What is the Best Argument Against Veganism?

[Moll Flanders]

And no, most animal rights activists (although that is sometimes wrongly used as example) do not campaign for cows' right to freely express their opinions or horses' right to get married

 

[Tom L.]

Aye,

A 'right' is not a right if it is not attached to reciprocal responsibilities.

E.g. Our 'right' not have our junk nicked by others is attached to the reciprocal responsibility not to nick other peeps stuff ourselves. If we don't honour our reciprocal responsibilities we lose our rights: Fines, confiscations, imprisonment, etc.

Similarly even the right to life itself is attached to the reciprocal responsibility not to go around hatcheting OAP's and throwing small children into industrial meat grinders and stuff like that.

If it is true that only a total num-nutz would believe animals to be capable of understanding reciprocal responsibilities then it is equaly true that only a total num-nutz would believe that animals can have rights.

To give another example, even a mentally handicapped person or a toddler who does not "understand" which rights of others he has to respect, is in our society entitled to certain "Human Rights", e.g the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Under a "welfare" standpoint, there is no such "right to live", welfarists rather try to make sure that for animals, their (necessary) deaths should be as painless as possible. Quite a difference for me.

And no, most animal rights activists (although that is sometimes wrongly used as example) do not campaign for cows' right to freely express their opinions or horses' right to get married, but rather the rights to life and freedom from slavery.

See, I think you've both made good points: rights and obligations/responsibilities are usually understood to go together; but animals generally appear to have no conception of "rights". (I say "generally" because I have seen instances of animals showing affection, or at least tolerance, for other individuals- and even if these animals had no awareness of "rights", they acted more civilized than some humans I have known.) However, human beings who are too young or too mentally impaired to understand those concepts are usually considered to have rights. Some would say this is "speciesist": treating an individual a certain way because of their species, rather than other qualities or characteristics that individual might have.

Is there another approach that would give animals meaningful, substantial protection besides recognizing that animals have rights? Like I wrote above, and Andy_T seems to hold also, "animal welfare" often isn't much of a good deal for the animals.

 

[Clueless Git]

Is there another approach that would give animals meaningful, substantial protection besides recognizing that animals have rights?

As I said earlier Tom; The manky old tree at the bottom of my dad's garden has substantial protection under law. No one but a total muppet would argue that that tree has rights though.

Like I wrote above, and Andy_T seems to hold also, "animal welfare" often isn't much of a good deal for the animals.

That is simply because 'animal welfare' in the intensive farms and slaughterhouses is an Orwellian misdenomer. Much at the same level as would have been 'human welfare' in the Nazi's concentration and death camps.

 

[Clueless Git]

Under a "welfare" standpoint, there is no such "right to live", welfarists rather try to make sure that for animals, their (necessary) deaths should be as painless as possible. Quite a difference for me.

As I just replied to Tom, Andy, I think the problem there is simply this: The genuine welfare of animals is as of much concern to the meat industries animal welfarists as the maintaining of genuine historical records was to Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

 

[flyingsnail]

Is there another approach that would give animals meaningful, substantial protection besides recognizing that animals have rights?

Yes and it is largely what is done in western countries, you create laws that forbid people from acting in certain ways towards animals. Such laws don't grant animals any rights, instead they attempt to limit human action.

 

[Tom L.]

^^^ But here's the thing: I said "meaningful, substantial protection". Animal welfare measures generally don't make much attempt to keep an animal from being killed for (in my opinion, at least) rather trivial reasons. How and why would someone who could take an animal's life so casually care about the animal's "welfare", however they might define that term?

For those who see protection under law as being inextricably linked to rights, btw ...

There are many things, both living and inert, that have significant protection under law despite having no rights.

Endangered species, sites of exceptional scientific/beautific interest and the manky old tree at the bottom of my dad's garden are some examples that spring readily to mind.

Yes. But these protections don't appear to be concerned with the well-being of individuals who enjoy their existence. That's why I usually don't trust what is often billed as "welfare", even though people such as yourself do care about the welfare of animals who depend on you.

 

[flyingsnail]

^^^ But here's the thing: I said "meaningful, substantial protection". Animal welfare measures generally don't make much attempt to keep an animal from being killed for (in my opinion, at least) rather trivial reasons. How and why would someone who could take an animal's life so casually care about the animal's "welfare", however they might define that term?

One can care about animal welfare, that is not want animals to suffer, but still be okay with killing them for human ends. And since we have ways of humanely killing animals, killing doesn't necessitate suffering. I think the opposition to killing animals for food has to hinge on rights....just as our laws against killing people is due to them having rights not because they may suffer.

 

[Moll Flanders]

One can care about animal welfare, that is not want animals to suffer, but still be okay with killing them for human ends.

I think that is what the majority of omni people think as I haven't met many people who seem indifferent to animal suffering but they think it is a necessary evil to have to kill them as humans like to eat meat.

It's quite difficult to argue against someone who flat out says that they don't care if the animals die.

 

[prioritarian]

Like many utilitarians, I personally reject the idea that there is such a thing as an intrinsic or kantian right. I view animal rights as relative and inextricably linked to their and our "welfare". In fact, I challenge anyone to provide a single example of an "animal right" that is not linked to their or our welfare!

I also believe that granting primitive animals the same "rights" as a self-aware animal is unethical. For example, I'd not hesitate to kill millions of sponges to save the life of a single magpie.


Mirror test shows magpies aren't so bird-brained - life - 19 August 2008 - New Scientist

 

[beancounter]

For example, I'd not hesitate to kill millions of oysters to save the life of a single magpie.

The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels | Sentientist

If you want to start another oyster debate, please create a new thread in the debate forum, or find an old one, and revive it.

 

[prioritarian]

One can care about animal welfare, that is not want animals to suffer, but still be okay with killing them for human ends.

Being OK with killing animals for human ends is unavoidable. The ethical debate revolves around how to minimize killing animals for human needs.

 

[prioritarian]

If you want to start another oyster debate, please create a new thread in the debate forum, or find an old one, and revive it.

I edited the post because that was not my intent...I was making a point about relative rights.

 

[flyingsnail]

Being OK with killing animals for human ends is unavoidable. The ethical debate revolves around how to minimize killing animals for human needs.

Killing animals is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean you have to be "okay" with it. Why would the ethical debate revolve around how to minimize killing animals for human needs? That may be how you convince matters, but that certainly isn't the general debate. After all, why ought people try to minimize killing animals for human needs? If one doesn't think animals have rights, then why would killing them be a problem?

 

[Tom L.]

One can care about animal welfare, that is not want animals to suffer, but still be okay with killing them for human ends. And since we have ways of humanely killing animals, killing doesn't necessitate suffering. I think the opposition to killing animals for food has to hinge on rights....just as our laws against killing people is due to them having rights not because they may suffer.

(bold emphasis mine) I realize that most people, by far, openly endorse this view. But in all my 62 years, I've never heard anyone explain the logic behind it. Seriously. When I was about 10 I remember having a problem with hunting, and people tried to tell me wild animals were better off being shot than starving. Even though I knew people weren't deliberately breeding wild animals to be "harvested", and that these animals' deaths would not have been easy even if humans had left them alone, I just couldn't buy it. And I DEFINITELY don't buy it in the case of animals having been deliberately bred for the sole purpose of being ultimately killed. I hope most omnis realize by now that animals foods, while tasty, aren't a physical necessity.

And anyway, I personally don't avoid killing sentient beings because being killed hurts; you've correctly pointed out that death itself can be painless. I'm thinking about all the pleasurable experiences they'll miss out on if I kill them. And I do believe animals enjoy their lives, even though I doubt very much that they fear death (they would have to first have an intellectual conception of "death" to fear it, and although animals have been grossly underestimated by humans- including scientists studying them- many times, I can't imagine how most animals could do this).

 

[Blobbenstein]

(they would have to first have an intellectual conception of "death" to fear it, and although animals have been grossly underestimated by humans- including scientists studying them- many times, I can't imagine how most animals could do this).

maybe it doesn't take much intellectual capacity to have a concept of death....I do believe that animals can sense the darkness of death, and do fear it.

 

[ledboots]

(bold emphasis mine) I realize that most people, by far, openly endorse this view. But in all my 62 years, I've never heard anyone explain the logic behind it. Seriously. When I was about 10 I remember having a problem with hunting, and people tried to tell me wild animals were better off being shot than starving. Even though I knew people weren't deliberately breeding wild animals to be "harvested", and that these animals' deaths would not have been easy even if humans had left them alone, I just couldn't buy it. And I DEFINITELY don't buy it in the case of animals having been deliberately bred for the sole purpose of being ultimately killed. I hope most omnis realize by now that animals foods, while tasty, aren't a physical necessity.

And anyway, I personally don't avoid killing sentient beings because being killed hurts; you've correctly pointed out that death itself can be painless. I'm thinking about all the pleasurable experiences they'll miss out on if I kill them. And I do believe animals enjoy their lives, even though I doubt very much that they fear death (they would have to first have an intellectual conception of "death" to fear it, and although animals have been grossly underestimated by humans- including scientists studying them- many times, I can't imagine how most animals could do this).

 

[KLS52]

Awesome video.

 

[flyingsnail]

(bold emphasis mine) I realize that most people, by far, openly endorse this view. But in all my 62 years, I've never heard anyone explain the logic behind it. Seriously. When I was about 10 I remember having a problem with hunting, and people tried to tell me wild animals were better off being shot than starving. Even though I knew people weren't deliberately breeding wild animals to be "harvested", and that these animals' deaths would not have been easy even if humans had left them alone, I just couldn't buy it. And I DEFINITELY don't buy it in the case of animals having been deliberately bred for the sole purpose of being ultimately killed. I hope most omnis realize by now that animals foods, while tasty, aren't a physical necessity.

The logic behind it is that there are two separate issues here, namely, that whether or not one has a right to kill an animal for human ends and whether or not we should limit animal suffering. These are independent issue so one could (and I largely do) disagree with the first and agree with the second, that would lead to a situation where you'd want to promote animal welfare but still be okay with meat consumption so long as it was produced humanely. Many veg*n scoff at the idea of "humane meat', but I think they do so because they are conflating these two issues and consider killing animals, no matter how its done, inhumane. But such meat would have little commercial viability, so except for the small percent of people with ranches, the vast majority would have to commit to some sort of vegetarianism even if they just cared about animal welfare.

In terms of hunting, I'm not bothered much by controlled hunting and fishing, these animals are able to live normal lives and aren't likely to suffer more by being hunted than being killed by another animal, etc. But any hunter that tries to justify his/her actions by such would avoid commercial meat, I've yet to meet someone like this.

I'm thinking about all the pleasurable experiences they'll miss out on if I kill them. And I do believe animals enjoy their lives, even though I doubt very much that they fear death (they would have to first have an intellectual conception of "death" to fear it, and although animals have been grossly underestimated by humans- including scientists studying them- many times, I can't imagine how most animals could do this).

There is a problem with this, while it applies to some degree to hunted animals, farmed animals will cease to exist once we stop using them for food. So is non-existence preferable to an early death?

 

[Blobbenstein]

So is non-existence preferable to an early death?

what do you think?

what about calves? They get time in the womb to relax. Is it fine to just kill them when they are born?

 

[flyingsnail]

what do you think?

what about calves? They get time in the womb to relax. Is it fine to just kill them when they are born?

I think the short and decent live would be preferable to non-existence, but as I suggested, I don't think truly humane meat production has much commercial viability so this is mostly a philosophic, rather than practical, matter for the vast majority of people. I don't think womb time is relevant, it takes a bit for all mammals to develop after they are born.