Food Ethics (Poll)

[Dave A]

As tempted as I was to select Danoff is an uninformed looser who doesn't know about my particular concerns and ignoring the bit about that being "other", I went with I'm against animal torture. I was torn really between that and anything tasty but I think if I knew a certain company was torturing animals I would be less inclined to buy it. But then I don't tend to seek that information out prior to eating a steak so...

I am against the torture of animals but I'm certainly no activist nor do I want to be one. I think there are humane ways to farm animals for food, I understand it's a profit industry and certain standards won't be great for the animals certianly but animal torture is a no for me. I don't tend to eat internal organs like liver and kidneys (except in a steak and kidney pie with gravy perhaps) but that's because I'm less keen on those parts more than anything else.

However I am for not wasting it, so if people want to eat the insternals and farming them doesn't summount to "torture" of the animal then I'm all for them being on the shelves and menus for people to buy and eat. When I think of torture I'm thinking more of shark fin soup where the shark is caught, it's fin cut off and then the live shark thrown back into the sea. Totally unneccessary and even if shark fin soup was really really tasty I would refrain from trying it because of that. The eating of live animals like the monkeys they have in some places where they smash thier skulls open while alive is equally as brutal and unecssecary too.

 

[Danoff]

As tempted as I was to select Danoff is an uninformed looser

[sic]

 

[Danoff]

You must be vegan.

What's the problem with that?

There is actually something wrong with veganism, though. Which is that it is not consistent, and generally amounts to religion. I understand vegetarianism. Veganism I do not.

 

[TexRex]

Vegans simply aren't to be trusted.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[m76]

I try to eat food that doesn't have processed sugars in them, but unfortunately costs overrule that attempt many times. When the healthier / organic version of a product costs 2-3 times as much.

My attempts at healthy living unfortunately usually end at buying the low fat / low sugar versions of products when available at a reasonable price. Reasonable being maximum 20-30% more expensive than regular.

Since GMOs are already banned in the EU those are of no concern to me. I'm not against GMOs on principle, but it seems to me that we are just fumbling in the dark when it comes to DNA modification. We might be able to make rudimentary changes to increase yields, but the risks of producing something that is catastrophic to the natural balance if let loose in the wild is too high.

I eat meat, it's part of nature, as plenty of carnivores are around apart from humans. That said, I'd definitely not hunt animals as a recreational activity. Because I think that falls under animal torture. And I'm definitely against torture, or keeping them in terrible conditions. Unfortunately I can't really make an informed decision based on that when buying food. It's not as if it's written on the meat how the animal was treated when it was alive. I have to refer to the government keeping up standards and enforcing them.

But I'm not a meat fanatic or purist either, if they would invent an artificial meat that is more sustainable, have comparable nutritional properties and taste, and is actually affordable, I'd have no problems switching over.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There is actually something wrong with veganism, though. Which is that it is not consistent, and generally amounts to religion. I understand vegetarianism. Veganism I do not.

As someone with a keen eye for the architecture of rights, how is the difference between animal rights and human rights justifiably explained?

 

[m76]

As someone with a keen eye for the architecture of rights, how is the difference between animal rights and human rights justifiably explained?

Humans understand the concept of fair trade? Try explaining it to a chicken that you want to buy its eggs for feed.

 

[Danoff]

As someone with a keen eye for the architecture of rights, how is the difference between animal rights and human rights justifiably explained?

Rights have to be reciprocal. Which means that you have to have a capacity for understanding them and behaving accordingly. When humans can't do this, we recognize that they do not have rights. For example, when a human steals, we legally suspend some of that human's rights.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Rights have to be reciprocal. Which means that you have to have a capacity for understanding them and behaving accordingly. When humans can't do this, we recognize that they do not have rights. For example, when a human steals, we legally suspend some of that human's rights.

That seems pretty tenuous to me. Mostly we instinctively know that cruelty to animals is wrong and I don't doubt part of that is because we know we wouldn't like it if it were reciprocated, we can comprehend that even if the animals can't... yet it is humans that then inflict torture, slavery and slaughter on animals - and for the most part, not the other way around. What you're saying is, that because we know they don't know, it's okay for us for us not to treat them as we would like to be treated ourselves, even though that seems to be the basis for how we establish our own rights. That might make sense in a kill or be killed scenario, but I suspect most of the animals consumed as food are not predatory, at least not to humans.

Further, in your example we extend rights to humans until they prove they do not understand/respect them. With animals, we don't even take this into consideration.

I suppose in some way property rights would cover why it's not okay for me to kill next doors dogs for a bit of something different to put in a curry, and perhaps that extends to farmers and abattoirs, but what about animals caught in the wild? Fish, for instance?

 

[Danoff]

That seems pretty tenuous to me. Mostly we instinctively know that cruelty to animals is wrong and I don't doubt part of that is because we know we wouldn't like it if it were reciprocated, we can comprehend that even if the animals can't... yet it is humans that then inflict torture, slavery and slaughter on animals - and for the most part, not the other way around. What you're saying is, that because we know they don't know, it's okay for us for us not to treat them as we would like to be treated ourselves, even though that seems to be the basis for how we establish our own rights. That might make sense in a kill or be killed scenario, but I suspect most of the animals consumed as food are not predatory, at least not to humans.

Whether or not a given animal would torture is up for debate. It is something that, for certain animals, not a fly for instance, we might want to wait until the animal is caught torturing before it loses that right. I think there are some dogs that simply couldn't and wouldn't torture anything. Trained or not, it's worth considering.

Or we can simply choose not to torture animals. It is not required that we behave right up to the limit of what objective rights establish. Just because it's ok from the perspective of rights to pull the wings off of a fly, doesn't mean you have to.

I think part of the reason that we "instinctively" know that it's wrong to cause suffering, is because we're hardwired to avoid it. Though you'll find people are pretty quick to be willing to impose suffering in the case of someone who has done the same.

Further, in your example we extend rights to humans until they prove they do not understand/respect them. With animals, we don't even take this into consideration.

I think with certain animals we definitely could. The animal kingdom has some very intelligent creatures. Elephants, dolphins, chimps, etc. might all be worthy of consideration for certain rights. Property ownership? Probably not. A right to their own bodies? I think if their brains are developed far enough along to understand and respect the rights of other humans to their own bodies, it is a possibility.

if one member of the species can show that the species is capable, from there it's case-by-case, just like humans.

 

[Liquid]

I think with certain animals we definitely could. The animal kingdom has some very intelligent creatures. Elephants, dolphins, chimps, etc. might all be worthy of consideration for certain rights. Property ownership? Probably not. A right to their own bodies? I think if their brains are developed far enough along to understand and respect the rights of other humans to their own bodies, it is a possibility.

For animals to reciprocate a right to their own body, would this limit the extension of rights to only species that have passed the spot test of self-recognition?

 

[Danoff]

For animals to reciprocate a right to their own body, would this limit the extension of rights to only species that have passed the spot test of self-recognition?

There are definitely tests that could be developed. I'm not sure it's that one. Really you kinda want a case study. Take the absolute smartest animal from a particular species, and try to figure out what it can learn in terms of harming or even contacting humans under a variety of conditions. In theory, that would even extend to how they treat others of their own species, but that really gets farther off track.

Edit: In terms of tests, you have to think about whether a human could pass it and what rights that human would have for passing it.

If you can train a dog not to harm people, for example, and I think that might be possible, then that dog might have some rights against people harming it. The extent of what it can do represents the extent of what rights it has. At the point where one member of the species has demonstrated this capability, treatment of the species becomes case-by-case. If a dog has bitten someone, that dog might not have the same rights as other dogs. That dog might even be euthanized.

I think for dogs we (the US) kinda adopt this now. There are some laws on the books for animal abuse. And a violent dog can easily end up incarcerated or put to death. Certainly we can extend legal protections to animals that we are not required to based on any rights. But logical rights do not need to be limited to humans, and I fully expect that the farther we understand what some animals are capable of, the more we will protect those animals. I think already some non-human animals are up for some level of protection based on rights.

 

[Liquid]

Your honour, we refer the court to the common law arbitration of there are no bad dogs, only bad owners. We would like unowned dogs to be excluded from the record.

I think already some non-human animals are up for some level of protection based on rights.

Which ones?

 

[Danoff]

Your honour, we refer the court to the common law arbitration of there are no bad dogs, only bad owners. We would like unowned dogs to be excluded from the record.

The same could be said of people (parents rather than owners). But at some point in the development of the animals (humans and dogs alike), it is considered to have matured and is responsible for its own actions and state of mind. That being said, a neglectful or abusive guardian might have violated some of their own obligations.

Which ones?

I named them earlier. I think it's so apparent that certain primates, dolphins, elephants, and dogs are highly intelligent, that we should already afford them some basic rights (like not to be arbitrarily killed, even for food), and take each of them case by case.

The big, huge really, problem with all of this theory is pigs. If I were going to pick one food which I currently eat, but which I should stop eating because it may not be consistent with rights, it'd be pigs. We use pigs for so much. Meat, testing, organs... it's not helpful that they're so smart.

 

[Pupik]

Rights have to be reciprocal. Which means that you have to have a capacity for understanding them and behaving accordingly. When humans can't do this, we recognize that they do not have rights. For example, when a human steals, we legally suspend some of that human's rights.

Or we let them fail upwards.

 

[Thematic]

Let me simplify the matter. The question to consider, which has been answered quite extensively, is: Can they suffer?

 

[TexRex]

Can they suffer?

Well, they're vegans, so...yes.

 

[Danoff]

Let me simplify the matter. The question to consider, which has been answered quite extensively, is: Can they suffer?

Lots of things can suffer. A plant can suffer.

 

[Thematic]

Lots of things can suffer. A plant can suffer.

Oh. That's tough.

 

[UKMikey]

Oh. That's tough.

‘Breatharian’ couple survives on ‘the universe’s energy’ instead of food

A “Breatharian” mom and dad of two have barely eaten for nine years as they live off “the universe’s energy.” Husband and wife Akahi Ricardo and Camila Castello believe that food …

nypost.com

Spoiler: disclaimer

(Originally posted by The Sun)

 

[Danoff]

I feel like maybe I haven't given veganism a sufficiently thorough response in this thread. Mostly my response in this thread has been to just call them crazy. Honestly who worries about the labor of bees when you consume honey? But since the following video presents the argument rationally, I'll address.

[language warning]


Here's the argument for veganism presented in the video.

1) We shouldn't unnecessarily harm animals
2) The consumption of animal products harms animals
3) The consumption of animal products is unnecessary
4) Therefore we shouldn't consume animal products

It is a pretty solid logical argument if you give it the premises. And the video points out that this means that if you're not vegan, you essentially have to take issue with one of the premises. The video takes issue with premise 1. And points out, very neatly, that harming animals isn't limited to animal products, but is essentially endemic in food as a whole. I take issue with all three premises.

Premise 1

First, we can harm animals. They would harm us. Perhaps one person thinks that it's a good idea to minimize that harm, but to what degree? It's not an objective moral imperative but rather an "all things being equal" personal preference. And we can each find a different degree that we're comfortable with. Some food harms more animals, or fewer animals in greater capacity, than others.

Second, what exactly is unnecessary, or harm for that matter. The video suggests that "harm" is pain, but death can be painless. "Necessary" is something vegans themselves don't get close to. Otherwise due to the tangential harm that all of their food inflicts on all animals (including humans), they should eat only when necessary. But you won't find that generally practiced or advocated among vegans. Furthermore, vegans should also at least practice the same standards for humans. Do you truly believe that every aspect of why a farmer farms is personal choice? I'd expect many vegans to say no. But farming is dangerous for the farmer. Many farmers risk their lives (to an extent) to bring vegan foods to the table. And if you think they're farmers by economic or social pressures rather than purely by choice, you can't eat that food either.

Premise 2

The video points out that strictly speaking the consumption of animal products doesn't harm animals. But that harming animals is performed to create products for consumption. I take issue with that last statement. I don't think that animal products are created necessarily from harm. Milk for example can be obtained without harming a cow, and indeed while caring for the cow. The video rejects this notion by suggesting that somehow the cow would be less harmed if it were not in captivity, and then analogizes to humans (a very different animal) not feeling so great in captivity. But there is ZERO evidence that cows are at all concerned with captivity. The same goes for MANY animals. Some animals absolutely thrive in captivity, we call them domesticated. Can we say a dog is harmed by laboring as a seeing-eye dog? I can't. And likewise I can't say that a cow is necessarily harmed on a dairy farm. Given a pain-free execution, I'm not sure I can come up with a solid argument that cows are harmed in the process of becoming meat either.

Premise 3

The consumption of animal products is, as best I can tell, necessary. I don't think a viable alternative to harming (not necessarily killing, but including killing) any animals exists while feeding the world. Field mice, birds, you name it, animals find ways to die in many forms of human production. Wind turbines kill birds. So if you can grow and harvest food solely from wind power, you're still killing birds to obtain it. Likewise if it powers your EV.

There you have it. Veganism wrong on all counts. I call veganism crazy because I consider it to be a religion. A belief, essentially on faith, that consuming animal products is evil. Vegetarianism makes a great deal more sense to me - in part because it doesn't imply the faulty ethical imperative. I can see a future in which I'm sortof accidentally vegetarian.

 

[Daz555]

Nature is brutal - the death of every wild animal on the planet is invariable brutal (eaten alive by a predator or starved to death for example). In addition wild animals live in a constant state of stress and hunger as they face the daily struggle to stay alive and to breed.

When it comes to humans using domesticated animals for their resources I have no real problem with it at all at its core. The problem I have is with animal husbandry. Far too often domesticated animals are kept in horrible conditions. This is somewhat of an issue for me and this has driven much of my consumer behaviour in recent years as I attempt to consume animal resources where there is improving care of the animals involved - it is not possible in all cases as it is tricky to fully understand the supply chain of what you are eating.

We can all make simple changes.

Eat eggs from the guy who runs this place:

Rather than the guy that runs this one:

The eggs might cost twice as much. If that's a problem then eat fewer eggs.

Eggs are a good example of the issues understanding the supply chain. It is relatively easy to source eggs which are from hens kept in improved conditions but it's next to impossible to buy something like a jar of mayonnaise and work out where the eggs came from.

 

[Liquid]

Some animals absolutely thrive in captivity, we call them domesticated. Can we say a dog is harmed by laboring as a seeing-eye dog?

Interesting point. Statistically, there must surely be blind vegans who have guide animals. I wonder what their personal attitude to guide dogs and guide ponies are given the premise of "exploitative animal labour".

 

[MatskiMonk]

I wonder what their personal attitude to guide dogs and guide ponies are given the premise of "exploitative animal labour".

They probably just accept it, as they have to with a great many things things that they might have to accept. It's within their capacity to offer a loving home to an animal for a life changing benefit, it is easier to justify a bend in principles under those circumstances.

None of the vegans I know are absolutists, yet all the meat-eaters that frequently try to 'Gotcha' them, interrogate them as though they should be... which is ****ing ludicrous because most people don't practice their own principles to an absolute degree.

 

[TexRex]

Eat eggs from the guy who runs this place:
View attachment 1171825

While he may be a pretty okay dude if that's how he cares for his chickens, I think I'd prefer to eat eggs from them over those from him.

 

[TheCracker]

I don't think modern society in general, and by modern i mean post-industrial, is compatible with the concept of veganism. We've already encroached, overun and destroyed so many natural habitats for animals that short of a global extinction-level disaster are never going to be reversed. What happens to all the semi-domesticated animals that we farm? What would happen to sheep, pigs and cows if we stopped eating them? They'd probably end up extinct - or like Giant Pandas, rare and predominantly in zoos. But then true vegananism wouldn't allow zoos either. Domesticated dogs, cats, horses etc, where would their future lie? Most countries are too over populated for there to be room for their continued existance, especially as they'd have to, probably unsuccesfully, compete with the small pockets of wild dogs, cats and horses that do manage to exist.

Veganism isn't a way of life, it's not even just a cult anymore, it's a full on authoritarian political movement. Like communisum or libertarianism it's theoretical concept and roots are generally well meaning, but in practice it could never work on a global or even national level without damaging the contemporary society we've built up ecconomically and socially. There's too much at steak stake.

I think there will come a time and that will be fairly soon, when vegetarianism becomes the norm. Much like the move to electric cars that's taking over right now. There will be a lot of resistance at first, but it will quickly become apparent that its not really such a big lifestyle change and that the alternative is actually pretty good.

 

[TexRex]

None of the vegans I know are absolutists, yet all the meat-eaters that frequently try to 'Gotcha' them, interrogate them as though they should be... which is ****ing ludicrous because most people don't practice their own principles to an absolute degree.

I think lots of people think that to be vegan, one must be the confrontational meat-is-murder type, and I understand the desire to counter that. I've never met that type of vegan, though.

 

[Danoff]

I've never met that type of vegan, though.

I have, but it's not my issue with veganism. Veganism doesn't make sense.

 

[UKMikey]

I hope they perfect vegetarian meat for those of us who can't quite let go.