Is Meat Really Murder?

duga · 05-14-2010, 07:00 PM

Vegangelica, do you consider it morally wrong to kill animals only when the being doing the killing is intelligent enough to make a moral choice? How do you feel about carnivorous animals?

Again...apologies if this or something like it has been asked before.

Guybrush · 05-14-2010, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten

The consequence of death is equal, yes. However, I do not only regard the final outcome as all consequences of one action. As I am an utilitarianist I believe that an action is good if it leads to more happiness/pleasure than unhappiness/pain. This means the total pleasure and/or pain that the action causes throughout time.

Would the suffering of the animal be equal in both the cases I would say that the moral implications of both scenarios would be equal. In fact, I would argue that, given the conditions that in both cases the corpse of the animal is treated likewise, the best, most moral scenario would be the one with the sadist as he/she recieves pleasure from the action.

This is under the condition that it is a lone, isolated event and that the pleasure that the sadist recieves does not mean that he/she has had positive experiences on animal cruelty making him/her more likely to perform it again. (This, I would say, is likely the case.)

I've myself used utilitarian arguments to defend stemcell research and abortions in discussions here and I think utilitarianism is sometimes good when it comes to making the really tough choices such as who lives and who dies, but as a moral theory to follow in everyday life? .. Not so much.

There are several reasons. One immediate one is that it's too simple. One basic increase happiness/minimize suffering rule is too simple to take care of your emotional interests. Humans have a natural capacity for morale. It's an integral part of most of us and the utilitarian rule does not describe it. I'm not sure any one moral theory does which is why I think people find it hard to be devout followers of one moral theory. To be a devout utilitarianist might mean having to make moral decisions that come into conflict with your feelings which try to guide you in such dilemmas. Basically, any action considered immoral by other normative theories can become morally good as long as the consequences are and our emotions generally don't work that way.

I don't think a so simple rule is a good guide in day to day life and I don't think following a morale theory which so easily could come into conflict with your emotional interests makes that much sense either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten

I argue that the notion that immoral actions should always be punished, for punishment's sake alone, is based on feelings rather than logic.

Actually, this is what you wrote :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten

The notion that immoral acts should be punished is not based on consequences but rather on feelings

And, the only way to interpret that sentence is that punishment such as the punishment of criminals is purely based on feelings. Of course it isn't. Punishment should have positive consequences, something you also admit :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten

B: Punishment works in a preventive matter by eg. scaring people into not commiting crimes or stating an example. (Of course punishment isn't enough, we also need eg. theraphy.) Due to A2, these are positive consequences.

So you admit there are positive consequences to punishment and my point then is that they are there by design and intention because of their consequence, not just because people want to see people punished.

I assume you do not actually mean the only reason society punishes criminals is to satisfy our hungry emotions, but hey - if you're gonna pick at my example argument which was specifically written to challenge Vegangelica's views and not your utilitarian ones, then I'm gonna nitpick at your post.

VEGANGELICA · 05-14-2010, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

Vegangelica, do you consider it morally wrong to kill animals only when the being doing the killing is intelligent enough to make a moral choice? How do you feel about carnivorous animals?

Again...apologies if this or something like it has been asked before.

You are correct...I only feel one animal killing another is morally wrong when I consider the one doing the action to be a "moral agent," capable of knowing or understanding that other beings have sensations, and capable of understanding the concepts of right and wrong.

So, for example, if a young human child commits a crime I do not hold her as morally responsible as when an adult human commits that same crime.

When a lion kills a gazelle, I *wish* that the lion didn't *have* to kill the gazelle to survive. I usually describe this predator/prey situation as "good for the lion and horrible for the gazelle." But I don't think the lion is acting immorally, because I don't think the lion's brain structure allows it to have a very strong concept of moral behavior as it pertains to prey animals.

Chainsawkitten · 05-15-2010, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I've myself used utilitarian arguments to defend stemcell research and abortions in discussions here and I think utilitarianism is sometimes good when it comes to making the really tough choices such as who lives and who dies, but as a moral theory to follow in everyday life? .. Not so much.

There are several reasons. One immediate one is that it's too simple. One basic increase happiness/minimize suffering rule is too simple to take care of your emotional interests. Humans have a natural capacity for morale. It's an integral part of most of us and the utilitarian rule does not describe it. I'm not sure any one moral theory does which is why I think people find it hard to be devout followers of one moral theory. To be a devout utilitarianist might mean having to make moral decisions that come into conflict with your feelings which try to guide you in such dilemmas. Basically, any action considered immoral by other normative theories can become morally good as long as the consequences are and our emotions generally don't work that way.

I don't think a so simple rule is a good guide in day to day life and I don't think following a morale theory which so easily could come into conflict with your emotional interests makes that much sense either.

I don't agree that utilitarianism in itself is too simple. However, it is indeed very easy to oversimplify things when trying to use it as there are many consequences that you are unaware of or will only show over time. I think that utilitarianism is always the correct way to define the morality of an action. Using it in everyday life is quite impossible though, as imagining all the consequences of a specific action is way too hard and complex to be done in a matter of seconds, or even minutes or hours. To safely determine the morality of an action one has to line up all the consequences one can think of, that the action will ever have, as objective as possible. This takes quite a lot of time, and requires input from other as well (otherwise it is quite likely that you have a set thesis to begin with and just can't think of consequences that invalidate it), so naturally one can only use it when one cares enough about a subject to really think it through carefully and for a long time.

When it comes to debate, I believe utilitarianism is the way to go, as time is most often a given and it is merely theoretical. (The outcome of the debate can hopefully then be used in order to make correct choices outside of the debate.)

Sometimes utilitarianism does indeed confront one's feelings. I feel that that's inevitable with any true moral system as I believe that feelings can not determine morality.

I feel like I'm rambling on incoherently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Actually, this is what you wrote :

And, the only way to interpret that sentence is that punishment such as the punishment of criminals is purely based on feelings. Of course it isn't. Punishment should have positive consequences, something you also admit :

So you admit there are positive consequences to punishment and my point then is that they are there by design and intention because of their consequence, not just because people want to see people punished.

I assume you do not actually mean the only reason society punishes criminals is to satisfy our hungry emotions, but hey - if you're gonna pick at my example argument which was specifically written to challenge Vegangelica's views and not your utilitarian ones, then I'm gonna nitpick at your post.

Yes, you are quite correct. The wording was a mistake on my part.

VEGANGELICA · 05-15-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten

As I am an utilitarianist I believe that an action is good if it leads to more happiness/pleasure than unhappiness/pain. This means the total pleasure and/or pain that the action causes throughout time.

Would the suffering of the animal be equal in both the cases I would say that the moral implications of both scenarios would be equal. In fact, I would argue that, given the conditions that in both cases the corpse of the animal is treated likewise, the best, most moral scenario would be the one with the sadist as he/she recieves pleasure from the action.

A major problem with using utilitarianism to guide moral choices is that no universal system for quantifying pleasure and pain exists. Thus people following utilitarianism can end up supporting horrid scenarios like the one you imagined: you said it is moral for a sadist to torture an animal since you view the pleasure gained by the sadist to be greater than the pain experienced by the tortured individual.

I rank physical pain as being much, much worse than someone's psychological pleasure, so by using utilitarianism I would say it is very immoral for a person to torture an animal for fun. And if someone tortures an animal, I would want that person in jail to prevent further harm to other beings.

Chainsawkitten, I feel utilitarianism is best used when deciding how to divy up money or time to *help* people. I do not feel utilitarianism should be used to decide whom to viciously hurt or kill. Utilitarianism is very scary in some ways because it can be used to violate rights (right to life, property, etc.). A utilitarian would and could argue that it is good to kill 100 people to save 1000. A lot of horrible political decisions have been made based on utilitarianism (U.S. dropping atomic bombs for example).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten

I think that utilitarianism is always the correct way to define the morality of an action. Using it in everyday life is quite impossible though, as imagining all the consequences of a specific action is way too hard and complex to be done in a matter of seconds, or even minutes or hours. Sometimes utilitarianism does indeed confront one's feelings. I feel that that's inevitable with any true moral system as I believe that feelings can not determine morality.[/SIZE]

Like I wrote above, a problem with using utilitarianism isn't, I feel, that we can't imagine all the consequences, but that people do not have an agreed-upon way to quantify the "value" of a pleasurable or painful experience.

I feel moral systems originate out of human feelings, so it is incorrect to say that feelings do not determine morality. Yes, people usually want moral systems to be consistent, which requires logic, but the whole reason for wanting logic (or for following the principle of justice) is that humans have a strong feeling of what is fair or not fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I've myself used utilitarian arguments to defend stemcell research and abortions in discussions here and I think utilitarianism is sometimes good when it comes to making the really tough choices such as who lives and who dies, but as a moral theory to follow in everyday life? .. Not so much.
To be a devout utilitarianist might mean having to make moral decisions that come into conflict with your feelings which try to guide you in such dilemmas. Basically, any action considered immoral by other normative theories can become morally good as long as the consequences are and our emotions generally don't work that way.

I agree with your view of utilitarianism, Tore. I do use it in real life to help make choices, but mostly I fall back on the ethical theory of Rights.

For example, even if I might get lots of pleasure from something I could steal from someone, I don't steal it because doing so violates the person's right to own property. Also, I put myself in that person's shoes and imagine how sad I'd feel, and I don't want that person to feel sad. So, I try to follow the principle of non-maleficence...do not harm others.

My veganism is based partly on the ethical theory of Rights: I feel animals (including human animals) have the right to be free from pain and suffering caused by people, and so I try to minimize the pain and suffering I cause to animals. I also use utilitarianism as part of my rationale for why I don't kill or want animals to be killed (and eaten). The pleasure gained by eating veal, for example, is much, much less than the pain and loss (of life) experienced by the calf. The utilitarian goal is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. I feel vegetarianism fulfills this utilitarian goal better than meat-eating does.

Guybrush · 05-15-2010, 11:58 AM

Although slightly off-topic, I think debating morale is quite interesting

It's nice that you could bring back veganism to the thread, Vegangelica!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten

Sometimes utilitarianism does indeed confront one's feelings. I feel that that's inevitable with any true moral system as I believe that feelings can not determine morality.

I think Vegangelica's point about the want or even desire for morale as something which is rooted in feelings is a good point which supports why a morale theory shouldn't conflict with your feelings.

I can add a more pragmatic example of why feelings are useful when it comes to guiding us in morality and how utilitarianism conflicts with them. Take the above example again; a hare gets shot or is tortured. Let's assume the suffering of the hare is the same, but in one scenario, the hunter recieves pleasure from the torture because he is a sadist. As a utilitarian, you argue that this could make the torture scenario the best of the two because you place moral value in the sadistic feelings of the hunter.

Assuming the suffering of the hare is the same and it's an isolated incidence, although it could be argued, I think your point makes sense as a utilitarian argument. However, if you question your feelings, again, I think you will be more morally disgusted by the sadist than the hunter. Such feelings are not necessarily irrational and come from nowhere. They generally work in the interest of your well being. The dislike towards the sadist is trying to tell you something, for example that this is a bad person and might be dangerous. As I mentioned earlier, reveling in torture isn't exactly the sign of a healthy mind and a winning personality.

Your feelings "know" this and are there to make you behave accordingly, yet utilitarianism wants you to protect this person's sadistic feelings. It's just not a good strategy to live by.

Generally speaking, feelings are a product of natural and sexual selection. In other words, they are not random but are the way they are because they have benefitted our fitness during our evolutionary history. They work in our interest. One can easily argue that the environment they evolved in is quite dissimilar to modern society and some of them might be a bit selfish, but I still think they are morally valuable.

VEGANGELICA · 05-15-2010, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I think Vegangelica's point about the want or even desire for morale as something which is rooted in feelings is a good point which supports why a morale theory shouldn't conflict with your feelings.

Take the above example again; a hare gets shot or is tortured. Assuming the suffering of the hare is the same and it's an isolated incidence, although it could be argued, I think your point makes sense as a utilitarian argument. However, if you question your feelings, again, I think you will be more morally disgusted by the sadist than the hunter. Such feelings are not necessarily irrational and come from nowhere. They generally work in the interest of your well being. The dislike towards the sadist is trying to tell you something, for example that this is a bad person and might be dangerous. As I mentioned earlier, reveling in torture isn't exactly the sign of a healthy mind and a winning personality.

Generally speaking, feelings are a product of natural and sexual selection. In other words, they are not random but are the way they are because they have benefitted our fitness during our evolutionary history. They work in our interest.

Yes...I'm afraid of hunters to an extent, but even more afraid of people who torture animals...and I think those fears help keep me safe. I'm afraid of trappers, since this *is* generally torturing animals...letting them linger for hours with broken limbs and lacerated bodies before finally coming back to kill them. I hate weapons and fighting. Again, that fear helps keep me safe.

And I fear meat-eaters in general to an extent. I don't see myself as much different from "meat animals." Especially when I was child, I could see the direct threat to me from humans eating animals so similar to me: small and helpless, defenseless. The world was/is a dangerous place. Fear of others can be a very healthy, survivalist feeling.

I suppose the basic fear with meat-eaters is this: if they are so willing to eat someone just because that someone is a little different...less intelligent, weaker...what would protect *me* from being seen as the prey if I, due to circumstances out of my control, lost some intelligence and strength? I know a vegan will not exploit me in that situation. But someone who feels exploitation of sentient beings is justifiable, even desirable?

I don't fear *you*, though, Tore. You are civilized and thoughtful. There are some people, though...predatory people...I wouldn't want to be with in the same room when they are hungry. Or if they had a weapon.

Actually, one of the things I enjoy about being vegan is that *usually*...and I'm stereotyping here...when I meet a vegan I feel safe with that person. I know right away their life philosophy is to not do harm to others...humans, animals, etc. There is often a bond I feel with vegetarians (who are vegetarian for ethical reasons), even if I don't know them well.

FETCHER. · 05-16-2010, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paloma

Err

You eat meat...

edit: why can't you be vegetarian now

I know what he means, sometimes it can be hard being a vegetarian when you're younger and your mother buys all the food, for instance even if I wanted to I couldn't be a vegetarian, I get no say in the shopping list. The vegetarian foods in my house are sides for meat and stuff, can't be eaten as meal, maybe a snack though. I tried when I was at school to be a vegetarian (Experimental, and sort of to do with animals) It was hard as my mother didnt buy me vegetarian meals because the whole family would then have to be vegetarian. Which wasn't an option. I sort of done it for the cruelty factor because I thought that it would make a difference, as I've got older I've gotten more cynical towards this kind of thing. I am only one (Wo)man. and can't make a difference in my opinion. Even now when I have my own job and stuff I can't be vegetarian, I have too many commitments to be prioritising buying suitable meals when my mum buys perfectly good fresh meat for me at no cost. A waste of money in my case.

~~James~~ · 05-16-2010, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayleigh.

I know what he means, sometimes it can be hard being a vegetarian when you're younger and your mother buys all the food, for instance even if I wanted to I couldn't be a vegetarian, I get no say in the shopping list. The vegetarian foods in my house are sides for meat and stuff, can't be eaten as meal, maybe a snack though. I tried when I was at school to be a vegetarian (Experimental, and sort of to do with animals) It was hard as my mother didnt buy me vegetarian meals because the whole family would then have to be vegetarian. Which wasn't an option. I sort of done it for the cruelty factor because I thought that it would make a difference, as I've got older I've gotten more cynical towards this kind of thing. I am only one (Wo)man. and can't make a difference in my opinion. Even now when I have my own job and stuff I can't be vegetarian, I have too many commitments to be prioritising buying suitable meals when my mum buys perfectly good fresh meat for me at no cost. A waste of money in my case.

Exactly what I meant thanks.

FETCHER. · 05-16-2010, 10:43 AM

Not a problem, champ.

05-14-2010, 07:00 PM	#491 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	Vegangelica, do you consider it morally wrong to kill animals only when the being doing the killing is intelligent enough to make a moral choice? How do you feel about carnivorous animals? Again...apologies if this or something like it has been asked before. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...