Blogcritics Comments on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Comment by Squirrel on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:16:11 EDT

This society also 'decided long ago there was nothing wrong' in making people into slaves and oppressing women, so does that mean it is 'not immoral to do so' or will people in the far future look back on meat eating as something done long ago by people who didn't know any better, as we do with regard to the slavers and oppressors of women? Your arguement holds no water.

Comment by Cindy D on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:40:10 EDT

Charles, I want to include insects (maybe even germs) in the moral quandary. How do you think this would play out? This is perfectly reasonable to do. After all Jains already do. What do you think of eliminating farming because farming could kill insects?

Comment by Clavos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:07:33 EDT

First of all, as Ray has pointed out repeatedly in this thread, whether or not we eat animals is an ethical, not a moral question. You AVs hurt your own argument by insisting it's a moral issue, because, as Ray also pointed out, morality is not absolute throughout all of humanity; each set of mores is decided by the society that observes it; what is moral here may be considered to be immoral elsewhere. Since this society long ago decided there was nothing wrong with eating meat, it is obviously not immoral to do so in this society. It's not sematics that the organization is named PETA, and not PMTA.

Comment by Charles on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:08:04 EDT

Cindy wrote (citing Philos): " 'Anti-animal folk have not managed to provide a morally relevant trait that includes all humans, while excluding all the other animals.' "Animals do not engage in moral thinking. Humans do." This is a good example for Philos's point. Is engaging in moral thinking something that includes all humans and excludes all other animals? Focus on the first part. Does it include all humans? No, none of us has engaged in moral thinking for all of our lives--when we were babies, for example. Some of us, those who are handicapped or disabled in various ways may not even have the potential. So, even if no other animal engages in moral thinking (some ethologists might dispute that), moral thinking may exclude all other animals, but it doesn't include all humans. If we still don't think it's OK to raise and kill handicapped children for food, then something's wrong with "engaging in moral thinking" as a morally relevant difference between animals and humans--that is, one that makes _enough_ difference that it is (supposedly) alright to eat the animals but not the babies. It's back the drawing board. (Not back to the dinner table!) Charles

Comment by Ray Ellis on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:27:55 EDT

Cindy--he's had the better part of a week to consider those issues. I wouldn't bank on any relevance, though.

Comment by Cindy D on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:20:57 EDT

I wonder if Philos will consider "thinking about moral issues" a relevant trait.

Comment by Clavos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:29:59 EDT

I don't think anyone commenting on this thread is "anti-animal," Cindy. But apparently, others do.

Comment by Cindy D on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:15:14 EDT

Eating one of the things I have been adapted to eat--meat--is hardly a moral issue. Humane treatment of animals, now that is a moral issue. "Anti-animal folk have not managed to provide a morally relevant trait that includes all humans, while excluding all the other animals." Animals do not engage in moral thinking. Humans do. (P.S. I hope its okay to answer despite the fact that I am not "anti-animal.")

Comment by Ray Ellis on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:17:07 EDT

And so it ends--not with a bang, but a whimper. "Some say the world will wnd in fire, some in ice."

Comment by Philos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:48:26 EDT

Clavos wrote: "...the question of whether it's right [slaughtering and eating animals] or not is not empirical, and I don't agree (nor do millions of people) that it's wrong. This is not an issue; it's a question of opinion (or preference)." It's no less a moral issue than the other moral issues I mentioned earlier like killing humans, euthanasia, stealing, cheating, and polluting the environment. Moral issues are usually issues that affect or harm others and no one has a right to harm others. If anyone thinks it is wrong to harm humans needlessly, but it is okay to harm animals needlessly, then they need to explain what the morally relevant difference is between the two cases. This of course, leads to some of the main (and lengthy) philosophical arguments for animal rights. Anti-animal folk have not managed to provide a morally relevant trait that includes all humans, while excluding all the other animals. If anyone thinks it is easy, try to come up with one and maybe I'll find time in the next week to respond. Otherwise, I'm going to say so long Clavos, I've enjoyed debating with you.

Comment by Ray Ellis on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:37:19 EDT

Philos, I take it by your puerile reply, you're stumped. Better luck nest time.

Comment by Clavos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:16:32 EDT

Sorry, Philos. I will leave the discussion here, because I can't even think about accepting your basic premises in re what's wrong with meat eating, as presented in your #54; to wit: "...the nature of the meat industry and the horrific treatment of animals is paramount. Over 10 billion animals a year are produced for food in the US alone. In order to produce that many animals at an affordable price (so they fit on the fast food value menu), they must be crowded, mistreated and tortured." There are a number of viewpoints about that issue, but accepting for the sake of argument that every meat producer is cruelly mistreating animals, the problem is easy enough to fix with legislation and regulation of the industry. However, as I said, there are many opinions on the severity and extent, and even whether or not there is a problem on this issue. "But it wouldn't be right to kill them even if they were treated well, since they have lives of their own and we don't need to breed and kill them for food." I will agree that we don't need to "breed and kill them for food," but the question of whether it's right or not is not empirical, and I don't agree (nor do millions of people) that it's wrong. This is not an issue; it's a question of opinion (or preference). "The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics-vol.16-pp.505-511 says that on average, you have to plant about eight times as much land in crops to feed to the animals --to then feed to us --as you would need to plant crops to feed us directly." I'll accept the truth of that, though I've not researched it myself for opposing opinions. "if we didn't use the land to crow crops to feed animals that land could be used to feed the starving people of the world." We could do that, but we don't need to. People are not starving because there's not enough food to go around, but because the distribution of the food we already produce is political. Witness the millions of tons of grain we (the US) waste every year propping up the price of grain; that would feed a lot of people, but doesn't. Even though the US does donate large quantities of foodstuffs annually to the third world, much of it never reaches the people it's meant to feed, it's sold (not by the US, by those to whom it's delivered). I have personally seen bags of grain for sale in Third World marketplaces, clearly marked with "shaking hands" logo of USAID. There is still ample room in the temperate parts of the world, to grow even more food than is already produced, but no incentive to do so until the whole thing is de-politicized. "Livestock production takes a heavy toll on the environment. Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that "switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius."" Here, you really lose me. The whole GW issue is a purely political one as far as I'm concerned. I don't accept the basic premise that GW is largely anthropogenic. That's an entire other issue, which I would be glad to debate (perhaps you'd like to write an article?), but which would be totally off-topic here, so I won't even get into it.

Comment by Philos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:54:44 EDT

Ray, you need to go back to the Britney Spears page and try not to get lost again.

Comment by Ray Ellis on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:10:01 EDT

I was rather expecting a response like that from you, Philos. Tell me, how is posing a question nonsense? I've seen nothing but platitudes and rhetoric from you--oh--and a link to a 408 page report. Yet, you quote not one sentence from it. What is your solution for the Earth's woes, Philos? You've yet to provide one. You have no problem stating what is wrong in the world according to Philos, but you've yet to even hint at a solution. And I'll tell you what-- driving a Prius make you feel all warm and green, but the problems we face are a helluva lot more serious than cows feeding on land that could be reserved for vegans.

Comment by Philos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:57:35 EDT

Again Ray Ellis provides us with no argument about anything...only nonsense. For anyone seriously interested in the environment, in a previous post I've provided a link to the 408 page UN report about the environmental destruction caused by livestock production and the recent University of Chicago report is also available online.

Comment by Philos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:53:34 EDT

Clavos asked: "Why...is murder immoral? What makes it so? Either murder really is wrong or it is not. If you agree that it is wrong, then you're agreeing that there is a real right and wrong. If so, then we see eye-to-eye on that point, and the meat-eating debate can proceed from there. However, once we're discussing the rightness or wrongness of meat-eating it is not a relevant reply to then ask "is anything right or wrong", because we have already agreed on that. If you really doubt that murder (or torturing babies just for fun) is wrong, then I don't know what to say to you. There are answers to this kind of question-- about whether or not morality exists at all -- but it would require presenting a philosophical treatise. If you're seriously interested in exploring that question I recommend Ronald Dworkin's "Truth and Objectivity: You'd Better Believe It", which can probably be found online.

Comment by Ray Ellis on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:50:15 EDT

Aha! The truth comes out at last--and what a surprising truth it was.Unfortunately, Philos, you could drive a hybrid vehicle through the holes in your logic. Animals and humans have coexisted for millenia, and from earliest times, the relationship between them has been symbiotic. You've gone from faulty philosophy to pseudo-science in a single bound. You do those of us who are truly concerned about the environment, and the steps we need to take to preserve it,when you link vegan babble to the environment. I don't advocate the mistreatment of animals in any fashion-- but your arguments are just plain silly now. And I think you have served to eloquently illustrate Manning's original point. Nice work.

Comment by Philos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:32:56 EDT

Clavos wrote: "Unless I've seriously misunderstood Philos' arguments, he's not concerned so much with the nature of the commercial meat industry as he is with what he considers the immorality of meat-eating as a practice." I'm concerned about both, but the nature of the meat industry and the horrific treatment of animals is paramount. Over 10 billion animals a year are produced for food in the US alone. In order to produce that many animals at an affordable price (so they fit on the fast food value menu), they must be crowded, mistreated and tortured. That's morally (or ethically, if you prefer) inexcusable. But it wouldn't be right to kill them even if they were treated well, since they have lives of their own and we don't need to breed and kill them for food. There are other moral issues with breeding animals that concern me, as well: The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics-vol.16-pp.505-511 says that on average, you have to plant about eight times as much land in crops to feed to the animals --to then feed to us --as you would need to plant crops to feed us directly. If we didn't use the land to crow crops to feed animals that land could be used to feed the starving people of the world. Livestock production takes a heavy toll on the environment. Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that "switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius." A recent 400 page UN reportcalled "Livestock's Long Shadow" says "that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, and [planes] in the world combined." Here's the link to the UN report and Here's a link to a great cover photo and article from Rolling Stone Magazine.

Comment by zingzing on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:07:19 EDT

"A simple & easy solution to animal experimentation would be to use violent offender prisoners instead." hrm. wouldn't that be unusual punishment? loading someone up with drugs or cutting them open or experimenting on their brain is just sick, nancy. same to you, rj. that's a nasty idea. one can only hope that you are never falsely imprisoned and have your brain replaced with an empty beer can and the latest 50 cent album.

Comment by Clavos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:52:27 EDT

"I don't think morality is decreed any more than the law of gravity is decreed" Apples and pears, Philos. Newton scientifically proved the existence of gravity. Where's the scientific proof of what constitutes morality, especially the universal morality you postulate? Why, for instance (I'll make it easy), is murder immoral? What makes it so?

Comment by Clavos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:43:54 EDT

handy #48: H.L. Mencken had it right.

Comment by handyguy on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:38:28 EDT

This article is now in the top 5, apparently because of my mentioning you-know-who in my previous comment. Yeesh.

Comment by Clavos on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:01:53 EDT

handy, If you've read my comments carefully, you'll see that the thrust of my arguments are in response to the question of the morality of eating animals, not really the conditions under which they are bred and raised; that's a separate set of issues which I don't believe I've addressed; at least not in this thread. Unless I've seriously misunderstood Philos' arguments, he's not concerned so much with the nature of the commercial meat industry as he is with what he considers the immorality of meat-eating as a practice.

Comment by handyguy on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:51:30 EDT

Meanwhile, the 4 most popular articles on this site currently are about Britney Spears, and the 5th is about that star of High School Musical and her nude pics. It's good to know we have such a serious, high-minded readership.

Comment by Ray Ellis on BBC: Animal Rights Extremists More of a Threat than Radical Muslims

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:48:28 EDT

Semantics bore me-- they're the last defense of somebody without a valid argument. And silly arguments relying on semantics are even more pointless. You can skirt issues all you want. From the point of view of the Universe, you can't strip it down to such easy questions. If A had not happened, then B would not have happened, in which case, C (where we are now) would not exist. The subject of "torturing babies for fun" is not germaine to the original discussion. Please focus.