Animal Cruelty

[El Guapo 8]

Humans are carnivores. We are SUPPOSED to eat meat... that's just how it is. Unfortunately, there are billions of us on this earth. Therefore, less than utopian methods are used to supply this huge demand.All the 'mmmm I'm gonna eat me some dead cow' bs is getting tiresome. Every time DN gets to mention it, he does.Just keep enjoying your rice. I'm sure the Vietnamese rice pickers enjoy you paying large food companies around 10x what they earn in one day, for each packet. Arn't you contributing to their exploitation and cruelty?

Most of the worlds supply of Rice comes right here from Northern California, in fact Northern Cal qadn Cal as a whole prodcues % wise the largest amount of produce in the world, per square footage.

[Footballguru 0]

heres an essay i wrote in a philosophy class last year with perhaps a different perspective on animal rights then you may have thought about before.Animal RightsDavid Singer, a utilitarian, argues that sentient non human animals have a moral standing. As a result, he goes on to say that humans are directly obligated not to cause any animals’ unjustifiable suffering. I will argue that Singer is greatly mistaken to believe that non human animals have a moral standing comparable to the average human. While it is true that some non human animals can feel pain and have a desire for freedom from death and suffering, it does not mean that as humans, we have a moral obligation to not cause any harm or suffering to animals. Since he believes that animals have a moral standing, Singer argues that humans must give their shared interests with animals’ equal consideration. These shared considerations include freedom from suffering and not being killed prematurely. He continues in arguing that whenever humans favor their own interests over non human animals, such as using them for food or scientific experimentation, humans are acting unjustly. Dr. Tom Regan, although not a utilitarian, agrees with Singer that non human animals have a moral standing. Regan goes further than Singer, however, in saying that some non human animals have inherent value equal to that of a human. Therefore, it is wrong for humans to use non human animals as a means to our ends. Regan has two arguments supporting this claim. Regan’s first argument is that because “marginal humans” have equal inherent value then so should non human animals. Therefore, a being has equal inherent value if and only if it is the experiencing subject of a life. His second argument is known as “The Rights View.” This is the view that greatly separates him from Singer’s utilitarian opinion. “The Rights View” starts by stating that if a being has equal inherent value then it is wrong to treat it as a means to an end, even if it would be maximizing happiness. As stated before, he believes some non humans have equal inherent value as humans, and therefore it is wrong to treat non humans as a means to a human’s end. As a result of some animals having the ability to suffer, being sentient, Singer argues that we are directly obligated to not cause any non humans’ animals’ unjustifiable suffering. The biggest flaw in this argument is that Singer assumes, because they can feel pain, that animals have a moral standing. The fact that they can feel pain does not, in itself, make non human animals have a moral standing. Humans are the only beings with a moral standing. This is because they are the only beings that have the ability to act with regard to morality. Humans can administer justice, and therefore should be held in a higher regard than those who cannot. Consequently, humans are considered moral agents. In addition humans can also judge their own actions. Other animals do not have that ability. In contrast, non human animals are considered to be moral patients. This means that they simply can only be treated correctly or wrongly. They cannot treat others with moral regard. As a result, humans must be held in a higher moral regard than non human animals. R. G. Frey attacks Dr. Regan’s views in his work titled “The Case against Animal Rights.” Frey claims that Regan’s arguments are weak because the variants Regan uses to support his “marginal humans” argument do not support his claim. To combat Regan’s claim that “marginal human’s” lives are valued the same as average humans, Frey says that he does not believe marginal and average human’s lives have the same value. Frey continues his argument by saying that to him, “the value of a life is a function of its quality, its quality a function of its richness, and its richness a function of its scope or potentiality for enrichment.” Frey is correct in this aspect. Since non humans animals have no potentiality for a greater quality of life, their interests can not even be compared to those interests of humans. The only thing non human animals accomplish in their lifetime's is strive to survive and attempt to produce offspring. This is certainly not a rich life. Frey then concludes that since all human life does not have the same richness, quality, or potentiality for enrichment, then all human life is not equal. If all human life is not equal, then non human animal’s lives are surely not equal to human lives. This statement would make Regan’s “marginal human” argument a moot point. I would also have to hesitantly agree with Frey on this point. Due to the way our current paradigm in society is, we are taught that all human life is equal and we are all created in “God’s image” (take that as you may). However, after seeing the world through my own point of view, this is obviously not true. People are different. We all have different capabilities, disabilities, gifts, and weaknesses. Some people have the potentiality for a rich life, while others; although it may not be fair, certainly do not. Regan’s next claim is that even though some humans do not use the gifts given to them such as ability to judge, autonomy, and ability, their lives are still valued at an equal level as other. Frey refutes this argument by restating his opinion that all human lives are not equal. Frey admits that there are some lives that are not worth living. The people living these lives must be held in lower moral standing than the average adult human. Therefore, non human animal’s lives most definitely need to be held in lower moral value than that of a human’s life. This argument is similar to Frey’s previous argument. I once again will have to agree with him. Even though it is not openly said in our society that people are not capable of living full lives are inferior, it is certainly implied. For example, some humans are treated worse than house pets. If one visits an insane asylum and observe how fellow humans are being treated, one would then not be able to make the argument that all humans are created equally. Obviously, for whatever reason, these humans are indeed incapable of living a full life, and as a result are forced to live like, well, animals. To further his “rights view,” Regan argues that even if a human “can’t read, do higher mathematics, build a bookcase or make baba ghanoush” they should not have lower inherent value. As a result, animals that can not do these things also should not have lower inherent value. Frey agrees that a human who cannot do one of these things should not have lower inherent value than a human who can. However, he maintains that elders with senile dementia or infants without a brain do have a lower value of life than average humans. The difference between the example of not being able to build a bookcase and senile dementia is easy to see. Not being able to build a bookcase will not, except under extremely unusual circumstances, affect one’s quality of life. However, senile dementia will almost certainly negatively affect one’s quality of life. Therefore, a person lacking the ability to build a bookcase and a person with senile dementia do not have lives worth the same value. To continue the argument against Singer’s belief that non human animals have a moral standing similar to humans, it should be known that animals cannot have feelings for others. For example, if a mother ape is holding her child at hip height and crosses a river where the water is up to her shoulder, she will not be able to realize that her child cannot breathe. When she gets to the other side of the river, her child will be dead and she will have no idea why. Non human animals cannot comprehend other’s feelings. This definitely puts them on a lower moral standing than humans.As a result of them being in a lower moral standing, humans deserve to have control over them. They need to be treated strictly as property and not as sentient animals. For example, if I wanted to buy a dog and use it for my personal gain, that is my right. Some could argue that because I have a higher moral standing than a dog, it does not give me the right to strictly use it for my gain. I disagree for a few reasons.First, when the positions were reversed thousands of years ago, humans were prey. If a non human animal saw the human, the non human would often try to hunt the human. Humans today should be no different now that we are the top species. Second, animals have no way of feeling for others. Therefore they do not deserve to have others feel for them. If I can purchase a dog for “x” amount of dollars, find a way to use it to earn me “y” amount of dollars, where y>x, then I should do anything in my power to increase my “y” value. Even if I deprive the dog of some food or adequate shelter, I must be allowed to, if I wish use it to my advantage.This argument I am making is extremely relevant in the idea of using non human animals for food. Humans should use non human animals to maximize profits under any circumstances, if that is what the human desires. If the non humans animals have a bad quality of life as a result of humans trying to maximize profit or efficiency in feeding the human population, then too bad. They have a significantly lower moral standing than humans, as a whole, and humans must not care about the well being of non human animals, as long as the humans are gaining something from depriving animals.People claim that this is not humanitarian, morally correct, etc. That is purely a matter of opinion. The problem with modern politics on these types of issues is that people look at them subjectively, when it is imperative that they only be looked at from an objective standpoint. And the facts show that animals have a lower moral standing. Therefore they should be bought and sold like property. They should be treated however the owner sees fit. If the owner wants to raise them for food, for offspring, for a friend, or any other reason, that is the right of the owner. Instead of comparing non human animals to humans, I would be more willing to compare them to a desk or a rock. They cannot feel for others, they act only in their direct personal interests.Additionally, non human animals act only off of instinct. In contrast, humans are the only animals with the ability to develop culture, or learned behavior. Humans can learn from experiences, learn from others, etc. to develop culture. While animals may adapt to a living environment, they do not have this ability of learned behavior. Everything they do is based off of instinct. This further proves that they have a significantly lower moral standing. Also, their feelings can not be given consideration since they can never further their lives past instinct. They are only capable of what is already given to them, imagine that. A life is not worth anything at all if at any point of its existence it cannot improve.As a result, non human animals have a lower moral standing than humans. Humans must be allowed to use non human animals to better their lives financially, emotionally, or socially. They need to be treated purely as property, just as a rock or chair is treated. Subjective viewpoints on animals should not be allowed and all views should be strictly objective. Opinionated views only bring more conflict, while factual based views can bring ends to arguments.

[Balloon guy 158]

Watched an episode on the Animal Planet on lions/hyenas. There was one scene where a water buffalo got stuck in the mud up to it's chest. So the hyenas began to eat it from the back forward, while the water buffalo just groaned.Then the lions took down an elephant, and got a few gazelle later on.Humans, as a rule, will never be crueler to animals than the other animals are.Hence the foolishness of animal rights

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Watched an episode on the Animal Planet on lions/hyenas. There was one scene where a water buffalo got stuck in the mud up to it's chest. So the hyenas began to eat it from the back forward, while the water buffalo just groaned.Then the lions took down an elephant, and got a few gazelle later on.Humans, as a rule, will never be crueler to animals than the other animals are.Hence the foolishness of animal rights

This is a particularly poor defense of eating meat. A) using the behavior of animals as basis for human behavior is no place to start to make a moral or ethical code and B) Yes, humans really can be crueler to animals than animals can be, as seen by what can happen in a lab, or what a sick and twisted human torture an animal. What it comes down to, for me at least, is there is no moral equivalence of the suffering of animals and the suffering of humans. Many, many people like to put human feelings, emotions and traits onto animals, and because of this, they tend to care over much about the suffering of animals. I don't think humans should go out of their way to be cruel to animals, but some animal cruelty is necessary for the betterment of humanity, the betterment of the economy and for the betterment of science, and to me this far outweighs the suffering of a chicken or rat.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

My new sig will direct you to the Earthlings video if you are interested.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

My new sig will direct you to the Earthlings video if you are interested.

this better not be a Rick Roll, you can get banned for that, you know.

[Derswick 0]

My new sig will direct you to the Earthlings video if you are interested.

WOW that's a little on the heavy side!

[akoff 0]

This is a particularly poor defense of eating meat.

I wasn't aware that a defense was needed for eating meat.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I wasn't aware that a defense was needed for eating meat.

What I mean is, that was a particularly poor argument in favor of meat consumption. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of it, but saying "animals are crueler than we are" is silly on many grounds.

[fighter 4]

heres an essay i wrote in a philosophy class last year with perhaps a different perspective on animal rights then you may have thought about before.Animal Rights

I did an assignment for law classes in australia and read almost all the books you quoted.(i guess it is such a small field )First the guys name is Peter Singer not David Singer. (unless the famous Scientologist was also an animal activist.)Mine was more law basied and looking at definitions of legal personality. I Unfortunatly couldnt just say that the middle range of humans is better so all of them are better because almost everything in the law is about exceptions. It is basically Peter singer quotes mixed with "The Case against Animal Rights" though.

[All_In 0]

Watched an episode on the Animal Planet on lions/hyenas. There was one scene where a water buffalo got stuck in the mud up to it's chest. So the hyenas began to eat it from the back forward, while the water buffalo just groaned.Then the lions took down an elephant, and got a few gazelle later on.Humans, as a rule, will never be crueler to animals than the other animals are.Hence the foolishness of animal rights

if we have the capacity to dramatically reduce the suffering of 'food' animals, should we not have a moral obligation to do so?your line of reasoning assumes we do not have intellect and compassion above that of other species. it also attempts to lump everyone who feels that animals deserve to not suffer together. i would include myself in this group, but my opinions vary greatly with other 'animal rights' people and orgs, etc..

[All_In 0]

heres an essay i wrote in a philosophy class last year with perhaps a different perspective on animal rights then you may have thought about before.Animal Rights...

acouple quick things:1. "The biggest flaw in this argument is that Singer assumes, because they can feel pain, that animals have a moral standing. The fact that they can feel pain does not, in itself, make non human animals have a moral standing."i assume that last sentence was your opinion? i relate suffering to morality, and pain definitely qualifies as suffering. therefore, in my opinion, animals can have moral standing.how do u define morality? what is it's end purpose in your opinion?2. " Humans are the only beings with a moral standing. This is because they are the only beings that have the ability to act with regard to morality."What proof can you offer that humans are the only animals that have the ability to act with regard to morality? there are many examples of species putting themselves in danger to protect the larger group, or the young. would this qualify as a 'moral' behavior? i guess it comes down to what you interpret the english word 'moral' to mean and encompass.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

What it comes down to, for me at least, is there is no moral equivalence of the suffering of animals and the suffering of humans. Many, many people like to put human feelings, emotions and traits onto animals, and because of this, they tend to care over much about the suffering of animals. I don't think humans should go out of their way to be cruel to animals, but some animal cruelty is necessary for the betterment of humanity, the betterment of the economy and for the betterment of science, and to me this far outweighs the suffering of a chicken or rat.

Big surprise. Like every other moral dilemma, the answer is all about balance. I don't believe that eating meat in general is an evil thing, and many people require regular meat in order to stay healthy (though many others can survive very well off of a completely vegan diet. It varies from person to person and diet to diet). It's not too difficult to harvest meat while avoiding practices that seem like something out of The Jungle. We shouldn't risk our own safety, health, and general well being to do so, but so long as it's possible with little harm toward society in general, I believe that we are under the moral obligation (whatever that means) to harvest meat in as humane a way as possible.

[SilentSnow 1]

As a result of some animals having the ability to suffer, being sentient, Singer argues that we are directly obligated to not cause any non humans’ animals’ unjustifiable suffering. The biggest flaw in this argument is that Singer assumes, because they can feel pain, that animals have a moral standing. The fact that they can feel pain does not, in itself, make non human animals have a moral standing.

There are quite a few problems with this essay, but I'll just stick to the most fundamental one.The fact that they can feel pain does give animals some sort of moral standing, with no other conditions required.You can argue about the details all you want, but animals do require some sort of moral consideration because they can feel pain. Period.

[El Guapo 8]

P. eople for theE. ating ofT. astyA. nimals

[SilentSnow 1]

What it comes down to, for me at least, is there is no moral equivalence of the suffering of animals and the suffering of humans. Many, many people like to put human feelings, emotions and traits onto animals, and because of this, they tend to care over much about the suffering of animals. I don't think humans should go out of their way to be cruel to animals, but some animal cruelty is necessary for the betterment of humanity, the betterment of the economy and for the betterment of science, and to me this far outweighs the suffering of a chicken or rat.

It might not be exactly equivalent, but their suffering must be considered. This has nothing to do with whether animals have human feelings and emotions, but simply the degree to which they can feel pain.The problem with "the betterment of the economy or science" argument is that there would be no limits to it.Is it really acceptable to torture animals so you can save 10 cents a pound on meat?The problem with our society is that we have no lines whatsoever regarding the treatment of animals. No torture is too great, and no benefit is too trivial to justify it.

[El Guapo 8]

OK so I just watched the propoganda piece that DN put on his sig.These are the extremes, and it is hard to know which places are following the rules and which are not. I have been to a slaughter house and I drive by milk farms every day. None are remotley close to what was shown here. I have a lot of things I can comment on, but I will keep this short. Yes some of this is disgusting and the Kosher thing, way over the top. I personally won't eat veal because of the treatment. With that being said, my Grandpa runs cattle on 400 acres, I have a friend who owns a farm in Kansas and runs 260 acres, the milk cattle are herded into the milking stalls and then let to graze.Pigs are disgusting animals and will eat anything, including each other.The statement that says if we had to kill our own food we would all be vegetarians is ridiculous. I fish, most of my friends fish and or hunt, and kill, gut and clean there own food. They do their best to minimize the suffering and make it clean. I have eaten Venison, Goose, Duck, Pheasant, Quail, Elk, Bison and Bear meat. I personally do not hunt because I do not enjoy it and don't see any sport in shooting and animal, but I do enjoy fishing on occasion, but I have no moral problems with it. There is my 2 cents.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

OK so I just watched the propoganda piece that DN put on his sig.These are the extremes, and it is hard to know which places are following the rules and which are not. I have been to a slaughter house and I drive by milk farms every day. None are remotley close to what was shown here. I have a lot of things I can comment on, but I will keep this short. Yes some of this is disgusting and the Kosher thing, way over the top. I personally won't eat veal because of the treatment. With that being said, my Grandpa runs cattle on 400 acres, I have a friend who owns a farm in Kansas and runs 260 acres, the milk cattle are herded into the milking stalls and then let to graze.Pigs are disgusting animals and will eat anything, including each other.The statement that says if we had to kill our own food we would all be vegetarians is ridiculous. I fish, most of my friends fish and or hunt, and kill, gut and clean there own food. They do their best to minimize the suffering and make it clean. I have eaten Venison, Goose, Duck, Pheasant, Quail, Elk, Bison and Bear meat. I personally do not hunt because I do not enjoy it and don't see any sport in shooting and animal, but I do enjoy fishing on occasion, but I have no moral problems with it. There is my 2 cents.

The statement said 90% of of us would be vegetarians and I think that's accurate.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The statement said 90% of of us would be vegetarians and I think that's accurate.

I think that's a ridiculous estimate. We are not that many generation away from when 90 percent of people raised and killed their own animals. Humans certainly have the capacity to raise and kill their on livestock... just because we've been city folk for acouple generations, doesn't mean we wouldn't kill and eat animals if necessity dictated.

[nutzbuster 7]

The statement said 90% of of us would be vegetarians and I think that's accurate.

I have to agree with this statement. Our uncle had a farm and watching the animals get slaughtered was horrible. No way could I do that.And I do strive one day to be able to eat mostly veggies and limit meat. I do it as much as possible now, but don;t go out of my way or anything. I do it mainly because it is just a way healthier way to eat. I still love meat, chicken , and fish too much ....gonna be tough to give those up.

[nutzbuster 7]

The history channel just did a piece on the manufacturing of Pork rinds and Beef Jerky!OMG....Im gonna be sick. I thought pork rinds were made from CORN! lol....it's fried pig skin.gag.

[grocery_mony 8]

The history channel just did a piece on the manufacturing of Pork rinds and Beef Jerky!OMG....Im gonna be sick. I thought pork rinds were made from CORN! lol....it's fried pig skin.gag.

lol

[chrozzo 19]

rhi hsa to comeim drebust steaka reareallt goood..m,...rwsllt oogood,i so fucvk animright ad alltrrhts.,,,theywere put onths neart fprusto cinsure..weeeeeeeeeeeee...it si the bile nanrae l

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The history channel just did a piece on the manufacturing of Pork rinds and Beef Jerky!OMG....Im gonna be sick. I thought pork rinds were made from CORN! lol....it's fried pig skin.gag.

hahahhahahahahahahahahhaahahaha haha ahahahahahhaahahaI think you'er thinking of corn nuts hahahaha

[nutzbuster 7]

rhi hsa to comeim drebust steaka reareallt goood..m,...rwsllt oogood,i so fucvk animright ad alltrrhts.,,,theywere put onths neart fprusto cinsure..weeeeeeeeeeeee...it si the bile nanrae l

You o.k. Chrozzo?