I asked a question to see what people in the vegan community thought about what I admit could be a meaningless question, I've spoken to people who don't think it's meaningless. I've said what I think, you may as well close the thread, thank you to all that have answered
The animal product industry creates life
- Thread starter Scott Joplin
- Start date
rogerjolly
Forum Legend
To Veganite. Please do not close the thread. Let’s see how things go because I would like to challenge Scott again on a philosophical point. I have been offline recently and haven’t been able to post. BT have a lot to answer for!
Roger: “Your side will be to actually agree with Lou and me that it is totally meaningless to ask if something can be better or worse for an animal that never existed.”
Scott: “… no I don't agree it is totally meaningless.”
Earlier from Scott: “Hehe, thanks for the story Roger.”
I am pleased you enjoyed it. Let’s go back to Henry and Matilda.
Scott does not exist and something would be better for Scott. Such a statement would be self-contradictory because the second part implies that Scott does exist. It would thus be nonsense.
Similarly: “It is totally meaningless to ask if something can be better or worse for an animal that never existed.”
Agreed?
Roger.
Roger: “Your side will be to actually agree with Lou and me that it is totally meaningless to ask if something can be better or worse for an animal that never existed.”
Scott: “… no I don't agree it is totally meaningless.”
Earlier from Scott: “Hehe, thanks for the story Roger.”
I am pleased you enjoyed it. Let’s go back to Henry and Matilda.
Scott does not exist and something would be better for Scott. Such a statement would be self-contradictory because the second part implies that Scott does exist. It would thus be nonsense.
Similarly: “It is totally meaningless to ask if something can be better or worse for an animal that never existed.”
Agreed?
Roger.
Ok, I agree with your last statement. But forgive me I don't think it's exactly what I was asking. The reason for my question was that something very similar was asked by a vegan friend and another vegan quoted the following as potentially relevant. That said, I agree with Veganite that this discussion could well be pointless.
The Repugnant Conclusion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Repugnant Conclusion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
rogerjolly
Forum Legend
In fact your original question was: “Many animals wouldn't exist at all if they hadn't been bred in order to provide something for us. Would it have been better if they had never existed in the first place?”
You later changed it to: “Can we take the case of a lamb, would it be better if it never had even a short life?”
OK Scott. You have proven to us all that you can change your mind so that means to me that your mind is open. Had we not been able to agree on a starting point for a journey then we could not have travelled together. I will now fulfil my side of the bargain and attempt to answer your second question.
People and animals will struggle to maintain their lives no matter what. And if their lives are cut very short because of disease or accident or predation then the vast majority of them would have preferred to have had shortened lives rather than none. Suicide is rare.
But that is not the issue. Vegans believe that it is morally wrong to bring lambs into the world and to then snuff out those lives. It would have been better had they not existed.
But once any animal is born it should have the chance to “live long and prosper”. No animal should be placed by us in the position of having to say, “Thank you for the few months I had.”
The question you posed is a frequently occurring one from non-vegans and because of that I welcome it. It was raised by Rory on these forums nearly a year ago and it was my intention to bring that thread back to the fore on its first anniversary. No need to do that now because of Scott’s post. It is well worth having a look at the responses to Rory’s thread, particularly Jamie’s.
https://veganforum.org/threads/how-to-respond-to-this-argument.1986/
Roger.
You later changed it to: “Can we take the case of a lamb, would it be better if it never had even a short life?”
OK Scott. You have proven to us all that you can change your mind so that means to me that your mind is open. Had we not been able to agree on a starting point for a journey then we could not have travelled together. I will now fulfil my side of the bargain and attempt to answer your second question.
People and animals will struggle to maintain their lives no matter what. And if their lives are cut very short because of disease or accident or predation then the vast majority of them would have preferred to have had shortened lives rather than none. Suicide is rare.
But that is not the issue. Vegans believe that it is morally wrong to bring lambs into the world and to then snuff out those lives. It would have been better had they not existed.
But once any animal is born it should have the chance to “live long and prosper”. No animal should be placed by us in the position of having to say, “Thank you for the few months I had.”
The question you posed is a frequently occurring one from non-vegans and because of that I welcome it. It was raised by Rory on these forums nearly a year ago and it was my intention to bring that thread back to the fore on its first anniversary. No need to do that now because of Scott’s post. It is well worth having a look at the responses to Rory’s thread, particularly Jamie’s.
https://veganforum.org/threads/how-to-respond-to-this-argument.1986/
Roger.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
Oh Scott, you know what would be repugnant? To bring unwanted children into the world just to starve them or have them endure a life of poverty and abuse - but Republicans do this every single damn day in the U.S. They insist children be brought into the world, only to revoke any means of support or comfort for those children.
The Nazis did something similar in Germany. They experimented on Jewish infants, and fed them and clothed them but never held them or loved them, and the infants overwhelmingly died of emotional neglect.
To me this doesn't even seem like a difficult moral problem, to me it's more like you are either an extremely unintelligent and irrational person, or are you a rational person? I can't believe this is even a thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2017
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Age
- 51
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
I find your wording a bit disingenuous. The species bred for consumption would likely exist, but the numbers of them would not.
To answer your question, yes, it would be better. The life of a farm animal bred for consumption is a cruel one, shorted by the necessity of the industry, contributes to human disease directly and indirectly, while also adversely effecting the environment not only in greenhouse gasses, but also in farmland available to grow crops. There are starving humans in the world who would otherwise eat if the land they depended on wasn't taken to raise crops for animal agriculture.
/thread.
rogerjolly
Forum Legend
In Rory’s thread of a year ago there was a very useful chat instigated by Plant Muncher. It was about having quick quips at hand to direct against vegan detractors who are not at all interested in serious discussion but seem to believe they can demolish the entire edifice of veganism with a single blow. (I do not place you, Scott, in this class.)
I commented that, try as hard as I might, I could not think of one against the mighty weapon of, “But isn’t it better for an animal to have had a short life rather than none at all.”
Well, I now have one. “Oh. So you think you are doing the animal a favour by eating it do you?”
https://veganforum.org/threads/how-to-respond-to-this-argument.1986/
Roger.
I commented that, try as hard as I might, I could not think of one against the mighty weapon of, “But isn’t it better for an animal to have had a short life rather than none at all.”
Well, I now have one. “Oh. So you think you are doing the animal a favour by eating it do you?”
https://veganforum.org/threads/how-to-respond-to-this-argument.1986/
Roger.
Last edited:
Their are wild pigs, Their are wild goats. Maybe other farm animals to exist in the wild or they could be reintroduced into the wild and their lives would be much better then they are in a factory farm where they are covered in sores and pumped with drugs so they don't get sick and die.
No answer to my questions? It's okay, I understand. I don't really need an answer, as it is pretty clear already where you stand on this.
