Comments on: In defense of murderous humans: Animals at steak http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/ Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:46:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Chris http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/comment-page-1/#comment-4617 Chris Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:11:19 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=530#comment-4617   While I would agree that some animal rights positions go too far, you've left out several areas where human behaviour towards animals is both wrong, and self-destructive.   While I might be able to accept that argument that experiments on rats to cure cancer is acceptable, the use of animals for cosmetics is absolutely not.  Never mind that cosmetics are totally unnecessary, cause great pollution, waste massive resources and energy, and are, at least in many cases, a vestige of patriarchy.  Even without all those reasons, causing the suffering and death of animals for purely decadent and non-functional reasons is morally repugnant.   Secondly, eating animals for food is also acceptible, so long as this is done in a sustainable and non-destructive way.  However, if entire species are being depopulated and becoming extinct, this is obviously stupid.  We have hunted and fished (and poisoned) so many species to death, it's almost impossible to count.  This of course, is stupid, because we are destroying the ecosystem that supports us (and destroying our own food sources) but even if that were not the case, it should be clear this is morally wrong.  Destroying a unique species for no benefit (indeed for great harm in some cases) is sadistic.   Thirdly, hunting for sport is also morally dubious.  Killing a creature for no other reason than because one *can* or because one *enjoys* killing is surely indefensible.  Now, hunting for the purposes of eating the animal, and reusing its other body parts in many ways is different, so long as the species is not in danger.   Fourthly, destroying the environment, through pollution, soil degradation, deforestation, global warming, etc., is also very stupid.  We end up just killing ourselves (though of course, some will suffer much more than others.)  Again, though, even if this weren't an existential threat, causing pollution and other harm that kills entire species clearly is morally wrong.  Wastefulness and thoughtlessness aren't sufficient justication for these consequences.   If I were starving or in risk of dying, of course I would eat an animal, just as I do when I'm not in such situations.  But animal rights goes *far* beyond that, and if the moral justications are meaningless to you, perhaps the practical, self-interested ones will suffice.    
While I would agree that some animal rights positions go too far, you’ve left out several areas where human behaviour towards animals is both wrong, and self-destructive.
 
While I might be able to accept that argument that experiments on rats to cure cancer is acceptable, the use of animals for cosmetics is absolutely not.  Never mind that cosmetics are totally unnecessary, cause great pollution, waste massive resources and energy, and are, at least in many cases, a vestige of patriarchy.  Even without all those reasons, causing the suffering and death of animals for purely decadent and non-functional reasons is morally repugnant.
 
Secondly, eating animals for food is also acceptible, so long as this is done in a sustainable and non-destructive way.  However, if entire species are being depopulated and becoming extinct, this is obviously stupid.  We have hunted and fished (and poisoned) so many species to death, it’s almost impossible to count.  This of course, is stupid, because we are destroying the ecosystem that supports us (and destroying our own food sources) but even if that were not the case, it should be clear this is morally wrong.  Destroying a unique species for no benefit (indeed for great harm in some cases) is sadistic.
 
Thirdly, hunting for sport is also morally dubious.  Killing a creature for no other reason than because one *can* or because one *enjoys* killing is surely indefensible.  Now, hunting for the purposes of eating the animal, and reusing its other body parts in many ways is different, so long as the species is not in danger.
 
Fourthly, destroying the environment, through pollution, soil degradation, deforestation, global warming, etc., is also very stupid.  We end up just killing ourselves (though of course, some will suffer much more than others.)  Again, though, even if this weren’t an existential threat, causing pollution and other harm that kills entire species clearly is morally wrong.  Wastefulness and thoughtlessness aren’t sufficient justication for these consequences.
 
If I were starving or in risk of dying, of course I would eat an animal, just as I do when I’m not in such situations.  But animal rights goes *far* beyond that, and if the moral justications are meaningless to you, perhaps the practical, self-interested ones will suffice.
 

]]> By: Squidlet http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/comment-page-1/#comment-2831 Squidlet Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:14:08 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=530#comment-2831 PCRM. *snnnnrrrrk* Those guys are so full of silly, it's absurd. (Diabetes owes more to sugar and flour than meat, contrary to their claims.) I'd sooner take biology lessons from a young Earth creationist than learn about diet from those fruitcakes. It's vegan propaganda, not "responsible" anything. (Fewer than five percent of its members are actually physicians. Red flag much?) http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=23 PCRM. *snnnnrrrrk* Those guys are so full of silly, it’s absurd. (Diabetes owes more to sugar and flour than meat, contrary to their claims.) I’d sooner take biology lessons from a young Earth creationist than learn about diet from those fruitcakes. It’s vegan propaganda, not “responsible” anything. (Fewer than five percent of its members are actually physicians. Red flag much?)

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=23

]]> By: Science, Reason and Rationality http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/comment-page-1/#comment-1229 Science, Reason and Rationality Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:18:56 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=530#comment-1229 <b>Andy: This indicates that you hold true to your values, even under pressure. It demonstrates your morality in a very positive way. This is a good thing, in my opinion, and indicates your morals are sensibly derived and exist for a reason.</b> Nick: Thank you Andy. I wish other humans were the same too. <b>Andy: ... how do you feel about medical testing using animals?</b> Nick: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~ Professor Charles R. Magel <i>"Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character." ~ George Bernard Shaw</i> We all have seen the wonders of human intellectual capabilities and how far it can go. Some even think that the advanced inventions that are created today could not be possible without the aid of something supernatural or paranormal. Thus, I think that if the humans really put their mind to it, finding alternatives to a solution like animal testing is no big deal. It's piece of a cake. It's just that animals are easier and faster to use to get easier and faster results. That's all. All rest are just excuses. Here are one good example of an organization that are making attempts to find alternatives to animal testing: <a href="http://www.pcrm.org" rel="nofollow">Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine" rel="nofollow">Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (Wikipedia)</a> Nick SRR Andy: This indicates that you hold true to your values, even under pressure. It demonstrates your morality in a very positive way. This is a good thing, in my opinion, and indicates your morals are sensibly derived and exist for a reason.

Nick: Thank you Andy. I wish other humans were the same too.

Andy: … how do you feel about medical testing using animals?

Nick: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: “Because the animals are like us.” Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: “Because the animals are not like us.” Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~ Professor Charles R. Magel

“Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character.” ~ George Bernard Shaw

We all have seen the wonders of human intellectual capabilities and how far it can go. Some even think that the advanced inventions that are created today could not be possible without the aid of something supernatural or paranormal. Thus, I think that if the humans really put their mind to it, finding alternatives to a solution like animal testing is no big deal. It’s piece of a cake. It’s just that animals are easier and faster to use to get easier and faster results. That’s all. All rest are just excuses.

Here are one good example of an organization that are making attempts to find alternatives to animal testing:

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (Wikipedia)

Nick
SRR

]]> By: DB Skeptic http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/comment-page-1/#comment-1226 DB Skeptic Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:44:10 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=530#comment-1226 Hi Nick, <i>If I was the man who was starving, I would only feed myself with whatever is available which is plant base or some dead animal.</i> This indicates that you hold true to your values, even under pressure. It demonstrates your morality in a very positive way. This is a good thing, in my opinion, and indicates your morals are sensibly derived and exist for a reason. As for the rest, thanks for the well-thought-out response. I think we have a difference of opinion when it comes to moral values, and for that we may have to agree to disagree. I have a followup, however, that may expand on what you've said: how do you feel about medical testing using animals? (By that, I don't mean testing cosmetics, but testing products and techniques that may save human lives.) Andy Hi Nick,

If I was the man who was starving, I would only feed myself with whatever is available which is plant base or some dead animal.

This indicates that you hold true to your values, even under pressure. It demonstrates your morality in a very positive way. This is a good thing, in my opinion, and indicates your morals are sensibly derived and exist for a reason.

As for the rest, thanks for the well-thought-out response. I think we have a difference of opinion when it comes to moral values, and for that we may have to agree to disagree. I have a followup, however, that may expand on what you’ve said: how do you feel about medical testing using animals? (By that, I don’t mean testing cosmetics, but testing products and techniques that may save human lives.)

Andy

]]> By: Science, Reason and Rationality http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/comment-page-1/#comment-1222 Science, Reason and Rationality Fri, 26 Dec 2008 03:47:51 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=530#comment-1222 If I was the man freezing to death, I would NOT kill my trusty dog for its body heat. The dog has to die of natural causes in order for me to do that. Meanwhile, hugging the dog will suffice. Both of us could share the heat. If I was the man who was starving, I would only feed myself with whatever is available which is plant base or some dead animal. I have not sung and danced through the black comedy, “Cannibal: The Musical” so I don't know anything about it, but I have seen the 1993 movie “Alive“. These people only ate those who were already dead too, which I would have done the same. Nick SRR If I was the man freezing to death, I would NOT kill my trusty dog for its body heat. The dog has to die of natural causes in order for me to do that. Meanwhile, hugging the dog will suffice. Both of us could share the heat.

If I was the man who was starving, I would only feed myself with whatever is available which is plant base or some dead animal.

I have not sung and danced through the black comedy, “Cannibal: The Musical” so I don’t know anything about it, but I have seen the 1993 movie “Alive“. These people only ate those who were already dead too, which I would have done the same.

Nick
SRR

]]> By: Science, Reason and Rationality http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/comment-page-1/#comment-1216 Science, Reason and Rationality Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:52:56 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=530#comment-1216 <i>"We have enclosed the rest of the animal creation and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feather so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the devil in human form." ~ Dean William Ralph Inge, 1860-1954 </i> I avoid eating nonhuman animals and any nonhuman species, or use them for whatever purpose, to the best of my ability whenever I possibly can for personal health, ethical and humane reasons, and for the same reasons I do not eat a human being under normal circumstances which requires no survival emergency for doing so. Most humans give numerous excuses to continue abusing the nonhumans or eat them because they can't resist the craving due to the childhood programing by their parent or guardians, just like how religion and belief systems work. I have cravings too, but at least I acknowledge the problem and make attempts to educate and deprogram myself without giving all sorts of excuses. Those who never ate frogs, worms and other meats out of the norm, would feel disgusted even with the thoughts of eating such things because you were never programmed to enjoy it. If you were never programmed to eat chicken, cows, lambs and so on, you'll feel the same way about it too. It's all a matter of programming. A mind program that is supported by the billion dollar animal abuse industry that gets endorsements to say that meat is good for you and abusing animals is fine for the sake of human advancement and progress. And those who say otherwise are simply stupid or crazy! I wonder how these people would feel if Aliens from outer space (if they truly exists) arrived on planet earth, and started doing the same thing and giving the same excuse to abuse and eat them? I think they would probably agree and say the same thing that I am saying now, unless they just want to just accept the fact that they are no longer at the top of the food chain and thus, will have to accept whatever that comes. I don't think even animals accept that though... The fact is, if anything separates us from nonhuman animals, it is our capacity for not only making humane choices to our own species alone, but to all other known and unknown species as well, may they be intellectually advanced or not, human or nonhuman. By choosing to respect the lives of other sentient beings, by refraining from abuse, cruelty and consuming them, WE are demonstrating OUR HIGHER STANDING in NATURE by those VALUES of HUMANITY. Thus, the practice of humane living is not only a healthy choice, it is also a humane choice that sets us apart from others in the animal kingdom whose diets and choices are generally based on necessity and instinct rather than on conscious humane choice. Nick SRR “We have enclosed the rest of the animal creation and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feather so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the devil in human form.” ~ Dean William Ralph Inge, 1860-1954

I avoid eating nonhuman animals and any nonhuman species, or use them for whatever purpose, to the best of my ability whenever I possibly can for personal health, ethical and humane reasons, and for the same reasons I do not eat a human being under normal circumstances which requires no survival emergency for doing so.

Most humans give numerous excuses to continue abusing the nonhumans or eat them because they can’t resist the craving due to the childhood programing by their parent or guardians, just like how religion and belief systems work. I have cravings too, but at least I acknowledge the problem and make attempts to educate and deprogram myself without giving all sorts of excuses.

Those who never ate frogs, worms and other meats out of the norm, would feel disgusted even with the thoughts of eating such things because you were never programmed to enjoy it. If you were never programmed to eat chicken, cows, lambs and so on, you’ll feel the same way about it too. It’s all a matter of programming. A mind program that is supported by the billion dollar animal abuse industry that gets endorsements to say that meat is good for you and abusing animals is fine for the sake of human advancement and progress. And those who say otherwise are simply stupid or crazy!

I wonder how these people would feel if Aliens from outer space (if they truly exists) arrived on planet earth, and started doing the same thing and giving the same excuse to abuse and eat them? I think they would probably agree and say the same thing that I am saying now, unless they just want to just accept the fact that they are no longer at the top of the food chain and thus, will have to accept whatever that comes. I don’t think even animals accept that though…

The fact is, if anything separates us from nonhuman animals, it is our capacity for not only making humane choices to our own species alone, but to all other known and unknown species as well, may they be intellectually advanced or not, human or nonhuman. By choosing to respect the lives of other sentient beings, by refraining from abuse, cruelty and consuming them, WE are demonstrating OUR HIGHER STANDING in NATURE by those VALUES of HUMANITY. Thus, the practice of humane living is not only a healthy choice, it is also a humane choice that sets us apart from others in the animal kingdom whose diets and choices are generally based on necessity and instinct rather than on conscious humane choice.

Nick
SRR

]]>