Free-range pigs -- not so happy

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo, face it-your entire argument rests on a basic denial of human exceptionalism and a desire to place animals on the same moral plane as humans. We have been down this path, and I refuse to consider the idea since it leads to horrible absurdities.

You want to talk about letting people die? You would test AIDS drugs on severely mentally disabled humans before you would on a dog-even if it required first giving the human AIDS for the testing! And this is just one example.

I am a human exceptionalist. Wesley J. Smith’s excellent blog is a good defense of the idea.
 
spencelo said:
I don’t believe I’m poisoning any wells. I’m simply pointing out that, on your view, you must maintain that the pleasure of a tasty meal outweighs all the future pleasures than the animal would have had if not killed, which strikes me as obviously implausible.
Click to expand...
In your view the pleasure of an animal outweighs potential uses it might have to humanity-including one as basic as food.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
spencelo, face it-your entire argument rests on a basic denial of human exceptionalism and a desire to place animals on the same moral plane as humans. We have been down this path, and I refuse to consider the idea since it leads to horrible absurdities.
Click to expand...
My argument isn’t based on that at all, but on premises you already accept. Since you accept that bullfighting is wrong because it’s cruel, you ought to accept that meat-consumption is wrong because it’s cruel. What’s the difference between the two? This is a simple question about moral consistency. If there is no moral difference between the two, then you ought to either: a) believe that bullfighting is morally okay, or b) believe that meat-consumption is morally wrong.
 
spencelo said:
What’s the difference between bullfighting and raising animals for food? In particular, what’s the difference between the pleasure of a tasty meal and the pleasure of visual entertainment? Both involve immense cruelty, and in the case of animals raised and killed for food (over 9 billion in U.S.), they actually suffer a whole lot more than bulls in bullfights.
Click to expand...
The difference is that one is food and one is entertainment.

Humans have made this distinction for centuries. Eating meat as food is fine because eating is an intrinsic function of the human body, and humans are omnivores-meaning we also eat meat, not just non-meat products.

Bullfighting is cruel because the bull serves no purpose except for people to cheer at its pain. It has nothing to do with an intrinsic bodily need.
 
spencelo said:
My argument isn’t based on that at all, but on premises you already accept. Since you accept that bullfighting is wrong because it’s cruel, you ought to accept that meat-consumption is wrong because it’s cruel. What’s the difference between the two? This is a simple question about moral consistency. If there is no moral difference between the two, then you ought to either: a) believe that bullfighting is morally okay, or b) believe that meat-consumption is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Or c) I have been saying throughout that I do believe there is a moral difference-and I don’t but what you’re saying at all. Implicit in everything you’re saying is a hidden agenda to try and deny human exceptionalism and place non-rational animals at the same level as humans.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
The difference is that one is food and one is entertainment.

Humans have made this distinction for centuries. Eating meat as food is fine because eating is an intrinsic function of the human body, and humans are omnivores-meaning we also eat meat, not just non-meat products.

Bullfighting is cruel because the bull serves no purpose except for people to cheer at its pain. It has nothing to do with an intrinsic bodily need.
Click to expand...
Consuming animals isn’t an “intrinsic bodily need” either, and we can do perfectly well – even better – on a plant-based diet. Following your logic, I could also say that “experiencing pleasure” is “an intrinsic human need” and bullfighting gives us that. However, not all pleasures are acceptable and not all foods are acceptable.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Food is, and animals are a viable food source-in some cases an extremely healthy one.
Click to expand...
Following your logic, I can argue as follows: pleasure is an intrinsic human need, and bullfighting is a viable pleasure source. Obviously, the argument goes wrong in assuming that all pleasures are acceptable, the same with your argument.
 
spencelo said:
Following your logic, I can argue as follows: pleasure is an intrinsic human need, and bullfighting is a viable pleasure source. Obviously, the argument goes wrong in assuming that all pleasures are acceptable, the same with your argument.
Click to expand...
Right, except that I don’t think pleasure, in itself, is nearly as intrinsic of a need as food.

Without food, we die. Without pleasure, we’re unhappy.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Right, except that I don’t think pleasure, in itself, is nearly as intrinsic of a need as food.

Without food, we die. Without pleasure, we’re unhappy.
Click to expand...
Both pleasure and food are still essential – both for survival and living a happy life. (A life without an ounce of pleasure would be just awful). So I think my point holds: even though pleasure is an intrinsic human need, not all pleasures are morally acceptable. The same is true with food: although an intrinsic need, not all foods are morally acceptable.
 
spencelo said:
Both pleasure and food are still essential – both for survival and living a happy life. (A life without an ounce of pleasure would be just awful). So I think my point holds: even though pleasure is an intrinsic human need, not all pleasures are morally acceptable. The same is true with food: although an intrinsic need, not all foods are morally acceptable.
Click to expand...
Pleasure is important. But we’d be alive without pleasure. We would be dead without food. There is a HUGE difference there.

Also, with bullfighting, the pleasure comes FROM the cruelty. We enjoy watching the animals get hurt. When eating food, my pleasure is not because the animal got hurt, but because the food is good.

(And no, I am not IN PRINCIPLE opposed to horse racing or even greyhound racing; if the animals were treated well, that’s fine. It’s just that they’re generally not treated well in either case.)
 
spencelo said:
There is a ton of evidence that a well-balanced vegan diet is perfectly healthy, even better than a meat-based diet.
Click to expand...
I can give you evidence proving otherwise-believe me, I’ve seen it. But I don’t want to get into a link war, so I’ll pass.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Pleasure is important. But we’d be alive without pleasure. We would be dead without food. There is a HUGE difference there.

Also, with bullfighting, the pleasure comes FROM the cruelty. We enjoy watching the animals get hurt. When eating food, my pleasure is not because the animal got hurt, but because the food is good.
Click to expand...
First, the difference between pleasure and food is irrelevant because my only point is that both are basic human needs, which counters your previous claim that food is a basic human need. Hence, you cannot differentiate bullfighting and meat-eating on the ground that the latter involves satisfying a basic human need–both do.

Second, the pleasure you get from eating meat also comes from (immense) cruelty. In order for you to enjoy the taste of bacon, the pig is almost always tortured. Similarly, to enjoy a bullfight, the bull must suffer. Hence there is a very clear causal link between the cruelty inflicted on the animal and the pleasure experienced – the former makes the latter possible.
 
Aquinas on the subject:
There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is. [What I was saying] Now the order of things is such that the imperfect are for the perfect, even as in the process of generation nature proceeds from imperfection to perfection. Hence it is that just as in the generation of a man there is first a living thing, then an animal, and lastly a man, so too things, like the plants, which merely have life, are all alike for animals, and all animals are for man. Wherefore it is not unlawful if man use plants for the good of animals, and animals for the good of man, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 3).
Click to expand...
Now the most necessary use would seem to consist in the fact that animals use plants, and men use animals, for food, and this cannot be done unless these be deprived of life: wherefore it is lawful both to take life from plants for the use of animals, and from animals for the use of men. On fact this is in keeping with the commandment of God Himself: for it is written (Genesis 1:29-30): “Behold I have given you every herb . . . and all trees . . . to be your meat, and to all beasts of the earth”: and again (Genesis 9:3): “Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat to you.”
Click to expand...
As far as I’m concerned the subject is settled.

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm
 
spencelo said:
First, the difference between pleasure and food is irrelevant because my only point is that both are basic human needs, which counters your previous claim that food is a basic human need. Hence, you cannot differentiate bullfighting and meat-eating on the ground that the latter involves satisfying a basic human need–both do.

Second, the pleasure you get from eating meat also comes from (immense) cruelty. In order for you to enjoy the taste of bacon, the pig is almost always tortured. Similarly, to enjoy a bullfight, the bull must suffer. Hence there is a very clear causal link between the cruelty inflicted on the animal and the pleasure experienced – the former makes the latter possible.
Click to expand...
You are misunderstanding my argument, but in light of Aquinas’s words I’m just going to say I throw my lot with him and leave it at that.

Make of his words what you will. I can’t state my position better than he can, so I an officially done with the thread.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? It seems you must maintain that the purpose of a pig is to be eaten, whereas the purpose of a bull is not to serve as entertainment in bullfights. If someone says that the purpose of a bull is to serve as entertainment in bullfights, how can you prove him wrong?
 
Marc_Anthony said:
You are misunderstanding my argument, but in light of Aquinas’s words I’m just going to say I throw my lot with him and leave it at that.

Make of his words what you will. I can’t state my position better than he can, so I an officially done with the thread.
Click to expand...
If I’m misunderstanding your argument, then perhaps you can clarify. It seemed like we were making progress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top