UK The ethics of slaughter.

[JacobVeganism]

In this post, I am making the assumption that there is no suffering withing the hypothetical situations from which I am creating. Upon reading the first chapter of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", I naturally agreed with his argument of speciesism. However, this only takes suffering into account. In regards to death, Singer states this: "In general, the question of when it is wrong to kill (painlessly) an animal is one to which we need to give no precise answer. As long as we remember that we should give the same respect to the lives of animals as we give to the lives of humans at a similar mental level, we shall not go far wrong". Obviously, this conclusion seem unsatisfactory and subjective. I am curious to see how other vegans, sub as myself, tackle this question. The most common answer that I have seen is that once a life begins, it is a moral obligation not to cause it to end. I would agree when applying this to murder, or deer hunting. However, there is a key aspect that differentiates animal agriculture, and that is that the "murderer" is the same individual or group that brought the being into existence. In order to avoid speciesism, I will apply this to a human with similar intellect; If my parents were to painlessly kill me, or to simply not have conceived me, I would not deem it unethical that they have done so. Let me put it another way: In this situation, the only two options are: 1) Not having been born 2) Being born, living shortly and dying painlessly (essentially living a short life. I am aware that painless deaths are not possible efficiently, as conditions must be sure in animal agriculture, but consider my hypothetical and make your own conclusion. I'd love to hear people's responses. Sorry for rambling.

 

[Second Summer]

However, there is a key aspect that differentiates animal agriculture, and that is that the "murderer" is the same individual or group that brought the being into existence. In order to avoid speciesism, I will apply this to a human with similar intellect; If my parents were to painlessly kill me, or to simply not have conceived me, I would not deem it unethical that they have done so.

I don't think it matters who brought the being into existence. As soon as they are here, they must be afforded certain fundamental rights such as the right to life. If your parents didn't conceive you, that is completely different - then you were never born, so you couldn't have any rights in the first place.

BTW, welcome to VF! As you're now a member, you've essentially "come into existence" and have certain rights ...

 

[JacobVeganism]

I don't think it matters who brought the being into existence. As soon as they are here, they must be afforded certain fundamental rights such as the right to life. If your parents didn't conceive you, that is completely different - then you were never born, so you couldn't have any rights in the first place.

BTW, welcome to VF! As you're now a member, you've essentially "come into existence" and have certain rights ...

Haha thanks! I think much of my premise stems from David Benetar's antinatalist theory of asymmetry. This therefore assumes that whether the life exists currently, or may potentially exist in the future, are two aspects to be considered. Taking this into account, would you rather live a short life or never live at all? As all life ends anyway I'd assume most people would rather have lived than not have, and with suffering removed I cannot see the ethical issue with slaughter currently, other than the flimsy premise that life is sacred.

 

[Mischief]

Haha thanks! I think much of my premise stems from David Benetar's antinatalist theory of asymmetry. This therefore assumes that whether the life exists currently, or may potentially exist in the future, are two aspects to be considered. Taking this into account, would you rather live a short life or never live at all? As all life ends anyway I'd assume most people would rather have lived than not have, and with suffering removed I cannot see the ethical issue with slaughter currently, other than the flimsy premise that life is sacred.

By that argument, you can maximize the overall good by having a child every year and then killing him as soon as the replacement child is born.

 

[silva]

How do you ask no one if they'd rather be or not be?
I hear this often applied to the topic of abortion, which I consider moot. If you don't exist you don't have desire to exist-there has to be a someone or there is no desire

 

[Graeme M]

I kinda agree with silva - you can't compare a life with non-existence. If someone is not born, they do not exist, and it's entirely moot to wonder whether a living being could have somehow been thwarted by not being born. Further to that, I don't agree that a living being has a fundamental right to life. That makes no sense at all, and other than in the case of human beings' deliberations about things, does not exist anywhere. I also do not think death is a loss to a being - once dead, a being no longer exists, so no loss can be claimed. We could perhaps argue for a loss of potential but that's somewhat unprovable - who's to say that the being wasn't likely to die naturally a second after they were killed, had they not been killed? I don't think there is any moral obligation whatsoever not to kill another animal, unless of course we decide that's how we want to act...

 

[Second Summer]

Further to that, I don't agree that a living being has a fundamental right to life. That makes no sense at all, and other than in the case of human beings' deliberations about things, does not exist anywhere.

Do you not agree that humans have a right to life either? Of course, rights do not "exist" as anything physical, if that is what you mean. We can't write a mathematical proof demonstrating that killing sentient beings is wrong. Rights are human constructs based on values, is my understanding.

 

[Emma JC]

I kinda agree with silva - you can't compare a life with non-existence. If someone is not born, they do not exist, and it's entirely moot to wonder whether a living being could have somehow been thwarted by not being born. Further to that, I don't agree that a living being has a fundamental right to life. That makes no sense at all, and other than in the case of human beings' deliberations about things, does not exist anywhere. I also do not think death is a loss to a being - once dead, a being no longer exists, so no loss can be claimed. We could perhaps argue for a loss of potential but that's somewhat unprovable - who's to say that the being wasn't likely to die naturally a second after they were killed, had they not been killed? I don't think there is any moral obligation whatsoever not to kill another animal, unless of course we decide that's how we want to act...

so why are you here? you claim to be vegan and yet you argue as above, you know that most of us here do not agree with you, so what's your point? are you trying to convince us away from veganism? do you just like to argue?

Emma JC

 

[Graeme M]

Emma JC, I don't recall claiming to be vegan. I embrace vegan ethics but I am vehemently opposed to the idea there are "vegans". If you wish to so identify, OK, but I do not. Why am I here? Because I discuss vegan ethics all over the place, especially with farmers (I used to host one of the few FB groups aimed at bringing vegans and farmers together for genuine discussion rather than hate filled acrimony) and I like to test my ideas with others in order to better refine my own beliefs. I imagined that a discussion forum might be a good place for that. Especially the "philosophy" section of said forum.

Indian Summer, yes, humans have rights because we've chosen to frame those. As I understand it, within that framework we believe humans have a right to life (with some caveats, of course). I don't think we believe that is the case for other animals as a general principle at present. And yes, rights do not exist as a physical quality of the world.

 

[silva]

Emma JC, I don't recall claiming to be vegan. I embrace vegan ethics but I am vehemently opposed to the idea there are "vegans". If you wish to so identify, OK, but I do not. Why am I here? Because I discuss vegan ethics all over the place, especially with farmers (I used to host one of the few FB groups aimed at bringing vegans and farmers together for genuine discussion rather than hate filled acrimony) and I like to test my ideas with others in order to better refine my own beliefs. I imagined that a discussion forum might be a good place for that. Especially the "philosophy" section of said forum.

Indian Summer, yes, humans have rights because we've chosen to frame those. As I understand it, within that framework we believe humans have a right to life (with some caveats, of course). I don't think we believe that is the case for other animals as a general principle at present. And yes, rights do not exist as a physical quality of the world.

You identify as vegan on your member page in "lifestyle"
What vegan ethics do you embrace?

 

[David3]

Emma JC, I don't recall claiming to be vegan. I embrace vegan ethics but I am vehemently opposed to the idea there are "vegans". If you wish to so identify, OK, but I do not. Why am I here? Because I discuss vegan ethics all over the place, especially with farmers (I used to host one of the few FB groups aimed at bringing vegans and farmers together for genuine discussion rather than hate filled acrimony) and I like to test my ideas with others in order to better refine my own beliefs. I imagined that a discussion forum might be a good place for that. Especially the "philosophy" section of said forum.

Indian Summer, yes, humans have rights because we've chosen to frame those. As I understand it, within that framework we believe humans have a right to life (with some caveats, of course). I don't think we believe that is the case for other animals as a general principle at present. And yes, rights do not exist as a physical quality of the world.

1. You’re profile says “vegan”
2. Philosophizing without well-substantiated facts has limited usefulness.
3. I don’t come here to read about justification of slaughter.

 

[Graeme M]

David,

1. The forum requires that I pick a "lifestyle". Mine is vegan.
2. Let's close the forum "Philosophy" then.
3. I don't care. Don't read my posts.

 

[Second Summer]

I embrace vegan ethics but I am vehemently opposed to the idea there are "vegans".

Please explain.

Indian Summer, yes, humans have rights because we've chosen to frame those. As I understand it, within that framework we believe humans have a right to life (with some caveats, of course). I don't think we believe that is the case for other animals as a general principle at present.

Yes, humans have rights because most humans agree it makes sense based on our generally shared values. But even when confronted with the overwhelming evidence showing the numerous similarities between humans and animals, most humans do not want to grant even our closest animal relatives a very limited the right to life (*). Can we give an intellectually honest, coherent and non-speciesist reason why this should be so? Not really, because the real reason is that we're so used to exploiting animals, we enjoy the benefits of this exploitation and we would like to continue doing so.

* To be clear, I mean right to life in the limited sense that humans shouldn't be deliberately killing them.

And yes, rights do not exist as a physical quality of the world.

... and I don't think anyone has suggested so either.

 

[Second Summer]

I also do not think death is a loss to a being - once dead, a being no longer exists, so no loss can be claimed. We could perhaps argue for a loss of potential but that's somewhat unprovable - who's to say that the being wasn't likely to die naturally a second after they were killed, had they not been killed? I don't think there is any moral obligation whatsoever not to kill another animal, unless of course we decide that's how we want to act...

The title of this thread is "The ethics of slaughter". Is your above paragraph meant as a defence of slaughter?

(FWIW I find this line of reasoning to be extremely weak, and I think most people both here and in the general population would disagree with you.)

 

[JacobVeganism]

By that argument, you can maximize the overall good by having a child every year and then killing him as soon as the replacement child is born.

I'm not saying it is good to kill, I am saying it is not bad. Also, in modern society it would be anarchy for parents to engage in such acts.

 

[Graeme M]

Indian Summer, I think many vegans do seem to believe that rights are a physical quality of the world. They frequently suggest that it is a fundamental right of an animal to its life, as though this right is somehow an intrinsic quality of any living thing. As you agree though, rights are human constructs that typically are not extended to other animals.

Can we offer a coherent reason not to extend such rights? I'd have thought so. I don't plan to delve into that in this particular thread and in any case I am not especially well read about the issue of non-human rights. I do think there would be a good case for specifying some rights - mainly because as best I can tell, rights don't belong to someone, they are attached to someone as an agreement between a society and its members. Rights seem to me to be a specification for a relationship and only operate as long as all parties act on the agreement. So specifying how the relationship between humans and non-humans should play out seems reasonable. I don't think they need be the same as the rights humans agree for themselves, though (that is, such rights could still include the fact that we can kill them for certain reasons).

I'm not sure I am trying to defend slaughter, my earlier comments were in relation to the idea that death is a loss to someone. Or that not being born is also a loss. I know that many would not agree with me on that, but I think it is to misunderstand what a life is to make that claim. The only life is that which accompanies a living thing. Consider a human being. He or she can suffer losses throughout life; for example, some injury caused by another or to miss out on an opportunity through no fault of one's own. But what loss is there in death? A dead person does not exist - their life is the function of the body. Once that stops, no loss can be identified as far as I can see. How can non-existence have a loss? Non-existence is not a thing. As I said, we could perhaps claim the loss of potential - had the person kept on living they may have had some experience that they now will never have. But we cannot know that for a fact, that is an assumption. So the only loss I can see is the possible potential loss, but that is so uncertain I'd not bother to make the claim.

Why we worry about loss in relation to death is the loss that inheres in some other, still living being - eg a mother's loss of a son at war. In the case of farmed animals, I am not sure how much of a loss we can identify. A calf taken and killed is likely to engender a sense of loss in his mother, so there is that. An adult steer taken and killed - does the rest of the herd feel a sense of loss? Do typical farmed cattle societies have such strong individual roles that this loss would be a real concern for the herd? I am not sure. The death of either calf or steer isn't a loss to either, though, as far as I can see.

 

[Mischief]

I'm not saying it is good to kill, I am saying it is not bad. Also, in modern society it would be anarchy for parents to engage in such acts.

We weren't talking about legality; we were talking about ethics. To bring a new life into the world and then kill it in order to make room for another life - you were the one arguing that this might maximize the overall good i.e., more individuals having the opportunity to live. If you want to back away from that position, by all means do so, but don't pretend it wasn't the position you were taking.

 

[Graeme M]

Emma JC, you asked what I me what I meant by not calling myself a "vegan". All I mean is that I see vegan ethics as an extension of everyday ethics. All I would hope to see in the world is that when we develop and apply ethical principles to guide the moral beliefs and behaviours that we hold, we'd include other animals in that to the best possible extent. This would mean that it is up to an individual how far they go in respecting vegan principles, which is much how we approach our everyday ethics. So, discussion about how we do things, and laws that we impose around behaviours, would expect to include other animals as a matter of course.

Silva, is your question about my vegan ethics a slant on the old "how vegan are you, really"? Shame on you. Should I offer a complete list of my behaviours and beliefs for your approval? I think you can probably examine my arguments and agree or disagree with them on their own merit, rather than worrying about if I am vegan enough. You can get a feel for my stance at my blog, if you are really interested. You can visit it here: About

 

[Mischief]

The death of either calf or steer isn't a loss to either, though, as far as I can see.

Maybe not as far as you can "see", but that has everything to do with your sight/insight, and zip to do with what the calf or steer experiences.

Back in the days when I still used to vacuum hose to "dispose of" spiders and insects in the house, I noticed how they would try to get away from the vacuum hose.

Even such relatively simple organisms, lacking a brain, tried to avoid death, tried to stay alive with all their might.

And you have the arrogance to claim that the loss of their lives isn't a loss to them?!

 

[Graeme M]

Mischief, I think you are mistaking one thing for another. Pretty much all animals have escape instincts - they aren't trying to avoid being killed, they are trying to avoid being damaged. So yes, they are trying to "stay alive" but not in the same way a human can who has the cognitive capacity to recognise the existence of self into the future. But that is different from claiming that death is a loss to the individual. What do you think, how can non-existence be a loss to the non-existent? I am suggesting loss as a genuine property of the world only exists for the living, not the dead.