not eating meat (and dairy) is kinda almost a matter of course. Not one of them starts those discussions by themselves. Almost always, they are the ones that have to justify for NOT eating meat, being attacked in that passive-aggressive manner many meat eaters tend to have against vegans. I know that from my own experience. In 95% of all those discussions, I was the one being attacked first.

Hmmm. Maybe this is cultural difference. In my experience it is the other way around. Although I am completely aware that experiences are subjective and are not really representative of what goes on outside my own sphere of observation/experience. Or maybe the Dutch vegans are just obnoxious on their live style.

Most vegans and vegetarians I know will eventually start eating meat again. I get the impression in my circles a lot of vegans (but more likely vegetarians) follow a new fashion statement. I don't care what people eat and as long as I can prepare it and know their diet before hand I will serve it when I am the one cooking and if I am invited for diner then I will eat what is being served.

Personally I like meat/fish/seafood. I get stomach problems when I eat too many carbs or vegetables/fruit (except for jelly beans...which I consider to be fruit).

common sense vs instinct, you know :rolleyes:

I just think changing behavioral patterns is really, really hard for crocodiles so it requires lots and lots of practice ;) :P

Rosa Partizan

12th May 2014, 21:38

Phoenix, let's break it down to that taste thing, okay? That's at least honest and I'm genuinely fine with that, much more than with the usual arguments about that.

consuming negativity

12th May 2014, 21:57

Mentally challenged children can't form a coherent argument because they are mentally challenged...pigs can't form a coherent argument because they are pigs. There is a huge qualitative difference.

People like to eat meat. I like to eat meat. I won't stop eating meat. I don't see anything wrong with eating meat. Eating meat is natural. Meat is an important part of human diet.

Then vegans come along and start to make moral and ethical arguments about how wrong it is to eat meat and kill sentient beings for their meat. Fine. Don't eat it. I won't force you to eat meat. Unfortunately vegans have a huge tendency to try and force non vegans to stop eating meat.

I really want to push them into a crocodile pit and argue with the Croc that it is wrong to kill and eat humans because they are sentient.

Don't want to eat meat. Don't. I do and I will.

And I will eat Bambi too.

You lambasted the comparison of humans to other animals, and then went on to compare humans to other animals to make a point. :laugh:

People who are capable of understanding and abiding by complex moral codes are much more ethically-bound to do so than beings who cannot conceive of complex morality or who are incapable of acting based on morality. For example, a crocodile must eat meat to survive, and is incapable of the complex thought necessary to understand the moral implications of eating meat. Humans do not subsist solely on meat, and we are capable of understanding ethics and putting them into practice. For someone who sees other animals as so far beneath us, you'd think that you'd also have higher moral standards for us than for animals as well.

PhoenixAsh

12th May 2014, 22:37

You lambasted the comparison of humans to other animals, and then went on to compare humans to other animals to make a point. :laugh:

I am not lambasting the comparison of humans to other animals at all. I am explaining the qualitative difference in the argument that was presented and why the comparison is not necessarily following.

People who are capable of understanding and abiding by complex moral codes are much more ethically-bound to do so than beings who cannot conceive of complex morality or who are incapable of acting based on morality. For example, a crocodile must eat meat to survive, and is incapable of the complex thought necessary to understand the moral implications of eating meat. Humans do not subsist solely on meat, and we are capable of understanding ethics and putting them into practice. For someone who sees other animals as so far beneath us, you'd think that you'd also have higher moral standards for us than for animals as well.

I don't think morality is objectively quantifiable and as such the ethical standards are subjective as well. So being able to abide by complex moral and ethical codes and obligations hasn't definitively established what is objectively moral or ethical.

So far the argument is that killing sentient beings is wrong. If this is an objective value then the ability to follow complex moral codes is irrelevant to this "truth". As it stands the statement isn't objective and logically you argue that the ability to follow complex moral codes determines what is right or wrong creating a subjective reality. One which doesn't correlate with the subjective moral reality of others.

For the record Crocodiles also do not subsits solely on eating meat and it has recently been established that Crocodiles eat huge quantities of fruits and plants with nutritional pay off.

The question is would a crocodile be able to survive on a non meat diet and I think the answer is no....just like a human won't be able to survive unless they heavily supplement their diet with pills and additives. Creatine, B12 and several other micro nutrients are solely found in either meat or supplements.

This would require people to supplement their diet with chemically enhanced supplements in order to survive and the problem with supplements is that they are considered harmless until proven otherwise which means that no or very little long term studies are done in these supplements and the actual needed dosage.

bropasaran

12th May 2014, 22:42

Which is by some distance the most interesting thought in the thread.

However distaste at cruelty towards animals has little to do with the animals and everything to do with the cruelty.
Even though people like e.g. Locke did advocate vegetarianism with no regard to animals, but as a means to train people in compassion and avoidance of any cruelty, I'm not talking about that. It's not about cruelty (excessive and/or sadistic harm), but about injury in general. We don't kill and eat people not because they can reason, but because they can feel pain and prefer to live. If we were consistent, we wouldn't kill and eat other animals either, being that they too have those two traits.

Broviet Union

12th May 2014, 22:51

No, I think my distinction is pretty clear-cut and obvious. Humans are better than other animals. That's it. Human beings possess an intelligence far, far in excess of any other species on this planet. We are able to put forward arguments and craft tools that other species cannot even comprehend. Or at least, I've not yet seen the lemurs' take on Les Mis.

Homo sapiens. I don't think that you can get a distinction more clear-cut than that. When another species is capable of questioning this distinction then I'll similarly reconsider it.

You are both right. Your distinction is arbitrary and reactionary, and also clearcut.

consuming negativity

12th May 2014, 23:09

I am not lambasting the comparison of humans to other animals at all. I am explaining the qualitative difference in the argument that was presented and why the comparison is not necessarily following.

Fair enough. I more thought it was amusing than something important to point out.

I don't think morality is objectively quantifiable and as such the ethical standards are subjective as well. So being able to abide by complex moral and ethical codes and obligations hasn't definitively established what is objectively moral or ethical.

So far the argument is that killing sentient beings is wrong. If this is an objective value then the ability to follow complex moral codes is irrelevant to this "truth". As it stands the statement isn't objective and logically you argue that the ability to follow complex moral codes determines what is right or wrong creating a subjective reality. One which doesn't correlate with the subjective moral reality of others.

For the record Crocodiles also do not subsits solely on eating meat and it has recently been established that Crocodiles eat huge quantities of fruits and plants with nutritional pay off.

The question is would a crocodile be able to survive on a non meat diet and I think the answer is no....just like a human won't be able to survive unless they heavily supplement their diet with pills and additives. Creatine, B12 and several other micro nutrients are solely found in either meat or supplements.

This would require people to supplement their diet with chemically enhanced supplements in order to survive and the problem with supplements is that they are considered harmless until proven otherwise which means that no or very little long term studies are done in these supplements and the actual needed dosage.Morality is subjective, yes, but so what? For practical purposes, there are many things that most people agree are immoral, and even more things that we can agree are detrimental, unfair, or cruel. Pain is objectively felt and is objectively unpleasant or unwanted in most circumstances. Suffering happens whether or not you claim it is moral, immoral, or amoral. Pulling the nihilist card is really, to me, just trying to argue for the sake of it rather than trying to take a serious look at the subject. I am wholly uninterested in intellectual masturbation.

I never claimed that humans can subsist without meat, nor did I say it was healthy or a good idea. In fact, I've posited the exact opposite. But I am very much in favor of minimizing cruelty, suffering, and pain to whatever extent we can. And I am also in favor of humans eating a healthy diet, which tends to vary widely based on who you ask. But generally speaking, nutritionists tend to agree that large quantities of red meat aren't the best thing for us, and cutting out red meat in today's world cuts out a lot of animal suffering. There are many animal products that we use which aren't really necessary or beneficial when given an increasing amount of opportunities to use alternatives to those products. Yes, this is often not possible for persons who are poor or who don't know of the alternatives, and no I don't think that boycotting is the answer to the ethical problems caused by our capitalist take on animal products. This thread is specifically about "farm animals under communism", and I am responding in that context.

Fakeblock

12th May 2014, 23:19

You are both right. Your distinction is arbitrary and reactionary, and also clearcut.

Why is it reactionary? It's biological fact.

PhoenixAsh

12th May 2014, 23:33

Morality is subjective, yes, but so what? For practical purposes, there are many things that most people agree are immoral, and even more things that we can agree are detrimental, unfair, or cruel. Pain is objectively felt and is objectively unpleasant or unwanted in most circumstances. Suffering happens whether or not you claim it is moral, immoral, or amoral. Pulling the nihilist card is really, to me, just trying to argue for the sake of it rather than trying to take a serious look at the subject. I am wholly uninterested in intellectual masturbation.

It isn't intellectual masturbation...(which sounds riveting though)...it is pointing out that since morality and ethics are subjective there are huge differences of opinion of whether or not it is moral or ethical to eat animals. I don't really see any moral or ethical problems with eating animals and I haven't yet heard a convincing one to persuade me to see otherwise. Most arguments boil down to sentience or being able to live up to complex standards (as indeed you argued) however I don't see any ethical or moral imperative in these. Animals eat animals...most of them do....and this is considered fine. Except when Human animals do...then this is considered morally and ethically problematic. Why? Because we are more intelligent? Dolphins and Apes are intelligent, able to form complex behavioral patterns. Able to have some form of moral complexity. They eat meat or kill for pleasure. Why should we be held to any different standard?

I never claimed that humans can subsist without meat, nor did I say it was healthy or a good idea. In fact, I've posited the exact opposite. But I am very much in favor of minimizing cruelty, suffering, and pain to whatever extent we can.

Sure. I don't think eating meat necessarily excludes this.

And I am also in favor of humans eating a healthy diet, which tends to vary widely based on who you ask. But generally speaking, nutritionists tend to agree that large quantities of red meat aren't the best thing for us, and cutting out red meat in today's world cuts out a lot of animal suffering.

This indeed depends on the red meat kind. Processed red meat (plus bacon) is generally unhealthy because of additives such as nitrates and fat. Lean red meat is healthy and beneficial. And with everything, including plants, eating in excess is always detrimental to health.

There are many animal products that we use which aren't really necessary or beneficial when given an increasing amount of opportunities to use alternatives to those products.

Sure. Although...not really sure what products you are aiming at here. But I can think of several food products which require the direct torture of animals to be produced such as Geese liver. This is mainly done to ramp up production of amount of liver per Goose.

Yes, this is often not possible for persons who are poor or who don't know of the alternatives, and no I don't think that boycotting is the answer to the ethical problems caused by our capitalist take on animal products. This thread is specifically about "farm animals under communism", and I am responding in that context.

Fair enough

However I do like to point out that when you answered my posts you were seemingly basing it on the assumption I would think eating meat would include disregard for a certain amount of quality of life for the animal and killing them in painful manners. Again...one does not follow the other.

PhoenixAsh

12th May 2014, 23:35

also...I can't resist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JpRmmMyNYo

Xena Warrior Proletarian

12th May 2014, 23:41

Why is it reactionary? It's biological fact.

People said the same when enslaving black people.

Moralistic fallacy– inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.

Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring ought from is (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.

Some people use the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" to characterize inferences of the form "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesireable." Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality, environmentalism and veganism.
The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for Social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the Naturalistic Fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK). The moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary.

consuming negativity

13th May 2014, 01:43

It isn't intellectual masturbation...(which sounds riveting though)...it is pointing out that since morality and ethics are subjective there are huge differences of opinion of whether or not it is moral or ethical to eat animals. I don't really see any moral or ethical problems with eating animals and I haven't yet heard a convincing one to persuade me to see otherwise. Most arguments boil down to sentience or being able to live up to complex standards (as indeed you argued) however I don't see any ethical or moral imperative in these. Animals eat animals...most of them do....and this is considered fine. Except when Human animals do...then this is considered morally and ethically problematic. Why? Because we are more intelligent? Dolphins and Apes are intelligent, able to form complex behavioral patterns. Able to have some form of moral complexity. They eat meat or kill for pleasure. Why should we be held to any different standard?

Sure. I don't think eating meat necessarily excludes this.

This indeed depends on the red meat kind. Processed red meat (plus bacon) is generally unhealthy because of additives such as nitrates and fat. Lean red meat is healthy and beneficial. And with everything, including plants, eating in excess is always detrimental to health.

Sure. Although...not really sure what products you are aiming at here. But I can think of several food products which require the direct torture of animals to be produced such as Geese liver. This is mainly done to ramp up production of amount of liver per Goose.

Fair enough

However I do like to point out that when you answered my posts you were seemingly basing it on the assumption I would think eating meat would include disregard for a certain amount of quality of life for the animal and killing them in painful manners. Again...one does not follow the other.

Please don't cut my posts up like this... makes responding such a chore.

I never said there were any moral or ethical problems with eating meat. The ethical and moral problems come with the treatment of animals before and during slaughter, as well as with the owning of animals. You said in your post that I was unfairly coupling/assuming that the unethical treatment of animals necessarily comes from eating meat. This is partially correct, insofar as my position is that the farming of animals will always bring about ethical problems in some way, shape, or form. That isn't to say that farming is always immoral, however. Also, it is important to note that my position is in the context of a society in which we are able to create edible meat in laboratories without farming animals themselves.

You ask why humans should be any different than animals when eating meat. First and foremost, animals in the wild don't farm other animals, and so the moral implications of factory farming and ownership - the most frequently excessive abuses - are nonexistent. Animals also do not wear other animals as a fashion statement, but even if they did, they do not have the capacity to understand morality and ethical behavior. Humans (generally speaking, anyway) are different because we are capable of understanding and acting on morality. Therefore, we have a higher (or in this case, an) obligation to do so. I feel like I already explained that... maybe I'm missing the point you're trying to make here?

Fakeblock

13th May 2014, 02:30

People said the same when enslaving black people.

Moralistic fallacy– inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.

Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring ought from is (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.

Some people use the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" to characterize inferences of the form "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesireable." Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality, environmentalism and veganism.
The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for Social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the Naturalistic Fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK). The moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary.

ComradeOm accurately made a distinction between Homo Sapiens and other species, with regards to intelligence, abstract thought and so on - if the distinction is factual it can't be neither reactionary nor progressive. Humans are more intelligent than mice. What to make of this is up to oneself. However, white people are not by default more intelligent than black people. It doesn't really matter what slaveowners used to say. They were wrong, we aren't.

Why do you think making an accurate distinction between humans and other animals is reactionary?

The Jay

13th May 2014, 02:40

Oh you innocent animal murderers. How do you do it? Are vegetables that bad?

I haven't murdered a chicken in my life. Others do that for me. Vegetables are delicious too.

Broviet Union

13th May 2014, 02:49

ComradeOm accurately made a distinction between Homo Sapiens and other species, with regards to intelligence, abstract thought and so on - if the distinction is factual it can't be neither reactionary nor progressive. Humans are more intelligent than mice. What to make of this is up to oneself. However, white people are not by default more intelligent than black people.

You are missing the very obvious point that ComradeOm was not making a simple observation of brute fact, but deriving value judgements from such facts. Why you are defending him is beyond me, but Xena's criticism stands and you have implicitly agreed with it.

They were wrong, we aren't.

:rolleyes:

Tenka

13th May 2014, 03:16

Sea

13th May 2014, 03:38

Reformist. No but seriously though you are referring to animals - sentient beings as goods. It's sick.

Some questions for all of you.

Is it worse to kill a young person than an old person (or is it the same)?
Is it worse to kill a baby or an adult (or is it the same)?
Is it worse to kill a baby or a pig?
Would you eat a pig? (Not necessary for survival)
Would you eat a baby? (Not necessary for survival)
If yes to pig, but no to baby, why?

My feeling is that there is widescale speciesism in the world, and that one day we will come to view this in a similar way to how we view racism today (and it's prevalence in the past). Let us take Marx for example - racist. People say it's not a big deal because that was the common opinion of the time. It is hard to escape our conditioning but we must try.

Aristotle could not fathom a world without human slaves. Surely these kinds of opinions are unforgivable to you. You will be viewed the same one day. There is no excuse. Us who have rejected capitalism, patriarchy, heteronormativity and more must examine everything. Because it is so does not mean it will always be so, or that it should be so.

"When ancestors in ages beyond recollection killed stags, the descendant still finds pleasure in this occupation. But my ancestors did not belong to the hunters so much as to the hunted, and the idea of attacking the descendants of those who were our comrades in misery goes against my grain." - Heinrich Heine

Why do you feel entitled to the flesh of others? Many people nowadays feel entitled the fruits of other people's labour. There are two classes. The exploiters and the exploited. Why must you force divisions on sentient beings? Species, race, sex. These things mean nothing.Killing is not wrong. Abandon your silly bourgeois moralism. You don't need to rely on ethical hogwash to experience the joys of conforming to the existing social mores regarding killing and death - I don't go around killing humans because it's illegal (unless I do it for god and country, of course) and would have repercussions resulting from the morality of others. I don't go out of my way to kill animals for the same reasons, and in each case I have better things to do with my time. Think about all the bacteria, for the death of which you are responsible daily! Millions upon millions of lifeforms wasted. What makes sentient beings special? That they can feel suffering? How does that make it wrong to kill? How does suffering produce a wrongness?

You are being incredibly speciesist, in the most bigoted and hypocritical way, to think that sentient beings are superior to non-sentient forms of life. If it is "wrong" to make a distinction between life forms which posses higher intelligence (ie, humans) and those whose mental capacity is less developed, how is it "right" to make such a distinction between sentient beings of any capacity and those with no (or infinitesimal) brain capacity? In each case, in every case, life is not sacred and has no inherent value. You are making arbitrary distinctions between different life forms.If you insist on saying otherwise, please provide evidence to support what you think you know, and the degree of certainty with which you think you know it. Until then, fuck off and take your shill prejudice with you.

ps: What is so unforgivable about human slaves? In Aristotle's time, slavery was perfectly suited. In our time, it is certainly absurd and incompatible, but there isn't anything wrong with slavery.

Have you tried soy-based products? They're getting better Honestly, I've always like smart dogs way better than hotdogs. And now they're trying to make smart dogs taste like hotdogs... Yuck.

bropasaran

13th May 2014, 04:02

In each case, in every case, life is not sacred and has no inherent value. If you insist on saying otherwise, please provide evidence to support what you think you know, and the degree of certainty with which you think you know it.Please do, provide evidence that life has no value.

Sea

13th May 2014, 04:17

Please do, provide evidence that life has no value.1. I know of no empirical nor material evidence that life has a value. Contrast this to the (concrete and economic, not abstract and ethical) value of labor, for which there is empirical evidence.

2. I know of no evidence that non-humans make decisions about the abstract "value" of life. I do know that other species (including ones that we think of as non-sentient) make decisions, or at least act out decisions, corresponding to a selfish usefulness, but this is notwithstanding.

3. I do know that humans are capable of making such distinctions, but I also know that such distinctions are often contradictory, hence why we have this thread in the first place. I also know that these distinctions are (in large part) cultural, and are quite arbitrary according to the conditions that gave rise to them.

Your demand is as nonsensical as a religionist asking an atheist to prove that god doesn't exist, but in any event, I'll take back what I said about live definitely having no value, and say this instead:

There is no reason to believe that life has a value.

I'm still awaiting evidence from you or Xena that life does have a value.

bropasaran

13th May 2014, 04:27

1. I know of no empirical nor material evidence that life has a value. Contrast this to the (concrete and economic, not abstract and ethical) value of labor, for which there is empirical evidence.What exactly is the empirical evidence of the concrete value of labor? That it's sold for a price?

2. I know of no evidence that non-humans make decisions about the abstract "value" of life.Which is relevant why?

I do know that other species (including ones that we think of as non-sentient) make decisions, or at least act out decisions, corresponding to a selfish usefulness, but this is notwithstanding.Why?

3. I do know that humans are capable of making such distinctions, but I also know that such distinctions are often contradictoryWhich is exactly the vegetarian point. It's simple logic: if one accepts that it's not OK to eat people because they feel pain and prefer to live, then one must, in order not to be contradictory, also accept the that it's not OK to eat non-human animals, because they, too, have those two traits. If one doesn't accept the first premise, he's probably a psychopath who should be institutionalized.

Your demand is as nonsensical as a religionist asking an atheist to prove that god doesn't existDifference being that existence of god isn't presupposed in the act of living.

There is no reason to believe that life has a value.Does your life have value?

Broviet Union

13th May 2014, 04:36

Can we avoid masturbatory debates over who is the edgiest nihilist, please?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

13th May 2014, 04:40

If I can't eat bacon, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

Sea

13th May 2014, 05:19

What exactly is the empirical evidence of the concrete value of labor? That it's sold for a price?I am not here to lesson you on economics. Create a thread dedicated to this question if you are having any trouble understanding it.
Which is relevant why? See point #3. If the one source for such judgements is unreliable, it is reasonable to seek out another source. The fact that I have yet to find any, or find anyone who has found any, is directly relevant to this.
Which is exactly the vegetarian point. It's simple logic: if one accepts that it's not OK to eat people because they feel pain and prefer to live, then one must, in order not to be contradictory, also accept the that it's not OK to eat non-human animals, because they, too, have those two traits. If one doesn't accept the first premise, he's probably a psychopath who should be institutionalized.The existing mental health system is a wreck, and has no place in a logical argument. People are institutionalized for their politics in some countries. Not long ago, homosexuals were institutionalized, and still are in many parts of the world. You are not only making a value judgement that you cannot support, you're also claiming that the occurrence of pain is the deciding factor. Do you have evidence for either? You seem to have skipped over the last sentences in point #3. That's a shame, because they contradict the "vegetarian point".
Difference being that existence of god isn't presupposed in the act of living.The value of life isn't presupposed in the act of living. Life is, as we know, a very complex chemical reaction. Must it have an abstract value?
Does your life have value?You are confusing ones personal sense of self-worth with the metaphysical "value" that you are arguing in favor of in the rest of this post. Don't mix up definitions. The value of ones own life, as in self-worth, is an actually-existing thing because it is directly influenced by concrete occurrences, and we can study these influences through the science of psychology. The other sort of value, the abstract value of life, cannot be studied nor measured in any way that I know of. If it can, let me know. In fact, this would be the best thing you can do in favor of your argument! The latter sort of value is what we have been discussing thus far, and is what I refer to when I use the term value, unless I specify otherwise. Keep that in mind, and do the same. This question is therefore rather off-topic, but if you must know, yes, I am quite happy with my life. I have a job that keeps me amused and provides intellectual stimulation (under capitalism, that's about as good as I can reasonably expect). I have a circle of wonderful friends with whom I shoot the shit, a wonderful SO with whom I share my life and money, and we both keep our asses washed. I have a refrigerator, a big-screen color TV, an automatic coffee maker, a stereo, a big box of junk in my garage that I honestly don't know what it is, a computer, nice clothes and some houseplants that occasional tip over on their own accord, so I'm pretty well-off in this consumer paradise. What about you? How's your life?
Can we avoid masturbatory debates over who is the edgiest nihilist, please?It's not about being a nihilist, it's about getting rid of superstitions and developing a more accurate understanding of the world around us. I don't even really consider myself to be a nihilist, nor am I very familiar with nihilism as a philosophical current.

RedWorker

13th May 2014, 05:20

Hey, I eat meat, but I don't pretend I'm not a piece of shit who perpetuates non-human animal mass murder because of it. I mean, these people who are arguing that "eating meat is fine" are kidding themselves, saying eating meat is like eating a baby is completely ridiculous in the same way communism is completely ridiculous - in the mainstream point of view, the official thought, enforced by the ruling class and comfortably accepted. Meat is good, money is good. :laugh: Come on, just because it tastes a little better all that cruelty should be done? How long are some people going to continue their nonsense arguments?

Let us take Marx for example - racist

I don't think it's fair to call Marx a racist because he used the word "nigger" like a couple times in private letters. He hated slavery, discrimination, etc... and was very progressive.

People like to eat meat. I like to eat meat. I won't stop eating meat. I don't see anything wrong with eating meat. Eating meat is natural. Meat is an important part of human diet.

Then vegans come along and start to make moral and ethical arguments about how wrong it is to eat meat and kill sentient beings for their meat. Fine. Don't eat it. I won't force you to eat meat. Unfortunately vegans have a huge tendency to try and force non vegans to stop eating meat.

I really want to push them into a crocodile pit and argue with the Croc that it is wrong to kill and eat humans because they are sentient.

Don't want to eat meat. Don't. I do and I will.

Murderers like to murder people. I like to murder people. I won't stop murdering people. I don't see anything wrong with murdering people. Murdering people is natural. People are an important part of human diet.

Then people come along and start to make moral and ethical arguments about how wrong it is to murder people and kill people for their meat. Fine. Don't murder people. I won't force you to murder people. Unfortunately people have a huge tendency to try and force people to stop murdering people.

I really want to push them into a prison and argue with the murderers that it is wrong to murder and eat humans because they are sentient.

Don't want to murder people. Don't. I do and I will.

---

Sexists like to be sexist. I like to be a sexist. I won't stop being a sexist. I don't see anything wrong with being a sexist. Being a sexist is natural.

Then feminists come along and start to make moral and ethical arguments about how wrong it is to be a sexist and uphold patriarchy. Fine. Don't be a sexist. I won't force you to be a sexist. Unfortunately feminists have a huge tendency to try and force sexists to stop being sexist.

I really want to push them into a GOP convention and argue with the Republicans that it is wrong to be sexist because women should be respected.

Don't be a sexist. Don't. I do and I will.

---

Capitalists like to be capitalists. I like to be a capitalist. I won't stop being a capitalist. I don't see anything wrong with being a capitalist. Being a capitalist is natural.

Then socialists come along and start to make moral and ethical arguments about how wrong it is to be a capitalist and worship money. Fine. Don't be a capitalist. I won't force you to be a capitalist. Unfortunately socialists have a huge tendency to try and force capitalists to stop being capitalist.

I really want to push them into a slave state and argue with the slave owners that it is wrong to own slaves because people should be respected.

Don't be a capitalist. Don't. I do and I will.

Queen Mab

13th May 2014, 05:24

Do the people militating against the killing of farm animals also think it's morally wrong to kill ants, spiders, mosquitoes, trees or bacteria?

What I mean is, we are moving the goalpost of "Thou shalt not kill" from sapience to...?

Sea

13th May 2014, 05:38

People are an important part of human diet. People. It's what's for dinner!

In all seriousness, cannibalism does play (has played?) an important role in some cultures. This is further evidence to the point I made above, that judgements on value are often cultural and can vary all over the place depending on material and historical context. In fact, the study of sociology and anthropology can tell us a great deal about how these wildly varying and absurdly contradictory value judgements came to be current in the first place, and how they can arise while having no factual content.
Murderers like to murder people. I like to murder people. Regarding naturalness, it must be said that those who argue that killing or eating meat is okay because it's natural are full of it, because it implies that not killing people or eating meat is somehow artificial or unnatural (bullshit on its own) and that being a vegetarian is therefore somehow bad (double bullshit!).

QueerVanguard

13th May 2014, 05:45

4 legs good, 2 legs bad.

Fakeblock

13th May 2014, 11:21

You are missing the very obvious point that ComradeOm was not making a simple observation of brute fact, but deriving value judgements from such facts. Why you are defending him is beyond me, but Xena's criticism stands and you have implicitly agreed with it.

I'm not sure what you mean. Which criticism have I agreed with? I still fail to see why distinguishing animals and humans in terms of intelligence - and deriving value judgements from this - is reactionary. Emancipation of the animal is not, and has never been, a communist goal.

:rolleyes:

ok.

Ainu Itak

13th May 2014, 13:25

White People said the same when enslaving black people.

Except that 'black people' are Homo Sapiens and and pigs are goddamned fucking pigs you mung. I find it pretty goddamned insulting that you'd even try to make that pathetic comparison.

If your post is about animal cruelty then I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. The subjection of animals to insane levels of pain and torture is both unnecessary and cruel (e.g. boiling live Lobsters). However, if you then argue that every animal is on equal grounds with Homo Sapiens and (theoretically if they were still around) it's ancient cousins, then I must ask of you this: when does the chain link break? At what point is it 'ethically' alright to consume any form of life? Take a Sponge, a member of Animalia which is arguably less biologically complex than your average Potato or Taro. Is it okay to consume root crops for energy but not an equally comparable animal? If so, why? Is it because one has a cellular wall and another doesn't? At what point does it stop being morally vacuous to consume another life form for nutrients and energy? You clearly don't believe that an animal's nervous system is a valid form of classification for what is and isn't taboo to consume, so what is?

Are you claiming that people shouldn't eat at all? I highly doubt this one as you seem to identify as a vegan in previous posts, but for doubt's sake I must express to you that we are heterotrophic animals. We cannot directly convert sunlight or heat into chemical energy - we need autotrophs and other heterotrophs for that. In order to survive, for the most part we have to consume other lifeforms or the products of other lifeforms.

P.s. Fixed your original post for historical accuracy. Changes in bold.

Edit: Fixed lack of cohesion.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

13th May 2014, 23:08

Except that 'black people' are Homo Sapiens and and pigs are goddamned fucking pigs you mung. I find it pretty goddamned insulting that you'd even try to make that pathetic comparison.

If your post is about animal cruelty then I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. The subjection of animals to insane levels of pain and torture is both unnecessary and cruel (e.g. boiling live Lobsters). However, if you then argue that every animal is on equal grounds with Homo Sapiens and (theoretically if they were still around) it's ancient cousins, then I must ask of you this: when does the chain link break? At what point is it 'ethically' alright to consume any form of life? Take a Sponge, a member of Animalia which is arguably less biologically complex than your average Potato or Taro. Is it okay to consume root crops for energy but not an equally comparable animal? If so, why? Is it because one has a cellular wall and another doesn't? At what point does it stop being morally vacuous to consume another life form for nutrients and energy? You clearly don't believe that an animal's nervous system is a valid form of classification for what is and isn't taboo to consume, so what is?

Are you claiming that people shouldn't eat at all? I highly doubt this one as you seem to identify as a vegan in previous posts, but for doubt's sake I must express to you that we are heterotrophic animals. We cannot directly convert sunlight or heat into chemical energy - we need autotrophs and other heterotrophs for that. In order to survive, for the most part we have to consume other lifeforms or the products of other lifeforms.

P.s. Fixed your original post for historical accuracy. Changes in bold.

Edit: Fixed lack of cohesion.

Why does it matter that there is a collective noun that describes us 'homo sapiens'? Why is that any more important than race, nationality or eye colour?

And why should membership of this arbitrary group mean that we should eat OUTSIDE the group? It makes just as much sense (or lack of it as I am showing) that we should only eat INSIDE of this group. Your argument is no more sound than that for exclusive cannibalism.

The line that I respect is sentience. Thinking and feeling. This is the single biggest qualitative difference around by miles. Sentience is the cornerstone of morality.

You can try and get all nihilist on me, but then we will also have to say that opposing capitalism is meaningless moralism and silliness.

Once again. I am a vegan. I survive just fine. There are loads of vegans who excel in all sorts of physical disciplines. You don't NEED meat.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

13th May 2014, 23:13

Really? Nobody has made an Animal Farm joke…. I'm fucking disappointed.

Also, as Broviet Union pointed out, being an edgy nihilist is just embarrassing. Life obviously has value. Otherwise, why the fuck do you care about the liberation of all humans? If life had no value, you wouldn't even be political.

Inb4 "l0l d00d we're not moralists we're marxists"

Sea

13th May 2014, 23:34

The line that I respect is sentience. Thinking and feeling. This is the single biggest qualitative difference around by miles. Sentience is the cornerstone of morality.

You can try and get all nihilist on me, but then we will also have to say that opposing capitalism is meaningless moralism and silliness.All that I am asking is that you provide evidence to back up your claims. Could you please do this? If I am wrong, I would like to know, so that I can correct my views.

And we do not oppose capitalism out of morality. We oppose capitalism out of selfishness. If we opposed capitalism out of morality, we would expect that the bourgeoisie oppose it as well, because they are equally sentient.

MarcusJuniusBrutus

13th May 2014, 23:36

Some parts of the world are not suitable for agriculture. The reason goats are so popular in the Middle East is because they can eat desert greenery that humans cannot. Also, there will still be a need for nitrates for growing crops and the cow shit is still the best non-industrial source for that. Hogs essentially eat garbage (not trash, that's different), so feeding it to them is basically free protein. So there would still be meat to supplement a largely grain and legume based diet.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

13th May 2014, 23:52

All that I am asking is that you provide evidence to back up your claims. Could you please do this? If I am wrong, I would like to know, so that I can correct my views.

And we do not oppose capitalism out of morality. We oppose capitalism out of selfishness. If we opposed capitalism out of morality, we would expect that the bourgeoisie oppose it as well, because they are equally sentient.

There is no inherent value in having your interests met. The concept of interests is a moralistic one. You take the view that it is 'good' to have materials needs met. This is not an inherent value. There are no inherent values. Sorry you are moralistic like the rest of us :(

This is something you just have to kind of accept, and do your best regardless tbh. There are no inherent moralities. Try to strip yourself of the ones you picked up through societal conditioning (you will obviously never be able to even nearly do this, no-one can) grab some axioms, adhere to logic, and Socratic dialogue/Cartesian doubt your ass to some opinions that you can consider slightly closer to the truth than other peoples. Life sucks, but that's all there is. It's misery or oblivion. Sweet dreams :)

Sea

14th May 2014, 00:01

There is no inherent value in having your interests met. The concept of interests is a moralistic one. You take the view that it is 'good' to have materials needs met. This is not an inherent value. There are no inherent values. Sorry you are moralistic like the rest of us :(I never said that there was an inherent value. You are correct in saying that there isn't! Why must there be one?
This is something you just have to kind of accept, and do your best regardless tbh. There are no inherent moralities. Try to strip yourself of the ones you picked up through societal conditioning (you will obviously never be able to even nearly do this, no-one can) grab some axioms, adhere to logic, and Socratic dialogue/Cartesian doubt your ass to some opinions that you can consider slightly closer to the truth than other peoples. Life sucks, but that's all there is. It's misery or oblivion. Sweet dreams :)Perhaps life sucks for those so confused by the moralistic sophistry that they have been taught and spew to others ad nauseum, but mine is going quite well. Not sure why you'd assume otherwise.

But can you please provide some evidence to back up your previous statements? This is expected of you when you engage in a debate. As much as I appreciate your trolling, it's not helping your argument.

PhoenixAsh

14th May 2014, 00:26

Why does it matter that there is a collective noun that describes us 'homo sapiens'? Why is that any more important than race, nationality or eye colour?

And why should membership of this arbitrary group mean that we should eat OUTSIDE the group? It makes just as much sense (or lack of it as I am showing) that we should only eat INSIDE of this group. Your argument is no more sound than that for exclusive cannibalism.

Well...for one...prions....which results in CJD, kuru, neurological degeneration.
Which is basically a huge risk.

But other than that...there isn't one.

The line that I respect is sentience. Thinking and feeling. This is the single biggest qualitative difference around by miles. Sentience is the cornerstone of morality.

But this isn't entirely true. Where does sentience cross over into morality?
And what level of sentience? And how do we measure it? And what of people who are brain dead?

Once again. I am a vegan. I survive just fine. There are loads of vegans who excel in all sorts of physical disciplines. You don't NEED meat.

Why not? Right now we do. Unless you want us to use supplements.

Also...there is the waste conundrum.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

14th May 2014, 00:30

I never said that there was an inherent value. You are correct in saying that there isn't! Why must there be one? Perhaps life sucks for those so confused by the moralistic sophistry that they have been taught and spew to others ad nauseum, but mine is going quite well. Not sure why you'd assume otherwise.

But can you please provide some evidence to back up your previous statements? This is expected of you when you engage in a debate. As much as I appreciate your trolling, it's not helping your argument.

You are presuming that it is good to have our class interests met. Why is this so? Because you think it is. There is nothing scientific about it. It's a matter of opinion, and has nothing to do with fact.

If there is no inherent value, then the value has been placed upon it - an act of moralism.

Just to pre-emptively strike against another post, here's an example. The workers must seize the means of production! Why? Moralism or... because it is necessary to have their interests met! Why must they have their interests met? Moralism (because it's good to have interests met).

Just as there is no 'evidence' you can provide for communism (as to why it should be) there is no 'evidence' I can provide for Veganism and why it should be.

What exactly is it that you would like me to provide 'evidence' for. I genuinely don't know what you're asking here.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

14th May 2014, 00:45

Well...for one...prions....which results in CJD, kuru, neurological degeneration.
Which is basically a huge risk.

But other than that...there isn't one.

I can't imagine there are any risks associated with eating animal meat...

But this isn't entirely true. Where does sentience cross over into morality?
And what level of sentience? And how do we measure it? And what of people who are brain dead?

Sentience -> empathy -> Morality.

Measure it? It is a discrete quality. Science.

Brain dead people... That's an interesting one. There's no real harm in erring on the side of caution with these things either. What do you think?

Why not? Right now we do. Unless you want us to use supplements.

What's wrong with supplements? Nothing. Do you take medicine? Think of it the same way.

Also...there is the waste conundrum.

please expand.

MarcusJuniusBrutus

14th May 2014, 01:27

A few points. after reading over some other posts.

My ethical/moral is humanity. I don't really care to what degree non-humans are sentient or not. I'm not going to project human values onto animals. My wife is a vegetarian and she draws that line at bugs. Bug pests like ants are not animals for the purposes of her moral universe. For me, neither are mammals. So we agree to disagree.

The definition of "murder" varies by jurisdiction, but always means a human death that is something other than an accident. At Common Law, the traditional law that English-language countries inherited from England, murder was the 1. unlawful 2. killing 3. of a human with 4. malice 5. aforethought. Malice meant any of the following: intent to kill, intent to cause serious injury, a death caused by the commission of another felony, or extremely reckless behavior. Killing animals by definition cannot be murder (not unlawful, not human).

I realize that big-agro meat, dairy, and poultry production is an environmental disaster. I realize we have caught nearly all the wild, edible fish, except for very small ones. I deplore the destruction of wildlife on environmental and aesthetic grounds. I do not hunt (it would upset my wife) and would never hurt an animal for no reason. (Eating, clothing--I mean leather, not fur--, and curing diseases are reasons).

Consequently, comparisons between the luxury issue of animal welfare and the issues of abolition of slavery are deeply offensive. Slaves are human beings as is every other constructed and oppressed minority group. Cruelty to a person because she or he is a different color or religion or sex or orientation is the same as being cruel to one's own friends, family, indeed, to one's own self. All humans descended from a tiny group of surviving hominids in the horn of Africa. And we are remarkable beings, if I may say so, despite our rough edges.

Sea

14th May 2014, 01:31

You are presuming that it is good to have our class interests met. Why is this so? Because you think it is. There is nothing scientific about it. It's a matter of opinion, and has nothing to do with fact.

If there is no inherent value, then the value has been placed upon it - an act of moralism.

Just to pre-emptively strike against another post, here's an example. The workers must seize the means of production! Why? Moralism or... because it is necessary to have their interests met! Why must they have their interests met? Moralism (because it's good to have interests met).No, I am not saying that having our class interests met is good. As I have contended all along, there is no such thing as "good"! I am not saying that communism is good and that capitalism is bad. That would be stupid, because the viability of both is determined by the current social, political and economic context and the level of development. The same goes for slave-based production which, just as in that quip of Marx's that you referenced earlier, was perfectly good and natural to the likes of Aristotle.

You accuse me of making value judgements, and on that basis you call me a moralist, but I do not make such judgements!

What exactly is it that you would like me to provide 'evidence' for. I genuinely don't know what you're asking here.Go through this thread and take a look at the assertions you've made on the morality of eating meat. For starters, you stated that sentience is the cornerstone of morality. I'd like you to give evidence for this assertion, or at the very least give some logical reasoning. Typing out 3 words with arrows pointing between them like you did for PhoenixAsh isn't enough. More pressingly, in order to do this, you (or someone) is going to have to demonstrate that "morally good" and "morally bad" are valid attributes in the first place.

RedWorker

14th May 2014, 01:34

Consequently, comparisons between the luxury issue of animal welfare and the issues of abolition of slavery are deeply offensive. Slaves are human beings as is every other constructed and oppressed minority group. Cruelty to a person because she or he is a different color or religion or sex or orientation is the same as being cruel to one's own friends, family, indeed, to one's own self. All humans descended from a tiny group of surviving hominids in the horn of Africa. And we are remarkable beings, if I may say so, despite our rough edges.

This is only your opinion, though. Cruelty to a human is the same as cruelty to a non-human animal within my point of view. I truly do not see any "difference". We have the same ability to suffer and any such "difference" would be going down to "we are more worthy because we are more intelligent", etc. It's disgusting to discriminate by such things and to determine certain species as "superior" and others as "inferior". I think some years in the future this will be seen as cruel as racism and slavery are seen now.

A luxury issue for whom? Clearly not for the animals who are being slaughtered, who have feelings and suffering as true as humans', a family, friends, a life...

Xena Warrior Proletarian

14th May 2014, 02:07

No, I am not saying that having our class interests met is good. As I have contended all along, there is no such thing as "good"! I am not saying that communism is good and that capitalism is bad. That would be stupid, because the viability of both is determined by the current social, political and economic context and the level of development. The same goes for slave-based production which, just as in that quip of Marx's that you referenced earlier, was perfectly good and natural to the likes of Aristotle.

You accuse me of making value judgements, and on that basis you call me a moralist, but I do not make such judgements!

Then why/how are you a communist? You simply can't hold such a position without moralism. (Is what I've been trying to say) I very much doubt you can provide a single opinion that isn't undermined by 'moralism' - hence why I don't see it as valid to undermine an individual argument; on the same grounds that any argument could be undermined.

Go through this thread and take a look at the assertions you've made on the morality of eating meat. For starters, you stated that sentience is the cornerstone of morality. I'd like you to give evidence for this assertion, or at the very least give some logical reasoning. Typing out 3 words with arrows pointing between them like you did for PhoenixAsh isn't enough.

To be honest if you can't see the links between these words then there's not much point me explaining in anything less than essay form, and I really can't be arsed to research and write one.

Reading that it sounds very weak, but that's the truth of it. Most systems of morality are based on empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Sentience is to have feelings.

It seems like the logical progression to me to go with sentience rather than some arbitrary juncture in the evolutionary timeline.

More pressingly, in order to do this, you (or someone) is going to have to demonstrate that "morally good" and "morally bad" are valid attributes in the first place.

I can't, and I'm not going to attempt to. I only said these things to establish where the 'masturbatury nihilism' (as someone so elegantly put it) starts so that it can be avoided as much as possible as a criticism. To employ it is to undermine everything, and we are left with no way of arguing 'meaningfully' :) irony geddit? :)

Ele'ill

14th May 2014, 02:19

of course other animals feel emotional distress and physical pain, we have the knowledge on how to live healthy lives with fruits and vegetables, also with supplements, I don't see a place for animal industry in communism

to the original poster of this thread, you should do a forum search using keywords 'animal liberation', 'meat', 'vegan' etc.. and find some of the threads that are 500 posts long

Ele'ill

14th May 2014, 02:52

14th May 2014, 03:19

We don't need farm animals now, under capitalism. You could have capitalism without farm animals, capitalism with farm animals, socialism/communism with farm animals, or socialism/communism without farm animals.

There is no magical force of history that requires or prohibits farm animals in future capitalist or future communist societies.

There is not one single way that a communist society could develop, at least not one that could be credibly predicted.

We should not discount the role of human deliberate actions in the way societies develop.

I would suggest that we really have no way of knowing whether farm animals would be used in a future communist society as this dependents on too many unknowable variables - we should however consider whether we *ought* to have farm animals. And it is important not to conflate these two questions (whether there will be, with whether there ought to be).

Prometeo liberado

14th May 2014, 04:59

Famous Chef of arguably the best restaurant in North America, Thomas Keller, spent a few years in the Catskills honing his skills. One almost spiritual conclusion he took from this was that as Chef he always ordered his fowl, pork or pheasant alive. The idea being that as Chef he had a responsibility to both the consumer and the animal a painless and quick demise. Nothing wasted. Much like the Native Amercans
or Alaskan Inuits.
Point being? In a people's democracy this may be the temporary best.

P.S. anyone bust out any Animal Farm jokes yet, 'cus I'm dieing to let loose.:crying:

Sea

14th May 2014, 06:48

Then why/how are you a communist? You simply can't hold such a position without moralism.Where's Ismail? I've just found some new content for his signature...

It seems pretty clear that you somehow think that one cannot support or deride a cause without relating the perceived merits of that cause to some moral standard, or some judgement of good and bad. Probably because you were taught to think like that (we all were) and some people, even radicals, never bother to venture outside that framework, instead they merely push it to its limits. Case in point - even the most righteous religionist does not make exclusively moralistic judgements, and yet a radical thinks that such judgements are all there is!

So, to recycle some wise words:

You know your brain better than I do, but you've got to wash it!

maybe tomorrow I'll respond in more detail but right now it's late and revleft is infecting me with the dumb

ps: Still waiting for evidence / reasoning to back up your own views. At least I've been consistently defending my views, and when it's *not* 11 PM maybe I'll be assed to explain why moralism isn't required to be political. If you cannot do this, there is no hope in reaching a conclusion or even having a useful debate, because you may as well be arguing that elephants can fly, and if you can't put up any evidence or reasoning the argument would have no end no matter how sound or absurd the point of debate may be. You could be perfectly correct, but you could also be out in la-la land, and without backing up your arguments you may as well be both!

Another problem: If you cannot come up with a basis in reason for your moral outlook, how do you know that the morally good things you support are really morally good? How can you know that sentience is the cornerstone of morality? My problem with your three-word explanation isn't that I don't see the reasoning, it's that I don't see how you or anyone can have any idea how accurate or inaccurate the reasoning really is. It appears that you have just held on to the value standards that were taught to you by bourgeois society (see above) and we both know that these standards can be very problematic!
Famous Chef of arguably the best restaurant in North America, Thomas Keller, spent a few years in the Catskills honing his skills. One almost spiritual conclusion he took from this was that as Chef he always ordered his fowl, pork or pheasant alive. The idea being that as Chef he had a responsibility to both the consumer and the animal a painless and quick demise. Nothing wasted. Much like the Native Amercans
or Alaskan Inuits.
Point being? In a people's democracy this may be the temporary best.

P.S. anyone bust out any Animal Farm jokes yet, 'cus I'm dieting to let loose.:crying:Nah, in people's democracy, there will only be enough food for the elites and everyone else will starve! :lol:

PhoenixAsh

14th May 2014, 12:14

also, which was noted in previous threads, not saying it was brought up here or putting words in people's mouths, the moralizing and mystical reasoning actually comes from the other side of the discussion with their lack of an explanation as to why animals feeling the same or similar emotional distress and physical pain should be subjected to all that for our needs, but all that is off limits within our own species. It has been contested I think once, with a statement declaring that those other things aren't inherently off limits regarding interactions within our own species, the example given was torture. I think this clarifies the position of some folks on this forum who have social stakes in revolution that floats around approximately zero and I wonder how susceptible they are to ignoring the fallout of power structures and programme so long as the 'pursuit' is still active.

Well, the simple explanation for this is that we are omnivores and rely on meat for our sustenance thorughout human development. Even now we do not have natural foodsources outside of meat to provide us with certain essential nutrients. Unless you can provide us with natural and non chemical alternatives to that...the argument that eating meat is unnecessary is basically void.

Given the fact that the entirety of the natural cycle depends on either being eaten by or eating other animals the argument to willingly not do so must provide its case. Vegetarianism and veganism are in fact the aberrations from a natural and evolutionary system.

In order to provide an argumentative basis the anti-meat side of the agrument relies completely on moral and ethical arguments and...this is highly notable in the word choice and subjective terminology often used: torture, murder etc.

There are two main reasons given not to eat meat which are relevant:

1). our level of intelligence
2). sentience of other creatures

Both these are inherrently an appeal to moralism and guilt wich are nboth invented constructs.

ad 1). the level of intelligence and the option to chose our food source does not provide any compelling reason to not eat meat. Apes have a huge level of free choice. Most eat other animals regardless. Many animals have high intelligence. Yet eat other animals....some of lesser intelligence.

ad 2). the sentience of other creatures...a lot of questions were asked about this which aren't answered yet. The reason why they aren't answered is that ultimately it will mean that following this reason we need to prevent other crreatures from eating other creatures. If we are not willing to subject other creatures to becomming a meal because this is amoral....then we certainly also have a moral obligation to prevent other creatures to do the same. The act is amoral...and it is irrelevant who performs the act.

Loony Le Fist

14th May 2014, 13:17

In order to provide an argumentative basis the anti-meat side of the agrument relies completely on moral and ethical arguments and...this is highly notable in the word choice and subjective terminology often used: torture, murder etc.

There are two main reasons given not to eat meat which are relevant:

1). our level of intelligence
2). sentience of other creatures

Both these are inherrently an appeal to moralism and guilt wich are nboth invented constructs.

This is not entirely true. There are savings in land and water usage for providing the same amount of food. That is one of the benefits of consuming food lower on the chain. Raising livestock for slaughter takes up more space and uses more water and food. I think that's probably the best argument against eating meat at this point.

I don't see anything morally wrong with killing livestock for food for a variety of reasons. Despite being omnivorous myself, I definitely see the future of human food being completely plant based or artificial meat (which would take the effectively remove the force from all moral arguments against eating meat). Growing some artificial steak would be more efficient, since you don't have to feed an entire animal.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

14th May 2014, 14:03

It seems pretty clear that you somehow think that one cannot support or deride a cause without relating the perceived merits of that cause to some moral standard, or some judgement of good and bad. Probably because you were taught to think like that (we all were) and some people, even radicals, never bother to venture outside that framework, instead they merely push it to its limits. Case in point - even the most righteous religionist does not make exclusively moralistic judgements, and yet a radical thinks that such judgements are all there is!

Fine, I would like to invoke... 'EVIDENCE'!!! Dun dun daaaaaa

As soon as you can provide me with an opinion without moralism, I will be right on board. (Or 'proof' of why this isn't necessary)

ps: Still waiting for evidence / reasoning to back up your own views. At least I've been consistently defending my views, and when it's *not* 11 PM maybe I'll be assed to explain why moralism isn't required to be political. If you cannot do this, there is no hope in reaching a conclusion or even having a useful debate, because you may as well be arguing that elephants can fly, and if you can't put up any evidence or reasoning the argument would have no end no matter how sound or absurd the point of debate may be. You could be perfectly correct, but you could also be out in la-la land, and without backing up your arguments you may as well be both!

I'm still struggling to see what exactly you're after. Perhaps you could help me out by providing a statement (one of your opinions) and then what you would view as sufficient 'evidence' to back it up.

I would argue that I have been very consistent.

Another problem: If you cannot come up with a basis in reason for your moral outlook...

But surely that would require inherent truths. What would a 'basis in reason' look like to you?

how do you know that the morally good things you support are really morally good?

I don't. I try my best with what I have. Not bourgeois morality (as I will go on to explain later)

How can you know that sentience is the cornerstone of morality?

I can't KNOW this. In my opinion it is. Certainly my morality is based on empathy (many peoples' are). Empathy is based on understanding and sharing of another's feelings. Sentience is to have feelings. Therefore it seems like a good idea to include all sentient beings in my moral system. It's right there in front of you as a really easy line to take.

You have to search around for that arbitrary point in evolutionary history where you find that a certain group of animals are the ones that will evolve to become 'homo sapiens' and say - that's where I will draw my line. This isn't a big gap at all. It's actually pretty small. 'Humans' went on to evolve in groups independently from each other (on account of geography) the line has been drawn here before. By racists.

Arbitrarily drawing the line anywhere along this evolutionary is silly. You could just as easily/validly draw it at primates or mammals, or on the other side race. But you didn't.

In fact you didn't draw this line at all. This is the status quo. You adopted it not by choice, but by conditioning, and now you are left with the odious task of making up rationalisations to fit your theory. (You don't have to, my advice is give up and work out some opinions of your own)

My problem with your three-word explanation isn't that I don't see the reasoning, it's that I don't see how you or anyone can have any idea how accurate or inaccurate the reasoning really is.

No-one can. This is what I have been saying. But because I can't prove that my opinion is 'true' does not make your opinion true.

It appears that you have just held on to the value standards that were taught to you by bourgeois society (see above) and we both know that these standards can be very problematic!

[B]You know your brain better than I do, but you've got to wash it!

No. As I have said above, mine are not the morals of the bourgeoisie. Yours are. You are defending the status quo.

I could provide a very long story about how I came to acquire my own morality system, having scraped as much of my conditioning away as possible (something I continue to do) that would be worthy of some kind of edgy award. But it would be really long, make me look like a dickhead, and I can't be arsed. I'll try and keep it short: Existential depression, suicide, Cartesian doubt. This is the gist of it. Chuck in some dabrowski and you are pretty much there. I place a lot of importance on gaining my own morality system. I recognise this is something that can never completely be achieved, but it won't stop me trying, and evaluating everything I hold to be true, and everything I will hold to be true.

I took me a while to come to these opinions (Veganism, communism, nihilistic thought). These are not my default opinions. Not the opinions I was taught, I can assure you.

I have none of your bourgeois values concerning the superiority of humans over the animal 'Kingdom' (a sickening term).

You can call my opinions 'bourgeois moralism' if it makes you feel better... if it makes you feel like you can ignore them. But you are lying to yourself, and rationalising your support for the status quo.

I would have respect for your argument for instance if you said that you would be fine with eating humans as well. Your reaction to this will be to scoff - how ridiculous, you will think. This is very different to what society thinks to be normal. It's more valid than your opinion. It doesn't draw an arbitrary line. It goes with a qualitative absolute (we should be able to eat both all sentient things and anything without sentience).

Why don't you advocate the eating of human flesh?

Do you see the ridiculous lengths you will go to rationalise backward opinions, and all because you like sausages.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

14th May 2014, 14:45

Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring ought from is (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.

Some people use the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" to characterize inferences of the form "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesireable." Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality, environmentalism and veganism.
The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for Social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the Naturalistic Fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK). The moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary.

Phoenix you are full of this.

LuÃs Henrique

14th May 2014, 15:43

Is it worse to kill a young person than an old person (or is it the same)?

It depends on so many variables, that it would be foolish to answer.

Is it worse to kill a baby or an adult (or is it the same)?

Same as above.

Is it worse to kill a baby or a pig?

It is "worse" to kill a baby. To eat a baby, you need to committ murder. To eat a pig, you need to do nothing illegal or immoral.

Would you eat a pig? (Not necessary for survival)

Gladly.

I indeed intend to eat some in a few minutes.

Would you eat a baby? (Not necessary for survival)

Of course not.

If yes to pig, but no to baby, why?

Because a baby is a human being, and a pig is a pig.

Humans are part of human society; our relations to other humans are social. Non-human animals are not part of human society; our relations to them are natural, not social.

My feeling is that there is widescale speciesism in the world, and that one day we will come to view this in a similar way to how we view racism today (and it's prevalence in the past).

Yes, because there is no difference in intelligence between Blacks and pigs, or between Jews and leeches.

The racism of that assumption is absolutely staggering.

Let us take Marx for example - racist. People say it's not a big deal because that was the common opinion of the time. It is hard to escape our conditioning but we must try.

Marx, racist? Citation needed.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

14th May 2014, 15:59

The OP was about on what changes would be necessary/possible concerning farming, and especifically husbandry, in a future socialist society.

It has been completely derailed into a discussion on whether it is "moral" or "immoral" to eat meat, regardless of the mode of production. The capitalist/socialist distinction that was in the core of the question in the OP has been forgotten, and indeed actively downplayed.

That is reformism, mind you.

We keep reformist discussion in the OI section for a reason: it distracts us from discussing revolutionary issues. This is exactly what discussions about "animal rights", animal "liberation", political vegetarianism, veganism, etc, do: they prevent us from rationally discussing what changes, if any, farming, fishing, husbandry, would or could undergo in a transition to socialism, and instead lead us to discussing - without even any reference to socialism or communism - the moral merits of dietary issues. They should be moved to OI, so that people who want to discuss socialism or communism, and/or the relation between communism or capitalism to husbandry can do it, without the petty bourgeois, and often openly racist, moralism of those who want to impose their diet upon the world.

Luís Henrique

The Garbage Disposal Unit

14th May 2014, 16:31

So, I think this is the fifth time I've linked this pamphlet in the last year, but, hey, if it's not broke . . . (https://libcom.org/library/beasts-burden-antagonism-practical-history)

LuÃs Henrique

14th May 2014, 19:16

the moralizing and mystical reasoning actually comes from the other side of the discussion with their lack of an explanation as to why animals feeling the same or similar emotional distress and physical pain should be subjected to all that for our needs, but all that is off limits within our own species.

Well, if the problem is a lack of explanation of that, here is one, hopefully easy, clear, and understandable:

1. Humans live together in society.

2. A society can only exist if its members refrain from killing each others.

3. It is impossible for humans to eat each others without killing each others.

4. (from 1., 2., and 3.) If humans are to live together in society, then cannibalism cannot - in the long run - be allowed.

*********************

5. All living beings do not live together in society, they live together in nature.

6. Nature can perfectly exist even if its members eat each other - indeed, it can be argued that to function properly, it actually requires they do exactly this.

7. (from 5. and 6.) There is no problem with members of one species feeding upon the corpses of members of other species.

Hope that helps, either you to understand what is the difference between humans and beasts, or at least us to no longer being accused of offering no explanation of what such difference is.

Luís Henrique

ComradeOm

14th May 2014, 19:28

Intelligence shouldn't factor in to what we eat at all. We omnivores should admit that we eat meat just because it's a fairly easy source of essential nutrients, we find it tasty, and we don't give a damn about the deaths of animals who are not human (and who in many cases were bred with artificial selection to give us more meat and milk--to live, though they cannot know it, to feed us.And we don't give a damn because they are not human. I have no idea how tasty human meat is because - even though we're packed with nutrients and there's an abundant supply of us - in almost all cultures it has been considered absolutely taboo to eat human flesh. That's not unrelated to the fact that we are unique in being capable of formulating reasoned arguments against cannibalism and expressing these via codified laws and social norms.

The blunt truth is that our capacities for abstract reasoning, self-consciousness and thinking independently of our immediate environment are either unique to humanity or simply far, far more advanced than those of other animals. This is undeniable. Even the stupidest troll on this website has access to intellectual capabilities so far in excess of the smartest pig that it's hard to make an exact comparison. And from that stems the fundamental difference between our species and every one on this planet.

Ask a pig to have this same conversation and see how far you get. See how capable they are of articulating a position either way. Or even comprehending such concepts. Now tell me why I should consider such a species to be the equal to my own? And if such animals are not our equals then why should society extend the same laws that govern intra-human relations to them?

Xena Warrior Proletarian

14th May 2014, 20:06

1. Humans live together in society.

2. A society can only exist if its members refrain from killing each others.

Well that's not true. People kill each other all the time, the society continues to exist.

3. It is impossible for humans to eat each others without killing each others.

Not true either.

4. (from 1., 2., and 3.) If humans are to live together in society, then cannibalism cannot - in the long run - be allowed.

Nope neither is that one. There have been many cannibalistic societies. They can function just fine employing just a little bit of logic.

*********************

5. All living beings do not live together in society, they live together in nature.

Why should preferential treatment be given to either group?

6. Nature can perfectly exist even if its members eat each other - indeed, it can be argued that to function properly, it actually requires they do exactly this.

What is 'proper function'?

7. (from 5. and 6.) There is no problem with members of one species feeding upon the corpses of members of other species.

Wrong.

Hope that helps, either you to understand what is the difference between humans and beasts, or at least us to no longer being accused of offering no explanation of what such difference is.

Why is it important that something is human or not? If it has feelings and feels pain, is it too much to ask not to cause it pain? It's a small thing really.

PhoenixAsh

14th May 2014, 20:06

I can't imagine there are any risks associated with eating animal meat...

Not on a DNA level unless we equal unnatural food substances which animals get fed.

Sentience -> empathy -> Morality.

Measure it? It is a discrete quality. Science.

Ok...so any sentient creature has empathy and morality?

Brain dead people... That's an interesting one. There's no real harm in erring on the side of caution with these things either. What do you think?

I am not sure.

What's wrong with supplements? Nothing. Do you take medicine? Think of it the same way.

I usually do not take medicine unless it is absolutely necessary for me to do so. Even then medicine is in fact not beneficial to your health outside of combating something that is even more detrimental. Chemo is clearly medicinal and less harmless than a malignant tumor....yet it will harm and possibly kill you all the same.

And since I think of supplements like that...and NONE of the supplements currently on the market to provide the essential nutrients has been adequately researched for long term negative health effects...well...

please expand.

One of the arguments against the current production of meat is the environmental impact. However the environmental impact of vegetarian diet necessary to sustain the population would increase to a level which is on the same impact scale as current meat production....in terms of carbon footprint and CO2 effects...ass well as it would require a whole lot more nature to be destroyed in favor of food production.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

14th May 2014, 20:10

And we don't give a damn because they are not human. I have no idea how tasty human meat is because - even though we're packed with nutrients and there's an abundant supply of us - in almost all cultures it has been considered absolutely taboo to eat human flesh. That's not unrelated to the fact that we are unique in being capable of formulating reasoned arguments against cannibalism and expressing these via codified laws and social norms.

The blunt truth is that our capacities for abstract reasoning, self-consciousness and thinking independently of our immediate environment are either unique to humanity or simply far, far more advanced than those of other animals. This is undeniable. Even the stupidest troll on this website has access to intellectual capabilities so far in excess of the smartest pig that it's hard to make an exact comparison. And from that stems the fundamental difference between our species and every one on this planet.

Ask a pig to have this same conversation and see how far you get. See how capable they are of articulating a position either way. Or even comprehending such concepts. Now tell me why I should consider such a species to be the equal to my own? And if such animals are not our equals then why should society extend the same laws that govern intra-human relations to them?

Some mentally retarded people could not establish such an argument. Neither can babies. Shall we eat them? This really just comes down to your inherited dogma and speciesism.

So what if we are more intelligent. So what if Ben is more intelligent than Sam? Can we eat Sam? Why is intelligence the criteria? And where is the line?

ComradeOm

14th May 2014, 21:17

Some mentally retarded people could not establish such an argument. Neither can babies. Shall we eat them? This really just comes down to your inherited dogma and speciesism.You're half right in that it comes down to species, not individuals. Your ridiculous 'examples' are outliers and in no way comprise a reasonable sample of homo sapiens. And that's what we're discussing.

(To illustrate: a female friend of mine can't drive. Would you therefore assert, on the basis of that one case, that it's impossible for women to drive?)

Nobody, save yourself and idiots, would argue that it's acceptable to eat people with learning disabilities because 'they're not intelligent'. We don't eat them (and I cannot believe that I am typing these words) because they are human. Humans do not, as a rule, eat humans. Again, witness the clear line between 'human' and 'non-human'.

And in a species v species comparison then there is only one winner when it comes to intelligence.

So what if we are more intelligent. So what if Ben is more intelligent than Sam? Can we eat Sam? Why is intelligence the criteria? And where is the line?Intelligence is the criteria because it's what separates us from every other species on this planet. Obvs. On a species v species level (you know, the comparison that you refuse to make) there is no question that we are vastly more superior than any other species on this planet. We are the only ones capable of having this discussion.

And that's what's key. If you are going to argue that animals deserve the same rights as humans then you've got to demonstrate that they are equal to humans; that killing a pig is no different to killing a man. The reality is of course that they could not be less different. An average human can reason and argue as to why they should not be put to death, a pig cannot. And I have a hard time caring about a species that isn't capable of anything approaching human-levels of thought; no more than I care about the rocks and the trees.

Seriously, what right does a pig have to be considered an equal member of human society? And why not give them the vote and council housing while we're at it?

Xena Warrior Proletarian

14th May 2014, 22:35

You're half right in that it comes down to species, not individuals. Your ridiculous 'examples' are outliers and in no way comprise a reasonable sample of homo sapiens. And that's what we're discussing.

I was showing that it really only comes down to species. If intelligence was the determining factor, then it would be ok to eat the mentally retarded person. You have proved this with your reply.

Nobody, save yourself and idiots, would argue that it's acceptable to eat people with learning disabilities because 'they're not intelligent'. We don't eat them (and I cannot believe that I am typing these words) because they are human. Humans do not, as a rule, eat humans. Again, witness the clear line between 'human' and 'non-human'.

Inherited dogma/taboo. No more valid than racist, homophobic and imperialist arguments.

Example: "Men don't have sex with men because they are men. I can't believe I have to say this to you. You are stupid for holding this view. Men only have sex with people of the opposing gender, and that's the way it should be"

And in a species v species comparison then there is only one winner when it comes to intelligence.

Intelligence is the criteria because it's what separates us from every other species on this planet. Obvs. On a species v species level (you know, the comparison that you refuse to make) there is no question that we are vastly more superior than any other species on this planet. We are the only ones capable of having this discussion.

Why is intelligence important? It's not, it is an attribute that has been plucked out of the air to defend the status quo. The view is a rationalisation of a very backward position.

And that's what's key. If you are going to argue that animals deserve the same rights as humans then you've got to demonstrate that they are equal to humans; that killing a pig is no different to killing a man. The reality is of course that they could not be less different. An average human can reason and argue as to why they should not be put to death, a pig cannot. And I have a hard time caring about a species that isn't capable of anything approaching human-levels of thought; no more than I care about the rocks and the trees.

How proposterous. Does this mean we can just torture animals because they can't communicate why you shouldn't? This kind of line is disgusting in my view. Completely lacking in empathy.

Other animals have sentience. Humans have sentience. Treat both accordingly.

Seriously, what right does a pig have to be considered an equal member of human society? And why not give them the vote and council housing while we're at it?

I have no doubt that in centuries to come, people would find your hateful views so distasteful as to wish they had been around to repeatedly punch you in the balls.

Prejudice is prejudice. You sound like a horrible person.

Broviet Union

14th May 2014, 22:40

Jesus, ComradeOm, you are usually much better at argumentation than this. I am starting to feel faintly embarrassed for you.

Ele'ill

14th May 2014, 23:36

Well, if the problem is a lack of explanation of that, here is one, hopefully easy, clear, and understandable:

1. Humans live together in society.

2. A society can only exist if its members refrain from killing each others.

3. It is impossible for humans to eat each others without killing each others.

4. (from 1., 2., and 3.) If humans are to live together in society, then cannibalism cannot - in the long run - be allowed.

*********************

5. All living beings do not live together in society, they live together in nature.

6. Nature can perfectly exist even if its members eat each other - indeed, it can be argued that to function properly, it actually requires they do exactly this.

7. (from 5. and 6.) There is no problem with members of one species feeding upon the corpses of members of other species.

Hope that helps, either you to understand what is the difference between humans and beasts, or at least us to no longer being accused of offering no explanation of what such difference is.

Luís Henrique

Your post doesn't address my point.

1. we understand as humans, because we are intelligent, that other animals feel similar or the same emotional distress and physical pain that we are capable of

2. we do not sympathize with other humans because it is part of a programme, the social element of our existence has not been removed and mechanized

3. Not utilizing animal products is an option

RedWorker

14th May 2014, 23:57

That is reformism, mind you.

I am an actual socialist, not a capitalist reformist, mind you. Calling us reformists looks like trying to discredit someone in a cowardly fashion.

without the petty bourgeois, and often openly racist, moralism of those who want to impose their diet upon the world.

Sorry, exactly how am I "petty bourgeois"? Racist moralism? Is this a forum post or Soviet propaganda?

It is "worse" to kill a baby. To eat a baby, you need to committ murder. To eat a pig, you need to do nothing illegal or immoral.

One second you're accusing us of being "reformists" and "petty burgeois", the next you're considering the laws of the state and class society (legality) as what actually defines what is good or bad. You also called us "moralists", yet now you are referencing morality.

Yes, because there is no difference in intelligence between Blacks and pigs, or between Jews and leeches.

There is an obvious difference between the intelligence of humans, pigs, and leeches, and we acknowledge that. Are you saying that racism against black people and Jews would be justified if they were less intelligent?

The racism of that assumption is absolutely staggering.

Of course, here we must be the actual racists. :laugh:

Humans are part of human society; our relations to other humans are social. Non-human animals are not part of human society; our relations to them are natural, not social.

So it is allowed to use cruelty on everything which is not part of our society? Who defines what is included in my personal view of society - you?

7. (from 5. and 6.) There is no problem with members of one species feeding upon the corpses of members of other species.

That conclusion is correct. Yet we have nothing against that, we are talking about killing animals. The only way you can make sense is if you ridiculously downplay our argument. The rest of your post was also irrelevant, as we are also against cannibalism, and it is perfectly possible to survive without killing animals, whether human or not.

Haldane

15th May 2014, 00:30

4 legs good, 2 legs bad.
I went through this entire thread just to find a reference to Animal Farm. Thank you.

PhoenixAsh

15th May 2014, 00:37

We are talking a whole lot about cruelty. And this is used by different posters with different definitions. I think we need to define cruelty if we can have a proper debate.

Personally I don't think cruelty equals killing an animal per se. Killing does not need to cause suffering or inflict pain. Cruelty goes beyond the mere act of killing.

I think we can all agree that boxing up animals in small spaces, hurting them, or create prolonged and protracted deaths is unnecessary. This is mostly caused by the current capitalist mode of production. Which is true. These however...do not equal meat consumption per se.

Ele'ill

15th May 2014, 00:41

I don't think any of us here are under the naive assumption that being hella vegan straight edge societyz is gonna be a thing post revolution and I'm not saying it is going to happen unless I am trolling here and there every so often about the board but I have a problem recognizing how increased demand will be suddenly non-industrial, not impact the biosphere in a worse way, etc..

RedWorker

15th May 2014, 00:45

Personally I don't think cruelty equals killing an animal per se. Killing does not need to cause suffering or inflict pain. Cruelty goes beyond the mere act of killing.

A non-human animal can be killed without suffering. However, so can a human. Does that justify the killing of either? Remember that meat, before being killed, has a life, a family, feelings, just the same things a human has. And we can survive without eating them.

LuÃs Henrique

15th May 2014, 16:54

Your post doesn't address my point.

1. we understand as humans, because we are intelligent, that other animals feel similar or the same emotional distress and physical pain that we are capable of

We understand, as humans, because we are intelligent, that other animals feel pain, and a few of them - mammals and most birds - may feel something roughly similar to emotional distress. We also understand that, not having a language, animals have very short memories and very poor communication abilities, and cannot remember pain or emotional distress in a way similar to us, nor actually relate to the pain or emotional distress of other animals. We also understand that feeling pain or emotional distress is a biological phenomenon, not an ethical or juridical one. In other words, we know that pain and emotional distress are not the ontological foundation of rights or law or justice or ethics or morals.

2. we do not sympathize with other humans because it is part of a programme, the social element of our existence has not been removed and mechanized

We do not empathise with other humans because of alienation, which is a direct consequence of the logic of value. This makes our relations to each others seem "natural" instead of social; most noticeably among libertarians, who think commodites grow in trees, and that going to the supermarket is analogous to going into the wild to hunt. "Animal liberation" is part of such alienation and of the misanthropy it entails - the occasional "our behaviour toward rats will eventually go the same way our behaviour toward Blacks or Jews or females already went/is going", showing quite clearly the absolute lack of empathy toward other humans that lies beneath the fantasy of universal brotherhood among animals. It is popular among the left because it is the ultimate substitutionist dream - animals cannot "liberate" themselves, they depend on a human "vanguard" doing that for them, which perfectly matches the long unabated leftist tradition of denying any agency to oppressed humans.

It is the fetish of commodities up to eleven: now we think that commodities are our brother and sisters...

3. Not utilizing animal products is an option

I doubt it is, except perhaps in the most narrowly individual sence; but even if it was, so what?

Luís Henrique

RedWorker

15th May 2014, 20:44

We also understand that, not having a language, animals have very short memories and very poor communication abilitiesMany species do have a language, and some animals have learned to use human words, while we have been unable to learn any of the animals' words. What does that say of us?

Memory has nothing to do with language. So, according to you, before human language was invented, humans were not able to remember things? They were not even able to remember emotions?

Also, many animals have great memories (probably some even greater than humans) and great communication skills. In fact, Alex the parrot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_%28parrot%29) was even able to use human language and abstract thinking quite well.

and cannot remember pain or emotional distress in a way similar to usThey do remember pain in the same way as we do. Also, if I torture you then use a drug to remove all of your memory about it, does that make it fine?

So, your point here is not to justify slaughtering them for food, but to justify inflicting pain and distress on them through useless cruelty.

nor actually relate to the pain or emotional distress of other animals.So if somebody lacks empathy, it's okay to be cruel to him? But actually, they do have empathy. Look it up.

Some mental disorders of humans limit or remove empathy. Is it okay to be cruel, torture, or slaughter these humans?

We also understand that feeling pain or emotional distress is a biological phenomenon, not an ethical or juridical one. In other words, we know that pain and emotional distress are not the ontological foundation of rights or law or justice or ethics or morals.So then what is it? Your personal view of who we should be allowed to harm and we not, based on who is part of our "society"? Ok. Reminds me of nationalism and imperialism justification, man.

It is the fetish of commodities up to eleven: now we think that commodities are our brother and sisters...You're comparing animals to commodities? Reminds me of this time it was unquestionably accepted among the mainstream that black people were commodities to be bought and sold as slaves, and was thought of as normal and natural.

I doubt it is, except perhaps in the most narrowly individual sence; but even if it was, so what?So we can go without being cruel to millions of beings who suffer just as we do a year? Can you stop coming across as so disgusting?

consuming negativity

15th May 2014, 21:03

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24754682

The scientists, from the University of Sussex, say this is the first "systematic evidence that fundamental social skills may be significantly impaired by man-made disruption".

To study this, the researchers compared the behaviour of two herds of elephants: those in the Amboseli National Park, in Kenya, which have been relatively undisturbed by culling operations and a population in Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa.

The herd at Pilanesberg was made up of young orphaned elephants introduced during the early 1980s and 1990s, after management culls of adult and older juvenile animals in the Kruger National Park.

There is already evidence that the loss of these adult elephants had dramatic social consequences on South Africa's elephants; the researchers describe these effects as akin to post traumatic stress disorder

In two protected areas in South Africa, Prof McComb told BBC News, "young, orphaned male elephants became hyper-aggressive and attacked and killed rhinoceroses".

Dr Graeme Shannon, who led this study, used sound to test the animals' social understanding - playing recordings of other elephants calls to monitor their response.

When Amboseli elephants heard the call of an unfamiliar elephant, they reacted in a defensive way - bunching together and moving towards the sound.

This, Prof McComb explained is an appropriate response. "It's what elephants should do when faced with a genuine stranger," she said.

Equally appropriately, Amboseli elephants "remain relaxed when faced with the calls of more familiar animals".

In Pilanesberg, by contrast, the elephants' reactions were "completely random".

"There was no pattern at all to their responses," Prof McComb told BBC News, suggesting that these elephants could not tell the difference between friend and foe.

"This really suggests that the breakdown in their social fabric, even though it occurred decades ago, has had a real effect on their decision-making processes," she added.

Same article from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/elephant-society-breaks-down-after-mass-shootings/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/Mourning-elephants-refuse-to-leave-accident-site/articleshow/21608618.cms

RANCHI: Around 15 elephants, who are mourning a member of their herd after it was was hit by a train near Matari railway station under Dhanbad division of the East Central Railway on Howrah-New Delhi main railway route a couple of days ago, have attacked villages and demolished parts of a school and several houses. Villagers have been keeping night-long vigil, but haven't been to drive away the herd.

Wildlife activist D S Srivastava said elephants have a strong sense of family bonding and often resort to revenge attacks. He said: "Elephants often try to return to the site of such accidents as they believe that their mate has only been injured and could be rescued by them. Even when an elephant dies a natural death, their friends cover the body with bushes and small tree branches." Srivastava added that the herd will try to return to this site again and again.

John M. Marzluff, a wildlife biologist at the University of Washington (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_washington/index.html?inline=nyt-org), has studied crows and ravens for more than 20 years and has long wondered if the birds could identify individual researchers. Previously trapped birds seemed more wary of particular scientists, and often were harder to catch. “I thought, ‘Well, it’s an annoyance, but it’s not really hampering our work,’ ” Dr. Marzluff said. “But then I thought we should test it directly.”

To test the birds’ recognition of faces separately from that of clothing, gait and other individual human characteristics, Dr. Marzluff and two students wore rubber masks. He designated a caveman mask as “dangerous” and, in a deliberate gesture of civic generosity, a Dick Cheney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) mask as “neutral.” Researchers in the dangerous mask then trapped and banded seven crows on the university’s campus in Seattle.

In the months that followed, the researchers and volunteers donned the masks on campus, this time walking prescribed routes and not bothering crows.

The crows had not forgotten. They scolded people in the dangerous mask significantly more than they did before they were trapped, even when the mask was disguised with a hat or worn upside down. The neutral mask provoked little reaction. The effect has not only persisted, but also multiplied over the past two years. Wearing the dangerous mask on one recent walk through campus, Dr. Marzluff said, he was scolded by 47 of the 53 crows he encountered, many more than had experienced or witnessed the initial trapping. The researchers hypothesize that crows learn to recognize threatening humans from both parents and others in their flock.

After their experiments on campus, Dr. Marzluff and his students tested the effect with more realistic masks. Using a half-dozen students as models, they enlisted a professional mask maker, then wore the new masks while trapping crows at several sites in and around Seattle. The researchers then gave a mix of neutral and dangerous masks to volunteer observers who, unaware of the masks’ histories, wore them at the trapping sites and recorded the crows’ responses.

The reaction to one of the dangerous masks was “quite spectacular,” said one volunteer, Bill Pochmerski, a retired telephone company manager who lives near Snohomish, Wash. “The birds were really raucous, screaming persistently,” he said, “and it was clear they weren’t upset about something in general. They were upset with me.”

Again, crows were significantly more likely to scold observers who wore a dangerous mask, and when confronted simultaneously by observers in dangerous and neutral masks, the birds almost unerringly chose to persecute the dangerous face. In downtown Seattle, where most passersby ignore crows, angry birds nearly touched their human foes. In rural areas, where crows are more likely to be viewed as noisy “flying rats” and shot, the birds expressed their displeasure from a distance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26crow.html?_r=0

In the current issue of Animal Behaviour, researchers present evidence (http://198.81.200.2/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-4X9NCFD-3&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=4&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%236693%232009%23999219994%231537167% 23FLA%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=6693&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=33&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=df586974fbb2cb8a591a0faa9304af5a) that domestic pigs can quickly learn how mirrors work and will use their understanding of reflected images to scope out their surroundings and find their food. The researchers cannot yet say whether the animals realize that the eyes in the mirror are their own, or whether pigs might rank with apes, dolphins and other species that have passed the famed “mirror self-recognition test” thought to be a marker of self-awareness and advanced intelligence.

To which I say, big squeal. Why should the pigs waste precious mirror time inspecting their teeth or straightening the hairs on their chinny-chin-chins, when they could be using the mirror as a tool to find a far prettier sight, the pig heaven that comes in a bowl?

The finding is just one in a series of recent discoveries from the nascent study of pig cognition. Other researchers have found that pigs are brilliant at remembering where food stores are cached and how big each stash is relative to the rest. They’ve shown that Pig A can almost instantly learn to follow Pig B when the second pig shows signs of knowing where good food is stored, and that Pig B will try to deceive the pursuing pig and throw it off the trail so that Pig B can hog its food in peace.

They’ve found that pigs are among the quickest of animals to learn a new routine, and pigs can do a circus’s worth of tricks: jump hoops, bow and stand, spin and make wordlike sounds on command, roll out rugs, herd sheep, close and open cages, play videogames with joysticks, and more.

For better or worse, pigs are also slow to forget. “They can learn something on the first try, but then it’s difficult for them to unlearn it,” said Suzanne Held of the University of Bristol. “They may get scared once and then have trouble getting over it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html

Written by The Associated Press
Friday, 09 August 2013 11:46

There’s extensive evidence that pigs are as smart and sociable as dogs. Yet one species is afforded affection and respect; the other faces mass slaughter en route to becoming bacon, ham and pork chops.

Seeking to capitalize on that discrepancy, animal-welfare advocates are launching a campaign called "The Someone Project" (http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/someone-not-something/), which aims to highlight research depicting pigs, chickens, cows and other farm animals as more intelligent and emotionally complex than commonly believed. The hope is that more people might view these animals with the same empathy that they view dogs, cats, elephants, great apes and dolphins.

“When you ask people why they eat chickens but not cats, the only thing they can come up with is that they sense cats and dogs are more cognitively sophisticated than the species we eat – and we know this isn’t true,” said Bruce Friedrich of Farm Sanctuary, the animal-protection and vegan-advocacy organization that is coordinating the new project.

Some researchers say pigs’ cognitive abilities are superior to 3-year-old children, as well as to dogs and cats.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a section on its website entitled “The Hidden Lives of Pigs,” which depicts them as social, playful and protective animals with a vocabulary of more than 20 different oinks, grunts and squeaks.

“Pigs are known to dream, recognize their own names, learn tricks like sitting for a treat and lead social lives of a complexity previously observed only in primates,” the website says. “Like humans, pigs enjoy listening to music, playing with soccer balls and getting massages.”

The website recounts news stories of pigs saving the lives of imperiled humans and saving themselves by jumping off trucks bound for slaughterhouses.

Treatment of pigs has been a political issue in several states due to efforts to pass laws banning the confinement of breeding pigs in gestation crates. In fact, the treatment of factory-farmed animals is so cruel and brutal that industrial farming corporations in some states actually have pressured lawmakers into passing laws making it illegal for activists to videotape abuse. Opponents say these “ag-gag” laws violate free speech, food safety and animal and worker rights.

For instance, a law in Iowa makes it illegal for investigative journalists and activists to take jobs at animal facilities for the purpose of recording undercover footage. The laws were enacted after videos were posted on the Web showing such horrors as workers kicking, beating and electrically torturing “down cows” – cows that are weakened from sickness and starvation or crippled from their long, overcrowded ride to the slaughterhouse.

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/national-gaze/studies-showing-the-intelligence-of-farm-animals-fuel-new-campaign-of-reform-and-awareness.html

PhoenixAsh

15th May 2014, 23:03

A non-human animal can be killed without suffering. However, so can a human. Does that justify the killing of either? Remember that meat, before being killed, has a life, a family, feelings, just the same things a human has. And we can survive without eating them.

It doesn't justify it, but it also doesn't mean it is wrong. This wasn't however the argument I was making.

Attributing to this discussion words like "cruel" is unnecessary and ads a whole different dimension to the debate because it links meat eating with a personal judgment about a (!!) mode of production...and these are not inherently linked since quite obviously meat eating predates the current mode of production.

Or it assumes that the mere fact of killing is "cruel" which is a definition that depends on killing being equal to suffering. Which needs to be proven first before such a rash comparison can be made.

PhoenixAsh

15th May 2014, 23:24

Many species do have a language, and some animals have learned to use human words, while we have been unable to learn any of the animals' words. What does that say of us?

Memory has nothing to do with language. So, according to you, before human language was invented, humans were not able to remember things? They were not even able to remember emotions?

Also, many animals have great memories (probably some even greater than humans) and great communication skills. In fact, Alex the parrot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_%28parrot%29) was even able to use human language and abstract thinking quite well.

They do remember pain in the same way as we do. Also, if I torture you then use a drug to remove all of your memory about it, does that make it fine?

So, your point here is not to justify slaughtering them for food, but to justify inflicting pain and distress on them through useless cruelty.

So if somebody lacks empathy, it's okay to be cruel to him? But actually, they do have empathy. Look it up.

you are arguing animals having language, abstract thoughts and concepts of remembrance. I am not arguing against this. I am however going one step further and say that I do not think humans are the only animals with concepts of morality.

There have been numerous arguments made in this thread of speciesism and/or that humans create divisions and entitlement over animals. Which logically infers that we are alienating and distancing ourselves from other animals and placing ourselves above them.

But that being the case imo it is also undeniably true that animals kill other animals and eat other animals.

So arguing that we shouldn't eat meat based on the fact that we have a duty not to exploit other animals...are actually mutually exclusive.

Either we are animals like other animals and therefore like other animals have a right to kill animals for sustenance.

Or we are holding ourselves to different standards from the other animals and creating a division between humans and non-human animals in another way....in fact alienating and distancing us from them.

There has of yet to be made an argument which somehow conclusively and convincingly why it is wrong to kill an animal for sustenance.

Some mental disorders of humans limit or remove empathy. Is it okay to be cruel, torture, or slaughter these humans?

This argument has already been addressed earlier in this thread. But no.

However...according to your own logic we are at the same time as animals (you actually go on and compare humans to animals and equate them equal status later on in this post) and at the same time we are not as animals (because we can't kill for sustenance because it is wrong).

Bears usually do not eat other bears as a means of sustenance...but cannibalism is common among animals (both herb- and carnivores btw) and especially in apes.

RedWorker

15th May 2014, 23:41

Slavic

15th May 2014, 23:55

My argument is that humans have the ability to correct our wrongs of eating other animals unneccessarily in this case, which other animals may not, so we should. We have higher abilities than other animals, yet we should be treated equally.

What?

So your saying animals and humans should be treated equally, but that humans should be held to a higher standard.

So basically humans and animals are not equal.

Honestly, until we can reliably synthesis amino acids, sugars, fatty acids, etc. in bulk, humans must consume a living organism. Human, animal, plant, insect, bacteria; it doesn't matter what we eat, just that we eat it. You can not make a moral judgement on why eating one type of organism is "more good" than another organism.

RedWorker

15th May 2014, 23:59

So basically humans and animals are not equal.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. I'm saying that we are not equal (in abilities such as intelligence) yet we should be treated equally. I don't see what's so hard to understand there.

Honestly, until we can reliably synthesis amino acids, sugars, fatty acids, etc. in bulk, humans must consume a living organism. Human, animal, plant, insect, bacteria; it doesn't matter what we eat, just that we eat it. You can not make a moral judgement on why eating one type of organism is "more good" than another organism.

That's stupid as hell. A plant doesn't suffer when you eat it. It doesn't feel anything at all, ever, because it has no nervous system. It has no memory, no ongoing life, no nothing. It's nothing like animal life. With the same thinking you can say that there is no difference between slaughtering an animal in a "humane" way and in a cruel one and that thus the cruel way should be always applied.

An analogy: There are two buildings on fire. Building A, 5 people at risk of death. Building B, 20 people at risk of death. Only one firefighter team is close enough, and the buildings are far apart from each other, so they can only go save one set of people. With your thinking there would be no difference between going to save building A or B. With your logic, 15 more people being saved is no advantage.

PhoenixAsh

16th May 2014, 00:07

My argument is that humans have the ability to correct our wrongs of eating other animals unneccessarily in this case, which other animals may not, so we should. We have higher abilities than other animals, yet we should be treated equally.

I don't think it is unnecessary. Apes eat meat when they do not need it for sustenance. They even specifically target their own young...they organize hunting parties in order to hunt other apes and monkeys for eating them. They do not need flesh? They have a moral code. Humans however do need meat and the only current way to essential nutrients is unnatural supplementation.

Nor do I think it is wrong by the way. But if we were to proceed along the line of it is wrong...then it is universally wrong. Since you also claim we are equals...the same conditions and morality should apply. In that case killing and eating other animals when it isn't essential creates a moral imperative to protect those prey animals being killed by other animals.

If we are treated equally then we totally disregard the fact that a lot of animals would kill us without a second thought. We can't be treated as equals since we obviously aren't equals. Equality implies being actually equal....if we are equal...then we should have reciprocity.

PhoenixAsh

16th May 2014, 00:09

An analogy: There are two buildings on fire. Building A, 5 people at risk of death. Building B, 20 people at risk of death. Only one firefighter team is close enough, and the buildings are far apart from each other, so they can only go save one set of people. With your thinking there would be no difference between going to save building A or B. With your logic, 15 more people being saved is no advantage.

Lets do it like this:

One building there are 20 people and the other 40 pigs. Which one would you save and why?

RedWorker

16th May 2014, 00:12

Humans however do need meat and the only current way to essential nutrients is unnatural supplementation.

I am not sure about the supplementation, but we certainly do not need meat.

Nor do I think it is wrong by the way. But if we were to proceed along the line of it is wrong...then it is universally wrong. Since you also claim we are equals...the same conditions and morality should apply. In that case killing and eating other animals when it isn't essential creates a moral imperative to protect those prey animals being killed by other animals.

Non-human animals also act immorally - such as well-fed domestic cats murdering other animals unnecessarily and most of the time not even eating them. Does this mean we should allowed ourselves to act in an immoral way, because someone does? There are murderers within our human society - does this mean all of us should act like them? If there's ways we can protect animals from being unnecessarily killed by anyone, then we should do so, but that has a lower priority. First sort our own morality and ethics violations out, then try to solve others'.

We can't be treated as equals since we obviously aren't equals. Equality implies being actually equal....if we are equal...then we should have reciprocity.

Ok, so let's think of an alternate reality where humans of a certain skin color are always less intelligent than humans of all other skin colors. Does this mean that we should not be treated equally, and justifies racism?

One building there are 20 people and the other 40 pigs. Which one would you save and why?

If I was a firefighter myself I would probably save the humans because of peer pressure and whatnot (it would be socially unexplainable to have saved the 40 pigs instead, being a "paid firefighter in a capitalist society" requires you to stick to the "official guideline", etc.), plus the 20 people could include my own family and friends, and someone else may save the humans because he likes humans more personally. It would be more ethical to save the 40 pigs, though.

Also, if there were pig firefighters, a pig firefighter would probably save the pigs. So no, it doesn't have anything to do with one of the groups being superior, just that humans are more empathetical towards each other. (as is clearly being demonstrated here with people lacking empathy towards other animals)

PhoenixAsh

16th May 2014, 00:19

I am not sure about the supplementation, but we certainly do not need meat.

Yes we do. Creatine, certain vitamins and minerals all are only found in animal products.

Non-human animals also act immorally - such as domestic cats murdering other animals and most of the time not even eating them. Does this mean we should allowed ourselves to act in an immoral way, because someone does? There are murderers within our human society - does this mean all of us should act like them? If there's ways we can protect animals from being unnecessarily killed by anyone, then we should do so, but that has a lower priority. First sort our own morality and ethics violations out, then try to solve others'.

Ok. But this brings up another point of conflict: why is it unethical to eat other animals when this is perfectly natural and acceptable behavior in the animal world.

Ok, so let's think of an alternate reality where humans of a certain skin color are always less intelligent than humans of all other skin colors. Does this mean that we should not be treated equally, and justifies racism?

But since I think what discerns us from animals has nothing to do with intelligence I don't think this is a very good reality. We aren't closely related to the animals we eat.

RedWorker

16th May 2014, 00:24

Yes we do. Creatine, certain vitamins and minerals all are only found in animal products.

You don't need to eat meat to live well.

Ok. But this brings up another point of conflict: why is it unethical to eat other animals when this is perfectly natural and acceptable behavior in the animal world.

Well, either some animals really need meat, or they're not able to act another way, or they don't have the morality capabilities we do. If other animals could understand morality like us and did not need meat, yet they would still kill other animals, they would be behaving unethically. This is not our business because right now we would be able to do very little.

But since I think what discerns us from animals has nothing to do with intelligence I don't think this is a very good reality. We aren't closely related to the animals we eat.

Irrelevant how closely related we are - but the fact is that we and some other animals are related a lot, like humans and apes. Either way, this would still all be down to subjective definitions.

Slavic

16th May 2014, 00:31

Yes, that's exactly what I said. I'm saying that we are not equal (in abilities such as intelligence) yet we should be treated equally. I don't see what's so hard to understand there.

Yes we are not equal. Taking your example such as intelligence, I can canvas cognitive abilities of all living organisms and create a scale of the most intelligent to the least intelligent of organisms. Now the question lies in where do we draw the "ok to eat" line.

That's stupid as hell. A plant doesn't suffer when you eat it. It doesn't feel anything at all, ever, because it has no nervous system. It has no memory, no ongoing life, no nothing.

A plant may not have a nervous system like that of an animal, but it does react to external stimuli and adapts accordingly. If one were to slice a branch off of a tree, the tree will sense this damage and react accordingly. It may not have an emotional reaction, but it sure does have a physiological reaction.

It's nothing like animal life. With the same thinking you can say that there is no difference between slaughtering an animal in a "humane" way and in a cruel one and that thus the cruel way should be always applied.

An analogy: There are two buildings on fire. Building A, 5 people at risk of death. Building B, 20 people at risk of death. Only one firefighter team is close enough, and the buildings are far apart from each other, so they can only go save one set of people. With your thinking there would be no difference between going to save building A or B. With your logic, 15 more people being saved is no advantage.I have no clue how you inferred these situations from anything that I said. I said that you can't make a moral argument about eating specific types of organisms, I did not state anything about the methods.

In reference to your examples. An organism must be consumed for another to survive, that does not dictate that the consumption must be cruel and in excess.

The burning building example misses my point entirely. There is no moral system that dictates which TYPES of organisms can be eaten, not QUANTITIES.

PhoenixAsh

16th May 2014, 00:35

You don't need to eat meat to live well.

We do have different opinions on that. I quite like my ability to replenish creatine.

Well, either some animals really need meat, or they're not able to act another way, or they don't have the morality capabilities we do. If other animals could understand morality like us and did not need meat, yet they would still kill other animals, they would be behaving unethically. This is not our business because right now we would be able to do very little.

Actually we could segregate these animals.

Irrelevant how closely related we are - but the fact is that we and some other animals are related a lot, like humans and apes. Either way, this would still all be down to subjective definitions.

Yes it would be. Ethical arguments are subjective.

PhoenixAsh

16th May 2014, 00:41

Can we eat animals that died natural causes?

And would it be a solution to genetically engineer animals with serious reduced life spans?

Slavic

16th May 2014, 00:43

Yes it would be. Ethical arguments are subjective.

Hence why choosing not to eat meat on ethical grounds is silly and ridiculous outside of the individual.

EDIT

Can we eat animals that died natural causes?
And would it be a solution to genetically engineer animals with serious reduced life spans?

lol, yes they are called lab rats. I don't think they taste that good though.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

16th May 2014, 00:49

Yes we are not equal. Taking your example such as intelligence, I can canvas cognitive abilities of all living organisms and create a scale of the most intelligent to the least intelligent of organisms. Now the question lies in where do we draw the "ok to eat".

A plant may not have a nervous system like that of an animal, but it does react to external stimuli and adapts accordingly. If one were to slice a branch off of a tree, the tree will sense this damage and react accordingly. It may not have an emotional reaction, but it sure does have a physiological reaction.

I have no clue how you inferred these situations from anything that I said. I said that you can't make a moral argument about eating specific types of organisms, I did not state anything about the methods.

The obvious qualitative difference is sentience. It's really not that big of a deal to refrain from enslaving and killing other sentient life forms. Sentience is consciousness, which implies a quality of life.

Killing a sentient life-form almost always involves pain and definitely involves denying more living (feeling and experiencing). If I was about to be killed - these would be the things I would be pissed off about, and the reasons I wouldn't want to be killed.

None of us are the same (different intelligence levels, emotional capacities, skin colours) but we all expect to be treated equally, because what we all have in common is consciousness - we feel, we experience. We dislike pain, and (most of us) would prefer to live. If you are capable of understanding these concepts, respect them. If you are not capable of understanding this concept, for example if you are a baby or chicken, we will not condemn and exclude you from benefitting from these basic rights on account of your ignorance. We will do what we can to stop the ignorant (small children, sheep, pigs) from violating these rights of others.

You can take your species imperialism and shove it up your hateful prejudiced arseholes.

Slavic

16th May 2014, 01:07

Sentience

Sentient

1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>

2: aware (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aware)

3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient

Sense Impressions

: a psychic and physiological effect resulting directly from the excitation of a sense organ : sensation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sensation)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sense%20impression

When a plant receives an injury its sense organs sense the wound which is a physiological effect. The plant responses to this injury by changing its metabolism.

The plant is sentient.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

16th May 2014, 01:15

Sentient

1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>

2: aware (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aware)

3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient

Sense Impressions

: a psychic and physiological effect resulting directly from the excitation of a sense organ : sensation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sensation)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sense%20impression

When a plant receives an injury its sense organs sense the wound which is a physiological effect. The plant responses to this injury by changing its metabolism.

The plant is sentient.

Plants are not considered sentient by scientists who know what they are talking about. No amount of bullshit Merriam-Webster definitions and poorly understood concepts are going to make YOU convince me otherwise.

Sentience is... "The process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing or things in general; the state of being aware; consciousness. Sentience refers to subjective (conscious) awareness. Plants are sensitive (as you correctly say) but they are not sentient."

Slavic

16th May 2014, 01:39

Plants are not considered sentient by scientists who know what they are talking about. No amount of bullshit Merriam-Webster definitions and poorly understood concepts are going to make YOU convince me otherwise.

Sentience is... "The process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing or things in general; the state of being aware; consciousness. Sentience refers to subjective (conscious) awareness. Plants are sensitive (as you correctly say) but they are not sentient."

So I would be fine eating animals that are not sentient? Such as a jellyfish?

Xena Warrior Proletarian

16th May 2014, 01:54

So I would be fine eating animals that are not sentient? Such as a jellyfish?

If a jellyfish isn't sentient then sure, go for it. I would be interested in seeing the scientific proof of this. To be honest it seems perfectly plausible to me. I know you can blend some of them and they still survive.

The same goes for deaths from natural causes. It wouldn't personally bother me to eat a dead (natural causes/accidental death) human any more than a dead rabbit. Of course this is a distinction I would make between views under capitalism, and views under communism. If the animal's demise had been met sooner as a result of capitalism (through deforestation or something like that) I would feel differently.

My opinions aren't based on some kind of sacred life taboo or dogma. They are really quite logical.

Ele'ill

16th May 2014, 02:02

We understand, as humans, because we are intelligent, that other animals feel pain, and a few of them - mammals and most birds - may feel something roughly similar to emotional distress. We also understand that, not having a language, animals have very short memories and very poor communication abilities, and cannot remember pain or emotional distress in a way similar to us, nor actually relate to the pain or emotional distress of other animals.

animals that have been abused will react to sounds and motions that resemble the precursor of attack and pain that they have previously experienced, as well as react to other animals being abused around them and show signs of stresses resulting from trauma of other animals even though they did not experience the physical pain or emotional distress

lol so many animals communicate in so many ways that are far more complex than humans also in light of the actual discussion that is happening here in this thread, who cares

We also understand that feeling pain or emotional distress is a biological phenomenon, not an ethical or juridical one. In other words, we know that pain and emotional distress are not the ontological foundation of rights or law or justice or ethics or morals

so you wouldn't agree that the actions that cause pain and emotional distress aren't benign who-gives-a-shit things specifically because of the pain and emotional distress

We do not empathise with other humans because of alienation, which is a direct consequence of the logic of value. This makes our relations to each others seem "natural" instead of social; most noticeably among libertarians, who think commodites grow in trees, and that going to the supermarket is analogous to going into the wild to hunt.

what does this have to do with anything in this thread

"
Animal liberation" is part of such alienation and of the misanthropy it entails - the occasional "our behaviour toward rats will eventually go the same way our behaviour toward Blacks or Jews or females already went/is going", showing quite clearly the absolute lack of empathy toward other humans that lies beneath the fantasy of universal brotherhood among animals.

I'm in favor of animal liberation, show me where I've taken these positions (or the other users in this thread taking a similar position). This is the problem with your argument here which is entirely a strawman and it was the same way in the last several thread on this topic.

It is popular among the left because it is the ultimate substitutionist dream - animals cannot "liberate" themselves, they depend on a human "vanguard" doing that for them, which perfectly matches the long unabated leftist tradition of denying any agency to oppressed humans.

some animals cannot defend themselves so some folks break them out, other times its just an attack on the most pain filled centers of any industry

Ele'ill

16th May 2014, 02:06

If a jellyfish isn't sentient then sure, go for it. I would be interested in seeing the scientific proof of this. To be honest it seems perfectly plausible to me. I know you can blend some of them and they still survive.

The same goes for deaths from natural causes. It wouldn't personally bother me to eat a dead (natural causes/accidental death) human any more than a dead rabbit. Of course this is a distinction I would make between views under capitalism, and views under communism. If the animal's demise had been met sooner as a result of capitalism (through deforestation or something like that) I would feel differently.

My opinions aren't based on some kind of sacred life taboo or dogma. They are really quite logical.

there was discussion in another thread somewhere where someone (it might have been TC) mentioned that gold fish will posture and the smaller one will back down because it is aware of its own size in comparison to the other

Sea

16th May 2014, 06:36

As soon as you can provide me with an opinion without moralism, I will be right on board. (Or 'proof' of why this isn't necessary).Jesus fucking christ, must you push your superstitions on everything you see and hear and read? No wonder your entrenchment in your ideology fuels itself! You keep putting it off - Maybe I'll give evidence later, or if Sea responds! That will work! I must be chasing something awfully elusive here. You don't even have to give emperical evidence. As should be clear, such is often difficult to obtain for one specific subset of a theoretical topic. This is why I suggested you could also provide logical reasoning to back up your opinions. I understand that you may not be able to find hard evidence, but you should at least be capable of this. Instead, you merely assure me that you are "doing the best you can". You could be completely wrong without knowing it. And if you happened to hold some other, outlandishly absurd opinion, your confident justification would not need to change. This is extremely problematic because it means that your justification and reasoning for your views is not tied to the views themselves. If you have to, re-read those last few sentences and think about the implications it would have for anyone attempting to develop an accurate understanding of the world around them. See the problems? You could call anything the best you can do, no matter how absurd or correct it is. At least the reasoning behind my opinions relates directly to said opinions. As to the rest of your incredulous bullshit, par it down to a few lines and I'll reply to them. We are running in circles, and I have things to do that I like to pretend are important.

In the meantime, because I'm such a wonderful person and I always strive to further the intellectual development of myself and others, I'll reply to a few easy points:
I took me a while to come to these opinions (Veganism, communism, nihilistic thought). These are not my default opinions. Not the opinions I was taught, I can assure you.Yet you are so prejudiced against non-sentient beings! Where is the specisism in anything I have posted? This is where yours is.
Of course they weren't the opinions you were given. I never said they were, so please, when you reply to things I post, reply to them and not to your own imagination. I said your moralism was taught to you, and you have not stepped outside it. Re-read this if you are too thick to understand:
...you were taught to think like that (we all were) and some people, even radicals, never bother to venture outside that framework, instead they merely push it to its limits. Case in point - even the most righteous religionist does not make exclusively moralistic judgements, and yet a radical thinks that such judgements are all there is!See the bold part? You do have your own opnions, opinions which were indeed not taught to you, but the basis on which these opinions were formed is the same old trash. So, your opinions are not the same old trash, but they have many of the same problems. And of course by "a radical" I mean you and very few others that I have met.
I have none of your bourgeois values concerning the superiority of humans over the animal 'Kingdom' (a sickening term).See the post above the one above this. As if your specism is not enough, you now pretend I am anthropocentric! Nothing makes humans better or worse or superior or inferior. We too are part of the animal kingdom (kingdom here just means "group" so calm down). There is nothing that makes it worse or better to eat humans than to eat other animals or plants. Nothing morally, anyway, because morality is hogwash. Hasn't that been my point all along? Humans are not superior, nor have I ever claimed that we are. In fact, it is your reasoning that would more likely lead to this conclusion, because humans are quantitatively the most sentient creatures.

You can call my opinions 'bourgeois moralism' if it makes you feel better... if it makes you feel like you can ignore them. But you are lying to yourself, and rationalising your support for the status quo.My views are not the status quo. If you can't see the clear distinction between Marxism-Leninism and capitalist ideology (for all the ultralefts who feel inclined to reply, yes, I am trolling you) feel free to outline the basic points of what the status quo is as it relates to this topic, and I'll 'splain to you why that's not me.

You keep saying I use moralism to reach my own conclusions, but can you explain how? You seem to think that, because I say something is so, I must therefore think that it is morally good or morally bad. This is rather baffling, akin to asserting that Albert Einstein could not have thought time to be relative without reasoning that it is absolute. A regular Einstein such as myself should not have to put up with such hogwash is no reasoning is given for it!

Skyhilist

16th May 2014, 07:25

I'll just leave this here.

jA0oucKIe_0

Xena Warrior Proletarian

16th May 2014, 15:00

Jesus fucking christ, must you push your superstitions on everything you see and hear and read? No wonder your entrenchment in your ideology fuels itself! You keep putting it off - Maybe I'll give evidence later, or if Sea responds! That will work! I must be chasing something awfully elusive here. You don't even have to give emperical evidence. As should be clear, such is often difficult to obtain for one specific subset of a theoretical topic. This is why I suggested you could also provide logical reasoning to back up your opinions. I understand that you may not be able to find hard evidence, but you should at least be capable of this. Instead, you merely assure me that you are "doing the best you can". You could be completely wrong without knowing it. And if you happened to hold some other, outlandishly absurd opinion, your confident justification would not need to change. This is extremely problematic because it means that your justification and reasoning for your views is not tied to the views themselves. If you have to, re-read those last few sentences and think about the implications it would have for anyone attempting to develop an accurate understanding of the world around them. See the problems? You could call anything the best you can do, no matter how absurd or correct it is. At least the reasoning behind my opinions relates directly to said opinions. As to the rest of your incredulous bullshit, par it down to a few lines and I'll reply to them. We are running in circles, and I have things to do that I like to pretend are important.

Superstitions? Logical conclusions. I am completely willing to change my mind INSTANTLY once I see a statement of opinion without moralism. I don't want to make you more defensive, but this is something perhaps you are avoiding? I've asked you a few times - it would be more beneficial to use your example to prove my point, as I then couldn't be accused of choosing a crap example.

On matters of what 'should' be, I can't KNOW anything. Matters of what 'should' be are called opinions. There is no overlap between opinion and fact. You can't have an opinion that is a fact, and you can't have a fact that is an opinion.

If you are referring to an opinion that something is a fact, that something is true; then there doesn't have to be moralism. This kind of 'opinion' is not an opinion, it is an 'untested claim'. I am not claiming that any of my opinions are fact and so I am not claiming anything to be verifiably true. There are no inherent truths about how things should be (animal production in communism should be...) so any views on this topic are opinions and not untested claims.

It is therefore unreasonable to suggest I have any evidence (to substantiate my opinion). It is reasonable to require I show internal logic (no contradictions) which I believe I have. I have also tried to explain why I started where I did. There cannot be a verifiably true or scientifically correct place to start, because there are no inherent truths, and we are talking about what 'should be' - firmly in the realm of subjective moralistic opinion.

I chose to start with morality and trace it back to sentience through empathy. It is my opinion that a moral code should be based on empathy. Empathy is to understand and share the feelings of others. Sentience is to have feelings. You must be thoroughly bored of me telling you this. To expand much further would really take a dissertation sized essay.

In the meantime, because I'm such a wonderful person and I always strive to further the intellectual development of myself and others, I'll reply to a few easy points:Yet you are so prejudiced against non-sentient beings! Where is the specisism in anything I have posted? This is where yours is.
Of course they weren't the opinions you were given. I never said they were, so please, when you reply to things I post, reply to them and not to your own imagination. I said your moralism was taught to you, and you have not stepped outside it. Re-read this if you are too thick to understand:See the bold part? You do have your own opinions, opinions which were indeed not taught to you, but the basis on which these opinions were formed is the same old trash. So, your opinions are not the same old trash, but they have many of the same problems. And of course by "a radical" I mean you and very few others that I have met.See the post above the one above this. As if your specism is not enough, you now pretend I am anthropocentric! Nothing makes humans better or worse or superior or inferior. We too are part of the animal kingdom (kingdom here just means "group" so calm down). There is nothing that makes it worse or better to eat humans than to eat other animals or plants. Nothing morally, anyway, because morality is hogwash. Hasn't that been my point all along? Humans are not superior, nor have I ever claimed that we are. In fact, it is your reasoning that would more likely lead to this conclusion, because humans are quantitatively the most sentient creatures.

If it is your opinion that it is ok to eat humans as well as animals, then I sincerely apologise for my claims of speciesism. As I have said before, I have far more respect for this opinion because it isn't hypocritical/speciesist.

It's got nothing to do with 'quantity of sentience'. Sentience is an incredible qualitative difference. I believe the rights not to be killed, tortured or enslaved should be inalienable sentient rights.

JMy views are not the status quo. If you can't see the clear distinction between Marxism-Leninism and capitalist ideology (for all the ultralefts who feel inclined to reply, yes, I am trolling you) feel free to outline the basic points of what the status quo is as it relates to this topic, and I'll 'splain to you why that's not me.

I can see the difference between M-L and 'average' politics. This is part of what makes it so confusing to me as to why so many presumably intelligent and free-thinking people are so lazy as to adopt whichever (often backward) position they were taught on these matters. When they are questioned about it, they give off such a horrible and unapologetic sense of entitlement about the superiority of their species over others, that I wonder how these can be same people opposed to racism, sexism, imperialism and the rest.

The status quo on veganism is... It's not natural. Humans are humans, and therefore we shouldn't eat humans, but we should be able to eat animals because they are animals and it is natural. There are a number of common rationalisations of this position, importantly though they are just that, and what it really comes down to is taboo and speciesism. (As evidenced by the baby/mentally retarded 'intelligence' disqualification or lack of it)

I can see you do not completely follow the status quo on everything (and I never suggested this) - for example with this gem...

ps: What is so unforgivable about human slaves? In Aristotle's time, slavery was perfectly suited. In our time, it is certainly absurd and incompatible, but there isn't anything wrong with slavery.

I am going to unashamedly employ moralism when I say 'slavery is wrong'. If you can't say slavery is wrong then I really can't see what one can say is 'wrong'. If this is the case, then which of us is really the one whose thought is dominated by avoiding moralism at all costs?

You say you follow selfish ends. Why have you not broken the law? Surely prison isn't 'bad'. You prefer your life free than behind bars? Does this mean you think it is in any way 'better' or preferable to be free than imprisoned? Surely this is also at odds with your statement about slavery?

JYou keep saying I use moralism to reach my own conclusions, but can you explain how? You seem to think that, because I say something is so, I must therefore think that it is morally good or morally bad. This is rather baffling, akin to asserting that Albert Einstein could not have thought time to be relative without reasoning that it is absolute. A regular Einstein such as myself should not have to put up with such hogwash is no reasoning is given for it!

Blue is blue. Fact.
Blue is red. Untested claim.
I like/prefer/think better of/think things should be blue than red. Opinion (moralism).

Communism will happen. Untested claim.
I prefer Communism because I think it best supports my selfish 'interests'. Opinion (moralism).

The idea that an individual ought to follow their selfish interests is a moralism known as ethical egoism. There is no inherent sense in following ones 'interests'. The entire concept of interests is full of moralistic subjectivity.

A moral code cannot be scientific. It can and should have internal logic, but this does not make it scientific. As soon as one starts to say what 'should' be done, it is a subjective view. Get over it. Without moralism we cannot say racism is bad, we cannot say imperialism is bad, we cannot say capitalism is bad, we cannot say rape or slavery are bad.

LuÃs Henrique

16th May 2014, 15:15

My argument is that humans have the ability to correct our wrongs of eating other animals unneccessarily in this case, which other animals may not, so we should.

In which case we are fundamentally different from, and morally superior to, other animals. Speciesism?

We have higher abilities than other animals, yet we should be treated equally.

It is impossible to treat animals like humans, so the only way to treat both equally is to treat humans like animals.

Which is very much what one does when one says that husbandry will eventually suffer the same fate as slavery. It is racist, and unacceptable.

Luís Henrique

Kaoxic

16th May 2014, 15:25

I actually think animals should be included in the democratic process. They have as much right to vote on the matter of whether we should eat them as we do. We can't just eat an animal without asking it first. What kind or humanist anthropocentric bullshit is that??

LuÃs Henrique

16th May 2014, 15:26

That's stupid as hell. A plant doesn't suffer when you eat it.

A plant doesn't scream when you kill it. But we shouldn't equate screaming with suffering, this is mammalocentrism.

It doesn't feel anything at all, ever, because it has no nervous system.

An amoeba has no nervous system, but if you poke it, it will react as if "in pain". So it obviously "feels" something, doesn't it? Now, plants are made of cells, which are very much like an amoeba, except that they don't move. To assume that they don't "feel" anything is to again to reduce feeling to its visible (or audible) expression. We think plants don't feel anything, because we don't see or hear their reactions when they are physically attacked.

It has no memory, no ongoing life, no nothing. It's nothing like animal life.

Well, you don't know anything of that, except by extrapolating the forms in which we humans react to pain and assuming that those are universal.

An analogy: There are two buildings on fire. Building A, 5 people at risk of death. Building B, 20 people at risk of death. Only one firefighter team is close enough, and the buildings are far apart from each other, so they can only go save one set of people. With your thinking there would be no difference between going to save building A or B. With your logic, 15 more people being saved is no advantage.

This kind of "mental experiment" is quite absurd. IF, and only if, all other things are equal, the firefighter should try to put off the fire where more people are at risk. But maybe in one fire there is a 5% chance that 20 people will die, and in the other there is a 95% chance that 5 people will die.

At the time our utilitarian firefighter finishes his/her cost-benefit analysis, we will have 25 people to bury.

Luís Henrique

Xena Warrior Proletarian

16th May 2014, 15:30

In which case we are fundamentally different from, and morally superior to, other animals. Speciesism?

It is impossible to treat animals like humans, so the only way to treat both equally is to treat humans like animals.

Which is very much what one does when one says that husbandry will eventually suffer the same fate as slavery. It is racist, and unacceptable.

Luís Henrique

Inalienable sentient rights. Sociopaths, babies and chickens all deserve them regardless of ability/inability to reciprocate. The rights not to be tortured enslaved or killed for all that can feel.

LuÃs Henrique

16th May 2014, 15:37

Inalienable sentient rights. Sociopaths, babies and chickens all deserve them regardless of ability/inability to reciprocate. The rights not to be tortured enslaved or killed for all that can feel.

Babies can be expected to develop an ability to reciprocate. Sociopaths much less, but we usually believe that diseases will eventually be possible to cure, this being the reason that we usually don't accept euthanasia.

"Inalienable" is the opposite of "alienable". As such, it can be only applied to those who can, at least theoretically, "alienate" something. As animals have no concept of trading, they can't alienate anything, so there cannot be anything "alienable" or "inalienable" to them.

Luís Henrique

Fegelnator

16th May 2014, 15:43

Mentally challenged children can't form a coherent argument because they are mentally challenged...pigs can't form a coherent argument because they are pigs. There is a huge qualitative difference.

A difference that is utterly irrevelant to the discussion.

People like to eat meat. I like to eat meat.

Good for you ;)

I won't stop eating meat.

Good for you as well...

I don't see anything wrong with eating meat.

The thing is, it seems you're kind of contradicting your previous, "I eat meat because I don't care" statement: here it seems you "eat meat because you see no moral reason as to the contrary". You should choose one statement or the other, really, since you just backed amoralism with a moral claim :glare:.

Eating meat is natural.

Your logical fallacy is: appeal to nature.

Meat is an important part of human diet.

Good point. When I get hungry next time, I'll butcher and eat my neighbour. When he complains, I'll shrug and say I need his meat.

(And don't say this isn't a good comparison. Pigs can sense they're up for slaughter, that's why they get scared and start squealing. But I'm sure it's okay to kill them since they're not rational or some arbitrary bullshit like that. A baby isn't rational. Should you eat him?)

Then vegans come along and start to make moral and ethical arguments about how wrong it is to eat meat and kill sentient beings for their meat. Fine. Don't eat it. I won't force you to eat meat. Unfortunately vegans have a huge tendency to try and force non vegans to stop eating meat.

This is the most used lame argument against vegetarianism in the world. You know why I don't want to eat meat? Because I ethically dislike it. You know why you do? Because you don't.

It brings my mind back to good ol' Ayatollah Khomeini who said that it was okay to have sex with twelve year olds. According to your reasoning, we should just leave the guy the heck alone, (even if said twelve year olds scream like the aforementioned pigs) just because he leaves us in the West in peace when we don't want to. Hey, he just wants to be left alone!

I really want to push them into a crocodile pit and argue with the Croc that it is wrong to kill and eat humans because they are sentient.

Oh, so vegetarians don't do self-defense?

Don't want to eat meat. Don't. I do and I will.

Good for you.

And I will eat Bambi too.

:laugh:

Fegelnator

16th May 2014, 15:46

Inalienable sentient rights. Sociopaths, babies and chickens all deserve them regardless of ability/inability to reciprocate. The rights not to be tortured enslaved or killed for all that can feel.

On what do you base that moral claim?

You know, we shouldn't deny speciesism and then kneel before the altar of sentience right after. I don't care whether something is human, sentient or whatever. It doesn't matter. Besides, rights tend to be arbitrary and illogical. I all we have are pigs, what takes precedence, rights to eat or rights not to be killed? How can you prove one? You can't, it's based on feelings.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

16th May 2014, 15:49

Babies can be expected to develop an ability to reciprocate. Sociopaths much less, but we usually believe that diseases will eventually be possible to cure, this being the reason that we usually don't accept euthanasia.

"Inalienable" is the opposite of "alienable". As such, it can be only applied to those who can, at least theoretically, "alienate" something. As animals have no concept of trading, they can't alienate anything, so there cannot be anything "alienable" or "inalienable" to them.

Luís Henrique

Neither babies nor some mentally retarded people can alienate, but they can be alienated. There is no reciprocity implied. Not even 'theoretically' - that is pure fiction.

Fegelnator: you are going to have to read the thread. Absolutely no-one wants me to go through this again.

Sentience fits an 'according to need' structure (at least arguably). Plants have no need not to be tortured - it's impossible as they cannot feel. Plants have no need not to be enslaved - they cannot be. Plants have no need not to be killed. Life is not sacred. They have no experience of life that would be lost.

Fegelnator

16th May 2014, 15:54

Fegelnator

16th May 2014, 16:10

Neither babies nor some mentally retarded people can alienate, but they can be alienated. There is no reciprocity implied. Not even 'theoretically' - that is pure fiction.

Fegelnator: you are going to have to read the thread. Absolutely no-one wants me to go through this again.

Sentience fits an 'according to need' structure (at least arguably). Plants have no need not to be tortured - it's impossible. Plants have no need not to be enslaved - they cannot be. Plants have no need not to be killed. Life is not sacred. They have no experience of life that would be lost.

Yes, but say I have a teddy bear I call 'Toodles'. Or whatever ;). I love Toodles, since I grew up with the little guy from birth. Now, you can call me a consumerist, but for me it's definitely possible to have emotional value attached to a thing. Same with a chair I've had for decades. A computer I've used for years.

Live in the human perception can be in things as well. If my big brother would have ripped the head of Toodles when I was young, or trashed my computer, or destroyed my chair, I would be enraged. And more so than if it was a generic toy, a random computer, a simple IKEA chair, things I'd have been using for only weeks or days...

Now, say some psycho tried to murder me, and I'd have the opportunity to kill him in self-defense. Would I care whether he was sentient or not? Of course not, that fact doesn't add emotional value. Some aggressive stranger has none to me.

Need is irrelevant for objective morality. Whose need comes first? The psycho needs to see my blood. What do I care? I need to live. I'll kill him for it. Most will agree, some won't. The one who's in the right is the one with the might. Like Stirner said: "one can come further with a handful of might than a bagful of right. Ah, might, it is a fine thing!"

All things are Unique, and something doesn't have rights hovering over it because it is "in need", is "a human" or "a pig" or "a baby" or "Mr. Toodles," is my point, I suppose.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

16th May 2014, 16:25

Yes, but say I have a teddy bear I call 'Toodles'. Or whatever ;). I love Toodles, since I grew up with the little guy from birth. Now, you can call me a consumerist, but for me it's definitely possible to have emotional value attached to a thing. Same with a chair I've had for decades. A computer I've used for years.

Live in the human perception can be in things as well. If my big brother would have ripped the head of Toodles when I was young, or trashed my computer, or destroyed my chair, I would be enraged. And more so than if it was a generic toy, a random computer, a simple IKEA chair, things I'd have been using for only weeks or days...

Now, say some psycho tried to murder me, and I'd have the opportunity to kill him in self-defense. Would I care whether he was sentient or not? Of course not, that fact doesn't add emotional value. Some aggressive stranger has none to me.

Need is irrelevant for objective morality. Whose need comes first? The psycho needs to see my blood. What do I care? I need to live. I'll kill him for it. Most will agree, some won't. The one who's in the right is the one with the might. Like Stirner said: "one can come further with a handful of might than a bagful of right. Ah, might, it is a fine thing!"

All things are Unique, and something doesn't have rights hovering over it because it is "in need", is "a human" or "a pig" or "a baby" or "Mr. Toodles," is my point, I suppose.

The 'psycho' does not need to see your blood. There are a number resolutions that don't include one of you dying. My teddy bear had his head ripped off once, it was very traumatic. Mr Toodles would count as personal property I suppose - like your chair or your computer.

Do not saddle me with the burden of justice/punishment. It's not my job. Whatever laws are made will be broken - doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't bother.

Fegelnator

16th May 2014, 16:38

The 'psycho' does not need to see your blood.

The psycho doesn't need my blood in the same way that I don't need to live. To clarify, living is a choice. So, there's no intersubjective impulse for me to fend off an attacker, there's only the subjective: "If I want to live, I need to defend myself as much as possible against the attacker."

For the psycho, there's the subjective: "If I want to sate my impulses, I need to kill this man."

(A horrible example to work with, but it'll do ;).)

The thing is, how can you prove that my need for for living gives me a right out of thin air, that is more important than the psycho's need to sate his impulses? You can't, because rights aren't objective.

There are a number resolutions that don't include one of you dying.

This isn't a rational problem-solving situation. We can't resolve it together while talking over a cup of tea and some biscuits :).

My teddy bear had his head ripped off once, it was very traumatic. Mr Toodles would count as personal property I suppose - like your chair or your computer.

That's irrelevant to my emotional attachment, I'm afraid. I can also get attached to my neighbour's teddy bear. When something becomes part of the Ego, it does so perceivedly, not materially.

Do not saddle me with the burden of justice/punishment. It's not my job.

Wot...? Justice is an extension of rights, what is just = what is right. No rights, no justice. Just punishment = right punishment. If you accept this discussion, you'll have to saddle the burden...

Whatever laws are made will be broken - doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't bother.

Of course. It's my opinion that if people's hypocrisy is exposed to them, we could intersubjectively make some laws we'd all like and that would not leave us mucking about in self-delusion.

But, those laws wouldn't be built on objective rights...

PhoenixAsh

16th May 2014, 19:38

A difference that is utterly irrevelant to the discussion.

Well...since it was in response to this issue being brought up several times. You even bring up the comparison. There is in fact a huge qualitative difference and it matters. A pig does not equal a baby.

Good for you ;) Good for you as well...

I know. I am very happy about it :)

The thing is, it seems you're kind of contradicting your previous, "I eat meat because I don't care" statement: here it seems you "eat meat because you see no moral reason as to the contrary". You should choose one statement or the other, really, since you just backed amoralism with a moral claim :glare:.

I can connect them: I don't see anything wrong with it so I don't care.

Your logical fallacy is: appeal to nature.

It would be if it weren't for the fact that we are discussing human behavior as opposed to animal behavior while at the same time saying both should be considered equal.

Good point. When I get hungry next time, I'll butcher and eat my neighbour. When he complains, I'll shrug and say I need his meat.

(And don't say this isn't a good comparison. Pigs can sense they're up for slaughter, that's why they get scared and start squealing. But I'm sure it's okay to kill them since they're not rational or some arbitrary bullshit like that. A baby isn't rational. Should you eat him?)[/quote]

Well...it isn't a good comparison. One is human and the other one is a pig. There is no equal value here. It is ok to kill them because one is food and the other a human being.

This is the most used lame argument against vegetarianism in the world. You know why I don't want to eat meat? Because I ethically dislike it. You know why you do? Because you don't.ou

I am happy you are a vegetarian. I don't think it is ethically wrong to eat meat. You bothering me with your life choices is morally wrong. Just like some people don't like abortion and think it is ethically wrong because it is killing life. Fine. Don't have one. Just do not bother anybody with your subjective opinion on ethics.

It brings my mind back to good ol' Ayatollah Khomeini who said that it was okay to have sex with twelve year olds. According to your reasoning, we should just leave the guy the heck alone, (even if said twelve year olds scream like the aforementioned pigs) just because he leaves us in the West in peace when we don't want to. Hey, he just wants to be left alone!

Actually no. Like I argued. There is a huge qualitative difference between humans and food.

Oh, so vegetarians don't do self-defense?

I am not sure. I would however be very willing to throw one in a pit of crocodiles and see what happens and if they do. ;)

Fegelnator

16th May 2014, 22:53

Well...since it was in response to this issue being brought up several times. You even bring up the comparison. There is in fact a huge qualitative difference and it matters. A pig does not equal a baby.

Er... I might have misunderstood, but the discussion was about rational thought, correct? Pigs don't equal babies, but they're equal in not having any rational thought.

I know. I am very happy about it :)

Good for you :grin:

I can connect them: I don't see anything wrong with it so I don't care.

Derp. Yeah, I'll concede that.

It would be if it weren't for the fact that we are discussing human behavior as opposed to animal behavior while at the same time saying both should be considered equal.

Equal? I never said that they should be considered morally equal... vegetarianism appeals to me mostly because of the hypocrisy people show in exalting humans but acting like animals are nothing.

Anyways, if you look at it in a moral way, with the Aristotelean view, should you not actually leave pigs be and eat unmoral humans? Pigs can't do evil. Humans can. Why punish the innocent? (I'm not completely serious here... I think? :confused:)

Well...it isn't a good comparison. One is human and the other one is a pig. There is no equal value here. It is ok to kill them because one is food and the other a human being.

Do you even realize how completely possessed and hypocritical you're sounding right now? You're obsessed by the idea of Man, it seems, that someone by right of birth, simply being born Man, is better than something born a pig.

Even the biggest asshole is better for you than the pig who can't be anything other than innocent? Where do you draw the line? At Man who is born better than a pig? At a prince who is born better than a serf? After all, Man has rational thought, the prince is descended genetically from someone smart enough to muscle his way to a throne. Why does either one of these traits raise you above or plunge you beneath one another's level?

To say things can be killed for being not of your species has disturbing parallels to saying people should be killed for not being of your race. Yes, there are tangible differences in your looks, in the other case in how you think, but what does it really matter?

Would you have someone killed if he got a knock to the head and became a drooling moron, with the same potential for thinking as the simplest animal? No, because he was "human." Just like the starkest racist would never kill a Caucasian just because he was born "white". Yet you call the one difference small, the other huge? Why? How do you even measure the quality? Why does the quality matter for moral treatment? Like a racist would shout: "Lol he's white big difference", the monarchist can shout: "Lol he's a prince big difference," the speciessist can shout: "Lol he's human, big difference."

Remember, it's not about whether we should all care for animals for me. I'm more interested in why Man has the right of birth to my esteem.

I am happy you are a vegetarian.

Thx, I suppose ;).

I don't think it is ethically wrong to eat meat. You bothering me with your life choices is morally wrong.

Because...? Don't you ever bother people with your beliefs? Or do you, but feel guilty about it?

Just like some people don't like abortion and think it is ethically wrong because it is killing life. Fine. Don't have one. Just do not bother anybody with your subjective opinion on ethics.

You're totally right. I should completely stop giving my opinion whatsoever, and so should you. Because you subjectively are intolerant of subjective ethics. Or something. And now bother me with subjective morals on how I shouldn't bother you with subjective morals.

You prescribe oughts to man being Man. I presume that extends to equality as well? Then could you stop bothering capitalists with those disgusting subjective ethics or something? They just want to be left alone. Don't work if you don't want to, but leave them alone ;).

Actually no. Like I argued. There is a huge qualitative difference between humans and food.

That's the point. You didn't argue it, or if you did, could you refer me plz? And anyways, so what if there is?

en.wikipedia.or*g/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

That's my problem with that logic. (Remove star :))

I am not sure. I would however be very willing to throw one in a pit of crocodiles and see what happens and if they do. ;)

I'd watch. For science.

PhoenixAsh

17th May 2014, 01:24

Er... I might have misunderstood, but the discussion was about rational thought, correct? Pigs don't equal babies, but they're equal in not having any rational thought.

Nope: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2750244&postcount=10

Equal? I never said that they should be considered morally equal... vegetarianism appeals to me mostly because of the hypocrisy people show in exalting humans but acting like animals are nothing.

Anyways, if you look at it in a moral way, with the Aristotelean view, should you not actually leave pigs be and eat unmoral humans? Pigs can't do evil. Humans can. Why punish the innocent? (I'm not completely serious here... I think? :confused:)

Pigs aren't innocent they are the devils children. :mad::cursing:

Anyways...

Aristotle ate meat.

If we take his position on the good for mankind we arrive at eudaimon. The concept of living well with favor of the Gods...or perhaps happiness. I am happy eating animals. Which makes it ethical.... I am not a huge fan of Aristotle.

Do you even realize how completely possessed and hypocritical you're sounding right now? You're obsessed by the idea of Man, it seems, that someone by right of birth, simply being born Man, is better than something born a pig.

Like a lion is obsessed with the idea of lion and is better than a gazelle?

I am not obsessed.

I am merely stating fact. One is food and the other is human...ie. non food to most humans....not so much so for a whole range of other animals btw. Which brings us back to the central point, animals do not see us as equal either. There is no reciprocity and some won't hesitate to eat us. Nor will most carnivorous animals consider the pig something not to eat.

We are not equal and any argument that arrives at this point is utterly ridiculous. Or founded at the basis of being equal because we are living beings (which should then also include plants) or because of sentience (which begs the question at what point is there sufficient lack sentience for something to be considered a food source and most vegetarians advance on the slippery slope of trying to draw a wholly subjective line) or it is because we are supposed to
be better than animals (which then excludes the equal part again).

Even the biggest asshole is better for you than the pig who can't be anything other than innocent? Where do you draw the line? At Man who is born better than a pig?

Innocent? Innocence has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with one being food and the other being a human.

At a prince who is born better than a serf? After all, Man has rational thought, the prince is descended genetically from someone smart enough to muscle his way to a throne. Why does either one of these traits raise you above or plunge you beneath one another's level?

Like all pigs are equal all people should be equal. However. All pigs are food all humans are not.

To say things can be killed for being not of your species has disturbing parallels to saying people should be killed for not being of your race. Yes, there are tangible differences in your looks, in the other case in how you think, but what does it really matter?

Really? You liken discriminated people to animals?

Since you consider killing something of another species is to be unethical and morally wrong...how do you propose we are going to stop all those nasty little carnivorous creatures killing all those "innocent" per animals?

But let me ask you some questions.

1). I hope you agree abortion up until the day of birth should be legal. What if when scientists conclusively show sentience in a feutus? What would be your position on abortion then?
2). Plus does this make it alright to eat day from birth cow fetusses?

Would you have someone killed if he got a knock to the head and became a drooling moron, with the same potential for thinking as the simplest animal? No, because he was "human." Just like the starkest racist would never kill a Caucasian just because he was born "white". Yet you call the one difference small, the other huge? Why?

Because they are human and not food. Look...I can't explain this in more simple terms.

How do you even measure the quality? Why does the quality matter for moral treatment? Like a racist would shout: "Lol he's white big difference", the monarchist can shout: "Lol he's a prince big difference," the speciessist can shout: "Lol he's human, big difference."

I don't measure the quality. You are obsessed with "quality" I am merely stating: one is food, the other is not.

I don't think specieism is actually a thing. It is a figment of liberal bourgeois imagination and is something which is actually really, really weird...to want to see equality when there really is none.

Remember, it's not about whether we should all care for animals for me. I'm more interested in why Man has the right of birth to my esteem.

I don't care about esteem. There is a huge difference between humans and non-humans. Or would you save a drowning pig over a drowning human?

Because...? Don't you ever bother people with your beliefs? Or do you, but feel guilty about it?

The "you" was a general you btw.

I don't feel guilty about it at all. In fact for the mere fact of bothering me with your ethics and trying to force them on me reminds me of the pro-birth movement... I will buy half-to-half meatloaf...which means two animals were killed for my food.

You're totally right. I should completely stop giving my opinion whatsoever, and so should you. Because you subjectively are intolerant of subjective ethics. Or something. And now bother me with subjective morals on how I shouldn't bother you with subjective morals.

I am not intolerant to subjective ethics. But you are not merely arguing ethics. You want to end people eating meat. You are not merely explaining your opinions, you are preaching to me and berating me for mine and you are doing so because of the quality of the words you chose.

You prescribe oughts to man being Man. I presume that extends to equality as well? Then could you stop bothering capitalists with those disgusting subjective ethics or something? They just want to be left alone. Don't work if you don't want to, but leave them alone ;)

I am not bothering capitalists with ethics. I am bothering capitalists because they inherently repress me and my class interests.

That's the point. You didn't argue it, or if you did, could you refer me plz? And anyways, so what if there is?

en.wikipedia.or*g/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

That's my problem with that logic. (Remove star :))

There is no need for the star. I think it is perfectly ok to directly link to wikipedia on this site.

However I didn't make an is-ought equivalent. I am stating a fact. Ask any human and I am sure 99% of them would agree there is a substantial difference between a pig and a human. Not that the opinion of the vast majority of the population is scientific evidence...but since we have passed the point of scientific evidence and we, I say we but I mean you, are basing ourselves on the position that pigs are equal to humans and there is no qualitative difference based on some, unknown to me, premises...maybe that will suffice.

Also the argument shouldn't have to be made.

I'd watch. For science.

I'd buy the popcorn ;)

Revy

17th May 2014, 01:32

I imagine the use of lab grown meat will be developed as a technology. Of course, the health concerns from eating something produced in such an artificial way have to be investigated, but it's a potential solution. Lab-grown meat was originally conceived as a way for astronauts to produce meat in space. I think eventually it will taste just as good, and although right now it may sound gross, there may come a day when it will be an ordinary thing.

Sea

17th May 2014, 05:35

Superstitions? Logical conclusions. I am completely willing to change my mind INSTANTLY once I see a statement of opinion without moralism.Can you please demonstrate how I am applying moralism? You seem to be doing this:

Maybe even be a commie? ---> class interests ---> moral judgement ---> OK therefore good

I am doing this:

Like maybe oppose capitalism even? ---> class interests ---> okie dokie yes

But you think I am doing this:

Oppose capitalism? ---> class interests ---> spooky hidden moralism that Sea won't admit to ---> Yep, bingo, oppose capitalism.

And that baffles me. How can you assert that I am using moralism when admitting that you do not know, because you cannot know, if moralism is valid in a definite way:

I don't.
I can't KNOW this. In my opinion it is. etc
If you cannot know if it is valid, obviously you cannot know whether it is being used or not on a case-by-case basis , so how can you even insist that I am using moralism? Sorry for getting so fucking mad but we're going in circles (and by saying this I'm going in circles because I said it a few times) and this debate is just becoming increasingly absurd. I'm sure you can agree on that.
I am going to unashamedly employ moralism when I say 'slavery is wrong'. If you can't say slavery is wrong then I really can't see what one can say is 'wrong'./QUOTE]I don't think slavery is wrong because I consider judgements of moral right and wrong to be hella dumb. It's not that I consider it to be a particularly wonderful thing...[QUOTE]I can see the difference between M-L and 'average' politics. This is part of what makes it so confusing to me as to why so many presumably intelligent and free-thinking people are so lazy as to adopt whichever (often backward) position they were taught on these matters. When they are questioned about it, they give off such a horrible and unapologetic sense of entitlement about the superiority of their species over others, that I wonder how these can be same people opposed to racism, sexism, imperialism and the rest.But I don't think my species is superior even to non-sentient organisms, let alone to other sentient species! My species, like all others, is just an assemblage of a small handful of types of elementary particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle) and nothing more, nothing less. Killing and causing pain, or acting on an organism in any way (even petting / feeding / fertilizing / watering it, etc) is just causing other assembled particles to act upon the ones that constitute the organism, and it seems rather absurd to me that there is a "good" or "bad" lurking somewhere within that. I do not eat humans because whenever I try to boost one from the grocery store, I get weird looks.

edit:
OK so that quote is the wrong one, so I'll reply to that one too:
Make no mistake that I see completely what is unacceptable about the racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, imperialist, mean dirty and downright nasty things that many MLs uphold. If I ever sound like a tankie it's only because I find it very amusing when left-communists and others just can't help themselves from shouting out "but ML is capitalist politics!!!1". Oh, and I also see what's unacceptable about the racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, imperialist, mean dirty and downright nasty things that many left-communists, anarchists, trots, etc. uphold.

Yes, I know I'm not replying to your whole post, but that's because from here on out I'm gonna be invoking my rule of "pick 3 things" that I use whenever a debate degenerates to this level.

Fegelnator

17th May 2014, 11:56

Discussion on equality? Okay. I don't take that stance.

Pigs aren't innocent they are the devils children. :mad::cursing:

Anyways...

Aristotle ate meat.

If we take his position on the good for mankind we arrive at eudaimon. The concept of living well with favor of the Gods...or perhaps happiness. I am happy eating animals. Which makes it ethical.... I am not a huge fan of Aristotle.

Maybe that's why I'm not taking it ;). All I'm saying is that your weird human/food dichotomy is based on the categories he described, plant, animal, human.

Like a lion is obsessed with the idea of lion and is better than a gazelle?

This sentence leaves me wondering... When is something 'better' for you? Either this is sarcasm, or you honestly believe that something is better for being higher up in the food chain... Why? I believed that myself once, because it sounded logical. But food chains don't say anything about who's better or anything... the prince was born in power. Is he better? Why?

I am not obsessed.

Sorry, Stirnerite expression ;).

He who is infatuated with 'Man' leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook.

I am merely stating fact. One is food and the other is human...ie. non food to most humans....not so much so for a whole range of other animals btw.

Thing is, I wouldn't mind if you saw everything as food, (figurative selfish sense) or some pigs, some humans as food, but you're drawing a line that to me is a pure fiction, an idea, a spook. The question that arises is: why do you raise humans morally above pigs? Why is that better than raising whites above blacks? Women above men? Men are by nature stronger than women, on average. Does that make them better?

Which brings us back to the central point, animals do not see us as equal either. There is no reciprocity and some won't hesitate to eat us. Nor will most carnivorous animals consider the pig something not to eat.

That's where the Aristotlean delusions and thinking in rigid class have done their job, I'm sorry to say. See, you're justifying your meat-eating by saying that you're somehow above animals and that that (not backed up) assumption magically gives you a right to eating animals. I don't believe you're amoral about this, since you're constantly going on about how humans are better. :glare:

Animals don't see us as equal, or unequal. Derision isn't in their vocabulary. Some animals are cannibalistic, they simply need to survive. They will kill for it. There is no justification necessary.

Man, however, has a moral compass that will need an answer for why eating meat is legitimate. Backed up by more than 'Man' possessions.

We are not equal and any argument that arrives at this point is utterly ridiculous.

I agree completely.

Or founded at the basis of being equal because we are living beings (which should then also include plants)

Great point. Couldn't agree more.

or because of sentience (which begs the question at what point is there sufficient lack sentience for something to be considered a food source and most vegetarians advance on the slippery slope of trying to draw a wholly subjective line)

Couldn't agree more.

or it is because we are supposed to
be better than animals (which then excludes the equal part again).

Errr, no.

But surely you can see that the rigid lines here also apply to eating human meat? Humans aren't logically above this simply for being human.

Innocent? Innocence has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with one being food and the other being a human.

You like saying that, yes :grin:

Like all pigs are equal all people should be equal. However. All pigs are food all humans are not.

Everything is potential food. I'm not arguing with you on moral grounds, I'm trying to point out logical hypocrisy in your thinking.

Really? You liken discriminated people to animals?

The question is: why not? You're the one claiming things here: humans are better than animals. I'm wondering why, and since the Aristotelian view claims rational thought, what if you took that away?

Since you consider drawing lines because of species and using that as legitimation which is in no way better than racism to be annoying, thus a sense of subjective ethics,

fixed for accuracy.

how do you propose we are going to stop all those nasty little carnivorous creatures killing all those "innocent" per animals?

Animals have no fixed ideas. Therefore, I don't care.

But let me ask you some questions.

1). I hope you agree abortion up until the day of birth should be legal. What if when scientists conclusively show sentience in a feutus? What would be your position on abortion then?
2). Plus does this make it alright to eat day from birth cow fetusses?

1). A feutus has sentence before the day of birth, mijn vriend. (Feutus is Nederlands, toch???) I honestly don't care. If you look up this page you'll see me arguing that sentience is the same kind of argument as someone being a human.

2.) It would amuse me greatly, :grin:. Nah, the people who'd do that would be completely possessed with an idea. The idea of sentience.

Because they are human and not food. Look...I can't explain this in more simple terms.

But why is the idea pig the same as food and the idea of human not food?

I don't measure the quality. You are obsessed with "quality" I am merely stating: one is food, the other is not.

You said yourself, multiple times, that there's a huge qualitative difference between humans and animals, one that I assume legitimizes your behaviour towards them. :glare:

I don't think specieism is actually a thing. It is a figment of liberal bourgeois imagination and is something which is actually really, really weird...to want to see equality when there really is none.

Dude. You guys really have to stop calling any abstract philosophy bourgeois. It sounds really dogmatic, you know ;). Besides, if you like to call things bourgeois, you damn Marxists should call humanism bourgeois. Doesn't it distract you from your great class struggle?

Also, the mistake you're making is that I see equality. I actually see none.

I don't care about esteem. There is a huge difference between humans and non-humans. Or would you save a drowning pig over a drowning human?

Depends on the circumstances and the emotional value attached to the pig as opposed to the human.

The "you" was a general you btw.

Sure :).

I don't feel guilty about it at all. In fact for the mere fact of bothering me with your ethics and trying to force them on me reminds me of the pro-birth movement... I will buy half-to-half meatloaf...which means two animals were killed for my food.

You edgy muthafucka you :lol:.

I am not intolerant to subjective ethics. But you are not merely arguing ethics. You want to end people eating meat. You are not merely explaining your opinions, you are preaching to me and berating me for mine and you are doing so because of the quality of the words you chose.

No, I don't want people to stop eating meat. I'm annoyed by the value you invest in the concept of human, my personal distaste for meat eating in itself is quite small. I'd like to go hunting sometime.

I am not bothering capitalists with ethics. I am bothering capitalists because they inherently repress me and my class interests.

Marxist dogma.

There is no need for the star. I think it is perfectly ok to directly link to wikipedia on this site.

Not enough posts ;).

However I didn't make an is-ought equivalent. I am stating a fact. Ask any human and I am sure 99% of them would agree there is a substantial difference between a pig and a human. Not that the opinion of the vast majority of the population is scientific evidence...but since we have passed the point of scientific evidence and we, I say we but I mean you, are basing ourselves on the position that pigs are equal to humans and there is no qualitative difference based on some, unknown to me, premises...maybe that will suffice.

Nothing is equal, all are Unique. The is-ought you made was constantly referring to the qualitative difference, which I assumed for you to lead to the conclusion:

Pigs are different from humans, thus we ought to eat pigs but not humans.

Also the argument shouldn't have to be made.

Okay? I guess?

I'd buy the popcorn ;)

Drinks would be on me, shame I'm not 18.

"Smash the state! We have drinking laws!" :grin:

Fegelnator

17th May 2014, 11:58

I do not eat humans because whenever I try to boost one from the grocery store, I get weird looks.

:laugh:

ComradeOm

17th May 2014, 12:47

I was showing that it really only comes down to species. If intelligence was the determining factor, then it would be ok to eat the mentally retarded person. You have proved this with your reply.Let me make this clear: the comparison is between species, the criterion is intelligence. Clear?

As to why intelligence is the key criterion, it's what separates humanity from everyone else. I struggle with the concept that 'intelligence is not important'. It's what gives us the very concepts of rights and cruelty, the understanding of these distinctions/choices and the ability to construct laws/codes as a result. It is our ability to reason and think abstractly. It should be perfectly clear that 'sentience' on its own does not a human make.

Animals do not have this. They cannot reason or actually think in any meaningful way. Our laws and ways mean nothing to them. So why should they be considered our equals when they manifestly are not?

Inherited dogma/taboo. No more valid than racist, homophobic and imperialist arguments.Yeah, yeah. As you keep saying in an attempt to convince yourself that you're the equivalent of an anti-slavery or a modern day Che.

Example: "Men don't have sex with men because they are men. I can't believe I have to say this to you. You are stupid for holding this view. Men only have sex with people of the opposing gender, and that's the way it should be"Which is completely wrong; you've entirely misunderstood the logic. The correct phrasing would be "Man X does not have sex with men, therefore no men have sex with men." This is obviously as wildly wrong (and, yes, stupid) as your comparison between someone with learning difficulties and a pig.

But again I see above that you're incapable of grasping this simple piece of logic. You consistently use individual examples (eg the "mentally retarded" and psychopaths) in lieu of an honest comparison between species.

How proposterous. Does this mean we can just torture animals because they can't communicate why you shouldn't? This kind of line is disgusting in my view. Completely lacking in empathy.As I noted elsewhere in this thread, anti-cruelty laws are there to prevent unnecessary cruelty. Which no one considers an attractive trait. (In humans, of course - animals are incapable of grasping the very concepts of cruelty or mercy.)

But no, I don't particularly equate the suffering of an animal to the suffering of a human. Nor do I consider it an atrocity when nine million pigs are killed every month in the US. And, again, I challenge anyone to tell me why I should feel the same as if nine million people are killed every month; as if the ability to feel sensations should confer automatic entry into human society.

I have no doubt that in centuries to come, people would find your hateful views so distasteful as to wish they had been around to repeatedly punch you in the balls.Whereas I question what anyone who thinks that people, including slaves and the "mentally retarded", are no better than animals is doing on this site.

Jesus, ComradeOm, you are usually much better at argumentation than this. I am starting to feel faintly embarrassed for youI'm gutted.

Xena Warrior Proletarian

17th May 2014, 13:17

For Sea

The concepts of 'interests' 'class interests' and 'selfish interests' are all moralisms.

I think moralism is inevitable, and that we should basically leave such accusations on the sideline, because once it is applied to one person's argument, it can pretty easily be found in the other's and we do go round in circles.

Where possible we should definitely try hard to avoid using them, but when it comes to issues of what 'should be' we're pretty much screwed. Without them you can't only not say that slavery (et all) is wrong or even not very good, you can't think it's wrong or not very good.

I do agree that casting judgements simply of 'wrong' and 'right' over great swathes of issues is stupid, and that we should employ more critical thinking, and explore the complexities of the arguments.

Moralism is tricky and unscientific, but necessary. With plenty of self-criticism and examination of previously held views (often moralistic themselves) we can create a better world.

I think you see this as possible without moralism, by simply following class interests - interests as a concept is rife with moralism.

Interests is defined as 'to the advantage or benefit of a group or person'.

Advantage is 'a favourable or desirable feature'. As what counts as 'favourable' is subjective, unfortunately we have come right around to 'better', and 'good'. That's the way it is.

Political doctrines (or whatever you want to call them) tend to be moralistic. They tend to say that people SHOULD view themselves as part of a particular group (or as individuals for example), and follow the INTERESTS of that group.

In this way, moralism is inevitable if you want change. Accept it.

For those that didn't read the thread, couldn't remember, or got bored - this is to show that, yes my position is a moralistic one, but so are many of your positions that you wouldn't very much like to lose (Marxism etc).

Xena Warrior Proletarian

17th May 2014, 13:40

To ComradeOm

No-one is saying we are the same. You and me are not the same. We have different intelligence levels, emotional capacities, and skin colours. As such you would surely not deny either yours or my rights based on the other one being smarter? No-one regardless of species is equal. It does not mean we shouldn't all have the same basic rights.

You have chosen to draw the line at rational thought, in your own words because "it's what separates humanity from everyone else". The reason you have chosen the criterion is speciesist/prejudiced. It is to back up your opinion that species are separate groups. We all have a common ancestor. The concept of species is for ease and practicality alone. It means nothing.

You say "the comparison is between species, the criterion is intelligence".

Why do we need to compare species? We don't - species is irrelevant. As we have found out through the examples of mentally retarded people and sociopaths, species is not a guarantor of either intelligence or emotional capacity; proving it to be utterly irrelevant in this discussion.

The relevant things are feeling pain, and experiencing life; because these are the qualities necessary to be affected by torture, slavery etc. Qualities that are encompassed under heading 'Sentience'.

It's really not that hard to not kill, torture or enslave those with sentience. It's not necessary for survival now in most developed countries (not that this is actually important) and it won't be necessary for survival under communism.

You sound like you have come out of fundamentalist Christian family that has taught you, God made man, and then the beasts. It's silly, we evolved into this position from a common ancestor, and we've not stopped evolving. We are all different within this 'species'. The nature of species, and other classifications is transient in itself. Even if it weren't, your position would still be stupid.

"Whereas I question what anyone who thinks that people, including slaves and the "mentally retarded", are no better than animals is doing on this site." - ComradeOm

It is only by your criterion that this is so.

Sea

8th June 2014, 04:34

Was away from the innertubes for a few weeks, sorry bout that.

Better worlds are not created by examining views. This is idealistic hogwash and I shall be plopping it into my recycle bin. Furthermore you're pushing this thing you got that the communistic social order should be "better". You are correct that advocating for a "better" world must be a moralistic activity, because to decide whether it's better or not requires a moral judgement. I am not a communist because I think a stateless, classless society would be "better". For the sake of argument, and to provide an example of an outlook that sidesteps moralism, let's say that I'm a communist because I want more stuff. Wanting stuff (in latin: selfishum interesticum vulgare) doesn't originate in morality, it originates in our biology. We have evolved to want stuff, because the necessaries of life are stuff, and we need stuff to live. Because I am a proletarian, capitalism limits the amount of stuff I can have relative to the amount of stuff I can make. In fact, if I were a bourgeois, the same stuff-wanting logic would cause me to be against communism. Consider the following: If moralism is the grand origin of selfish interests anyway, it must stand above selfish class interests. Because moralism cannot be worked out reliably due to it being, as you admit, unscientific, even different people in the same class and social context have wildly contradictory and conflicting views. Even those who question (as you have) the morality that they have been taught have wildly different views. Why is it then that the bourgeoisie (note that the bourgeoisie do not necessarily have to be class-conscious to act in their class interests, because theirs is already the dominant order) and class-conscious proletarians generally act (or think they are acting) not according to their varied moral outlooks, but in their class interests? If moralism were really the guiding force, the actions of people relative to their class should be much more varied. How do you splain that? What's more, as I hinted above, even the moralism of those who are doing their damnedest is all over the place, and even more so in different contexts. So really, at this point, it would make more sense for us all to be historicists than moralists! :laugh:

Political doctrines (or whatever you want to call them) tend to be moralistic. They tend to say that people SHOULD view themselves as part of a particular group (or as individuals for example), and follow the INTERESTS of that group.There is no "should" about it. What class one is in can be determined empirically, as it is defined by ones relation to the means of production. If a radical says to a proletarian that they should see themselves as such (ie, that they should be class-conscious) they are indeed using moralism, but only to push a very general moral argument - that one should see things as they are. That's about as generic as one can get, so don't be surprised if you see that argument applied to just about anything, including political doctrines.

Where possible we should definitely try hard to avoid using them, but when it comes to issues of what 'should be' we're pretty much screwed. Without them you can't only not say that slavery (et all) is wrong or even not very good, you can't think it's wrong or not very good.
about slavery:
It's not that I think it's not wonderful. What I meant was I don't think it is wonderful. As in, thinking it's wonderful isn't something I do. That doesn't necessarily mean that thinking it isn't wonderful is something that I do do. I've consistently held that good or bad (or wonderful or not) are totally irrelevant concepts when it comes to modes of production.

Last point: Because you cannot say with certainty what constitutes a "correct" moral outlook, and because you cannot say with certainty what moralism really means, how can you say with certainty that I am, or that anyone are for that matter, being moralistic? Before responding to anything else, I'd like you to demonstrate why you can be certain that I am being moralistic. Because one can use moralism to demonstrate almost anything (because morality doesn't necessarily reflect the actually-exiting world) I'd like you to refrain from using it in formulating your demonstration. Yes I'm being facetious.