Vegan Thread 3.0 - Page 16

The End to this Debate, and possibly this thread

Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals?

“For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.”

Terrible analogy that has nothing to do with the argument, a severely retarded human, is still, by all intents and purposes a human. There’s no way you can retard a human into cattle, thus the point is invalid. I can give rights to a rock if I wanted to, there’s no reason to arbitrarily give rights to things that don’t deserve rights. Enable laws, lobby for changes in legislation, sure. Rights? No.

If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research?

“This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.”

Once again, logically unsound. You’re making the assumption, once again, that humans, this time slaves, are the same as animals. Of course we can’t argue against you if you consider a lab rat or dog to be the equivalent to a human being.

Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?


I’ve never heard of meat-eating being argued as “traditional”, but yes, it is natural. We were meant to live on a varied diet, which includes meat. You don’t need to morally justify everything just because you can. Once again, you can’t apply morals to anything you want. “Morally” speaking, the domestication and consumption of cattle and chickens worldwide has actually greatly benefited cattle and chickens. Their survival as a species is now guaranteed because they have desirable traits that we enjoy. Forget the morality of killing an animal, think of the morality of ensuring the survival of a species.

See what I did there? Morality can be argued whichever way you want because morality is FLUID. It changes, and people have different ideals of morality, thus you can’t just slap “it’s immoral” on things and expect it to float as an argument.

If we become vegetarians, animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables, and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant-based agriculture?

Not an argument for either side. Livestock cost much more land than farming (in general), meat-eaters that argue this are misinformed.

If animals have rights, doesn’t that mean we have to intervene to stop animals from killing other animals, or that we must otherwise act affirmatively to prevent harm from coming to animals from any source?

“Similarly, the basic right of animals not to be treated as things means that we cannot treat animals as our resources.”

Was I asleep when someone a Universal Declaration of animal rights, or are you just making things up now? Once again, you cannot place humans and animals in the same categories. Just because humans have rights, doesn’t mean that the same rights are instantly applicable to animals. Humans also have the right to dignity and equality, do these apply to animals too? Of course not.

Of course the amount of animal suffering incidental to our use of animals is horrendous, and we should not be using animals for “frivolous” purposes, such as entertainment, but how can you expect people to give up eating meat?

How has eating meat “clouded the minds” of Darwin and Bentham? They still did their work, thought their brilliant thoughts, and contributed greatly to mankind. There’s nothing proving that meat makes you stupid.

CONCLUSION

Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.

Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.

One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.

/Thread