hallgregor
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 17 |   |
Karma: 0
|
Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/09 10:20
· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
Popular posts by hallgregor
Asshole Animal Eating
Animals do have rights
I was wrong
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
yaman666
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 38 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/09 17:05
HENRY S. SALT Logic of the Larder
It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all. Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit or pastime, when their life is a fairly happy one. The argument is frequently used by sportsmen, on the grounds that the fox would long ago have become extinct in this country had not they, his true friends, *preserved* him for purposes of sport. Vivisectors, who breed guinea-pigs for experimentation, also have used it, and they have as much right to it as flesh-eaters; for how, they may say, can a few hours of suffering be set in the balance against the enormous benefit of life? In fact, if we once admit that it is an advantage to an animal to be brought into the world, there is hardly any treatment that cannot be justified by the supposed terms of such acontract. Also, the argument must apply to mankind. It has, in fact, been the plea of the slave-breeder; and it is logically just as good an excuse for slave-holding as for flesh-eating. It would justify parents in almost any treatment of their children, who owe them, for the great boon of life, a debt of gratitude which no subsequent services can repay. We could hardly deny the same merit to cannibals, if they were to breed their human victims for the table, as the early Peruvians are said to have done. It is on record, in no less authentic a work than *Hansard* (March 7,
1883), that when Sir Herbert Maxwell argued in Parliament that a *blue rock* would prefer to be sport for pigeon-shooters than not to exist at all, Mr. W. E. Forster satirically remarked that what we have to consider is not a blue rock before existence, but a blue rock in existence. There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter. The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to compare existence with non-existence.
A person who is already in existence may feel that he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of which we can predicate nothing. When, therefore, we talk of
*bringing a being* as we vaguely express it, *into the world,* we cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a bargain with him, and a very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any such quibble, in which the wish is so obviously father to the thought.
Nor, in this connection, is it necessary to enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence there be, we have no reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and thus equally the argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed preexistence, or non-existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning based on such comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque conclusions. Take the case, as it stands, between the Philosopher and the Pig. Is it not adding insult to injury that this much-massacred animal should not only be eaten by the Philosopher, but should also be made the subject of a far from disinterested beatification ó ìBlessed is the Pig, for the Philosopher is fond of bacon. We can imagine how the
Philosopher, when he passes a butcher's shop, which, according to his showing, is a very shrine and centre of humaneness, since without it there *would be no pigs at all,* must pause in serene self-satisfaction to felicitate the pallid carcase laid out there, with the mockery of an ornamental orange in its mouth. *I have been a benefactor to this Pig,* he must say, *inasmuch as I ate a portion of his predecessor;
and now I will be a benefactor to some yet unborn pig, by eating a portion of this one.* This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? *Revered moralist,* he might plead, *it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devourme, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered. From whatever point one looks at this sophism, it is seen to be equally hollow. For even apart from the philosophical flaw which vitiates it, there is the practical consideration that a far greater number of human lives can be supported on a grain and fruit-growing district than on one which rears cattle; so that if a larger area of England were devoted to the rearing of livestock, we should actually be lessening human life that there might be more beef and mutton;
that is, we should be increasing the lower existence at the expense of the higher. It is worth noting, too, that the life of animals doomed to the slaughter is of a far lower quality than it would be if the same animals were either entirely wild, or domesticated to some rational purpose by friendly association with man; the very fact that an animal is going to be eaten seems to remove it from the category of intelligent beings, and causes it to be regarded as mere animated meat. To keep a man, slave, or servant," says Edward Carpenter, "for your own advantage merely, to keep an animal, that you may eat it, is a lie; you cannot look that animal in the face." The existence of bullocks, for example, can scarcely be called life; they are live-stock, but they do not live. And what of the fat beasts that are yearly exhibited at the Agricultural Hall, and elsewhere, at the season of peace and goodwill? Are these wretched victims of human gluttony to be grateful for the boon of life? Are crammed fowls and Strasburg geese to be grateful? And the calf and the lamb ó are they to be felicitated on the rather short term allowed them in the ghoulish contract, or must we except the eaters of veal and lamb from the list of animal benefactors? Let us heartily accept all that may be said of the joyfulness of life. But what is the moral to be drawn from that fact? Surely not that we are justified in outraging and destroying life, to pamper our selfish appetites, because forsooth we shall then produce more of it! But rather that we should respect the beauty and sanctity of life in others as in ourselves, and strive as far Of all the arguments for Vegetarianism none is so weak as the argument from humanity. The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all, Leslie Stephen in "Social Rights and Duties." If all the world were Jews, it has been well said, there would be no pigs in existence; and if all the world wereVegetarians, would there be any sheep or cattle, well cared for, and guarded against starvation?" Professor D.
G.Ritchie in "Natural Rights." possible to secure its fullest natural development. This logic of the larder is the very negation of a true reverence for life; for it implies that the real lover of animals is he whose larder is fullest of them:
He prayeth best, who eateth best All things both great and small.
It is the philosophy of the wolf, the shark, the cannibal. If there be any truth in such an argument, let those who believe it have the courage of their convictions, and face the inevitable conclusion.
The Ogre has hitherto been a much misunderstood character, but now at last Philosophy and Science are doing justice to his beneficence. His organization has been defective, perhaps, but his spirit has been wholly commendable. He is par excellence the zoophilist, the philanthropist, the saint. But enough of this quibbling! Vegetarianism would save the actual animals, who have been brought into this actual world, from the very real suffering that is inseparable from the cattle-ship and the slaughter-house; and if its only inhumanity is that which it perpetrates on non-existent races by not arranging for their birth, it may bear the charge with equanimity. If there were any unkindness, or any lack of kindness, in not breeding animals, the enormity of our sins of omission would be more than the human conscience could endure, for the number of the unborn is limitless, and to wade through slaughter to a throne, and shut the gates of mercy on mankind, would be a trifle in comparison with this cold-blooded shutting of the gates of life on the poor, neglected non-existent! It is interesting to note that this fallacy the assumption that it is a kindness to bring a being into the world is as old as the time of Lucretius, who deals with it, in another connection, in a passage of his great philosophical poem, De
Rerum Natura (v. 176ó180), which may be rendered thus: What loss were ours, if we had known not birth? Let living men to longer life aspire, While fond affection binds their hearts to earth:
But whoso neÃer hath tasted life's desire, Unborn, impersonal, can feel no dearth.We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago. It is quite possible that fools may be repeating it two thousand years hence.
Popular posts by yaman666
Attn. Jon. Line 3 too long.
EDM 1340
Attn. Usual suspect. Line three too...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
TimC
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 58 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/09 17:49
Think of all the life you waste every time you have a wank.
Popular posts by TimC
Foie Gras Bill Passes California Se...
Genetically Engineered Fish
The average European cow receives s...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Octavius
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 64 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/09 20:25
You're a pretend "vegan", given that comment about the wrongness of "torture". You haven't demonstrated that any "torture" occurs. You can't, of course.
Popular posts by Octavius
"...if anything I feel a bit o...
Karen Winter: Unfit to lecture oth...
Initial existence is NOT a benefit
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
CashCrowe
User
Newbie
| Posts: 7 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/10 01:04
i follow what you're saying... it's better to experience some life rather than none and also if the animals would be happy while alive, and also be killed painlessly, then it would seem good.
i follow the idea... but let me ask 1 difficult question.... if it was good to create lives and then kill the individuals:
- if someone was repeatedly breeding dogs and then killing them after 5 months, would this also be good?
- if someone was having children, and killing them after a few years, would this be okay?
to be philosophical, i think that if something is "given" it then belongs to who has it, and it 'can't' be taken back ...if you give money to a charity (similar to creating lives for their ability to experience life), you 'can't' steal the same amount of money from them later
at least this is the way i feel about it
Popular posts by CashCrowe
why try to talk to people who are o...
-info- how to block people from the...
Jourenal artical on collateral deat...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
aggietim
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 9 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/10 05:46
specifically animals that die serving human needs. Your attempt to cloud the issue is noted, but I've seen it before.
Ball cannot grasp.
What degree are you talking about? Please don't be vague.
No, I point out your fallacious thinking because I hope to help you, I don't get a feeling of moral superiority out if it. I think you're in the grip of a mind-virus.
It's true that self-righteousness is a widespread disease, but ARAs have a particular version of it that is relevant in this discussion.
Popular posts by aggietim
What's the trouble with Larry?
Not for any farm animals' intere...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
yaman666
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 38 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/10 13:35
If you were to include the beginning of the sentence instead of cutting it off in your reply, you might've gleaned the answer to your question without having to ask me.
"What loss were ours, if we had known not birth? Let living men to longer life aspire, While fond affection binds their hearts to earth: But whoso neÃer hath tasted life's desire,
Unborn, impersonal, can feel no dearth. We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago. It is quite possible that fools may be repeating it two thousand years hence.
Popular posts by yaman666
Attn. Jon. Line 3 too long.
EDM 1340
Attn. Usual suspect. Line three too...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
yaman666
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 38 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/10 18:01
Then I suggest you raise your standard instead of trying to insist others should lower theirs to suit you.
Popular posts by yaman666
Attn. Jon. Line 3 too long.
EDM 1340
Attn. Usual suspect. Line three too...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
yaman666
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 38 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/11 01:34
Yes, I could.
Popular posts by yaman666
Attn. Jon. Line 3 too long.
EDM 1340
Attn. Usual suspect. Line three too...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Neb
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 60 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/11 01:47
If it's a red herring, it's your red herring in reverse with your claims that it doesn't matter how an animal is going to die if it's gonna die anyway.
You're a troll and a bad one, you have no humanity in your dwarven body, so don't kid us
How sad a life you lead to never understand humility, caring, ethics or morals.
Another red herring?
'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.
Popular posts by Neb
The hunt lobby a laughing stock?
Is the fox a pest ? the lie expose...
What's your favorite vegetable?
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Octavius
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 64 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/11 03:17
It's an extremist, hysteria-based web site. No one is
"torturing" animals. You may not like the treatment animals receive, and you may even be right. But it is an absurd leap to call it "torture". By parroting this kind of extremist propaganda, you reveal that you have been taken in by political extremists.
Popular posts by Octavius
"...if anything I feel a bit o...
Karen Winter: Unfit to lecture oth...
Initial existence is NOT a benefit
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
lunix4god
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 24 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/12 03:41
Your argument ALSO applies EXACTLY to humans: if we raised humans for food, that would be a GOOD thing to you, since we would make
MORE humans come alive than if we did NOT breed them. And even the most staunchly animal-hating pro-human fanatic thinks that MORE humans is a good thing.
That is EXACTLY why it is WRONG --- by bringing them into an existence which can only be called a holocaust, you are responsible for needlessly torturing and murdering animals.
It is amazing that you are one of a billion people on this planet
Popular posts by lunix4god
Escape The Meatrix
PETA fights for justice!
Urge Rick Etter and Dutch to lock t...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
aggietim
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 9 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/12 21:56
I've never made such a claim. Even if I had, THAT would not be it in reverse. If you would get down off your soapbox for one minute and listen you might start to know what others are saying.
I'd like it if people's comments were enlightening at least in some small way. "it's a matter of degree" is too vague to have any meaning, tortrix has obviously not thought out his position.
If you live in modern society, consume factory farmed plant foods and benefit from modern medicine, you have no moral authority. Look to yourself.
True, it IS a crutch, like a drug. Real life waits on the other side if you'll just drop it.
No, it's an ad homimem fallacy. btw, are YOU *actually* claiming to possess humility?
Popular posts by aggietim
What's the trouble with Larry?
Not for any farm animals' intere...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
lunix4god
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 24 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/12 22:16
That's not the Earth's fault. The earth is just a rock, just like the moon.
If you believe EVERYthing and EVERYbody is ethically equivalent, then don't complain about prisoners or say that you are ethically superior to prisoners.
Popular posts by lunix4god
Escape The Meatrix
PETA fights for justice!
Urge Rick Etter and Dutch to lock t...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
lunix4god
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 24 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/13 02:29
Ok. Then what DID you say?
I can save you and me a few posts and counter-posts if you would simply rid your vocabulary of the phrases "ethically superior/inferior"
Popular posts by lunix4god
Escape The Meatrix
PETA fights for justice!
Urge Rick Etter and Dutch to lock t...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
yaman666
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 38 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/13 04:27
He has no attention span and failed to read the article. Rather than get others to chop his food, he should learn to do it himself, so his point was absurd.
Much like I did when teaching you moral virtue.
It was so good you thought I swiped it from a professional writer. You owe me an apology for claiming I plagiarised my own work.
So do I. So much so that I brought the whole lot of it here so others could enjoy it as we do.
No, it isn't. You've been trying, unsuccessfully, for over three years to form a credible critique on
Harrison's position, but as always, you failed.
Hold it right there, liar. Even Salt, with whom you agree so readily states, "The argument is frequently used by sportsmen, on the grounds that the fox would long ago have become extinct in this country had not they, his true friends, *preserved* him for purposes of sport. Vivisectors, who breed guinea-pigs for experimentation, also have used it, and they have as much right to it as flesh-eaters; for how, they may say, can a few hours of suffering be set in the balance against the enormous benefit of life?"
Popular posts by yaman666
Attn. Jon. Line 3 too long.
EDM 1340
Attn. Usual suspect. Line three too...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
FSURUGBY
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 22 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/13 12:18
And the deaths and suffering of humans has also contributed to our comfort, longevity and quality of life. It is all a matter of degree -- something which Rick Etter and Jon Ball cannot grasp.
That's right. Like the way assholes point fingers at animal rights activists, or environmental activists, or communists, or liberals, or feminists, or criminals or extremists or any other group of individuals for the assholes' or society's troubles and woes.
Popular posts by FSURUGBY
PETA Victories! (what have YOU done...
Usual Suspect hates people
Newborn Calf Survives Being Disc...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Octavius
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 64 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/13 18:56
Then you aren't "vegan". You might be vegetarian, and you might even be *strictly* vegetarian, including in your choice of clothing. But you're not "vegan" if you don't believe that it is inherently immoral for humans to consume animals.
Popular posts by Octavius
"...if anything I feel a bit o...
Karen Winter: Unfit to lecture oth...
Initial existence is NOT a benefit
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
aggietim
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 9 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Meat eaters contribute to life and death - 2003/10/14 04:46
Never lose sight of the fact that no-one's hands are clean. Animals are killed in every type of food production, not to mention in the development of the medicines and treatments and other modern conveniences that support our comfort, longevity and quality of life.
It's a cheap rush to single out and point fingers at others.
Popular posts by aggietim
What's the trouble with Larry?
Not for any farm animals' intere...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
|
post new topic