Plants

[Haggis_McMutton]

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?

Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital ... ty_to_pain

i don't see why not. but can they feel emotions like loneliness, despair, etc.? those are painful to some extent.

I dunno, at what level of development do we start worrying about that? Can a fish be lonely?
I'm just trying to figure out the implications of this pure utilitarian belief.

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?

Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital ... ty_to_pain

I won't comment on whether I am in favor of it -- there's too many complications (see, e.g., the Matrix). As I mentioned above, it is not just physical distress that is the issue here. It is also psychological distress. It would be quite hard to engineer an animal that did not feel that, and I'm not too interested in the fringe cases. There is a substantial amount of suffering going on now, and that's what I am mainly interested in. I can say that I am in favor of producing vat meat on an economical scale.

I wasn't so much providing a pragmatic solution as trying to test the soundness of your utilitarianism via thought experiment.

Can a fish feel psychological distress? How would you measure/quantify this? Presumably it would have to be a testable theory of fish psychological suffering.
Otherwise, once we make the fish that can feel no physical pain your utilitarianism would have nothing against torturing it in the most brutal way, eating it alive, etc. Correct?

Btw. does this extend to humans? Is "pain=bad" the main rule you think society should be based on?

We're putting the cart before the horse here. There is a more fundamental issue to discuss before we even get to utilitarianism. I am making a much more basic point. Most of us feel that infants ought to be given some basic protections, despite not being able to communicate or consent. So I ask, in what way can we defend the stripping of these rights from non-human animals, many of whom are identical in morally meaningful ways, and may be significantly more intelligent anyway? I see it as an arbitrary distinction. The pertinent issue here is, how can you logically justify this hypocritical stance? We can get to what more complete system we should be obeying later. For now I'm just saying that intuitively, most of us believe in rights for some who aren't as intelligent as adult humans, so why are we keeping that only within our species?

This is a good question.
One answer I've encountered (that I don't quite subscribe to myself), is that the only thing that matters is the development of humanity.

Once that assumption is made, the reasoning is clear. Kids are valuable cause if they grow up they can help us advance, morals and ethics and so on work similarly. To an extent this justifies certain environmental practices as well, but only inasmuch as we need nature to survive, not because animals or plants have any intrinsic value.

Granted you must make the assumption that only humanity matters, but you must make some assumption to start off with (yours being that pain matters). Can you say why your assumption is better than this one?

Edit: Btw. I've only skimmed the thread. Please point me to the appropriate post if you've already addressed this.

[Haggis_McMutton]

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?

Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital ... ty_to_pain

i don't see why not. but can they feel emotions like loneliness, despair, etc.? those are painful to some extent.

I dunno, at what level of development do we start worrying about that? Can a fish be lonely?
I'm just trying to figure out the implications of this pure utilitarian belief.

The moral case for our movement is predicated on the ability of organisms to feel pain (or pleasure). Intelligence is not a good barometer of whether a group deserves ethical protection.

Would you be in favour of genetically engineering animals so that they cannot experience pain?
If this were possible, would it then be ethical to use, abuse and kill them any way we might please ?

Anyone?

Btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital ... ty_to_pain

I won't comment on whether I am in favor of it -- there's too many complications (see, e.g., the Matrix). As I mentioned above, it is not just physical distress that is the issue here. It is also psychological distress. It would be quite hard to engineer an animal that did not feel that, and I'm not too interested in the fringe cases. There is a substantial amount of suffering going on now, and that's what I am mainly interested in. I can say that I am in favor of producing vat meat on an economical scale.

I wasn't so much providing a pragmatic solution as trying to test the soundness of your utilitarianism via thought experiment.

Can a fish feel psychological distress? How would you measure/quantify this? Presumably it would have to be a testable theory of fish psychological suffering.
Otherwise, once we make the fish that can feel no physical pain your utilitarianism would have nothing against torturing it in the most brutal way, eating it alive, etc. Correct?

Btw. does this extend to humans? Is "pain=bad" the main rule you think society should be based on?

We're putting the cart before the horse here. There is a more fundamental issue to discuss before we even get to utilitarianism. I am making a much more basic point. Most of us feel that infants ought to be given some basic protections, despite not being able to communicate or consent. So I ask, in what way can we defend the stripping of these rights from non-human animals, many of whom are identical in morally meaningful ways, and may be significantly more intelligent anyway? I see it as an arbitrary distinction. The pertinent issue here is, how can you logically justify this hypocritical stance? We can get to what more complete system we should be obeying later. For now I'm just saying that intuitively, most of us believe in rights for some who aren't as intelligent as adult humans, so why are we keeping that only within our species?

This is a good question.
One answer I've encountered (that I don't quite subscribe to myself), is that the only thing that matters is the development of humanity.

Once that assumption is made, the reasoning is clear. Kids are valuable cause if they grow up they can help us advance, morals and ethics and so on work similarly. To an extent this justifies certain environmental practices as well, but only inasmuch as we need nature to survive, not because animals or plants have any intrinsic value.

Granted you must make the assumption that only humanity matters, but you must make some assumption to start off with (yours being that pain matters). Can you say why your assumption is better than this one?

[PLAYER57832]

Makes sense, when you think about it. But I would never have put it into terms like "doing math"...which makes it more interesting to me:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... metic.html

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

Nothing. The article does not really show higher reasoning. I merely shows a mechanical methodology. Plants actually "think" less than your average wind-up clock.

OOOPS.. Neitz saw that earlier. Just not sure why you were fooled.. or maybe you just did not bother.

OH, yeah, and no.. plants don't feel pain. A few, such as venus fly traps have autonomous responses that might resemble a pain reaction, but all tests indicating real pain reactions or such are traced to distortions by the testers and other bias'.

[john9blue]

okey dokey

It's not that it's too difficult to comprehend. Utilitarianism does not and cannot provide what Mets wants it to provide. Why?

It's incapable of providing a means for adjudicating manners in a fashion which is conducive to some clear, logical procedure. For example, others can use preference utilitarianism and come to the opposite conclusion of the same situation, hence my scenario about self-defense or total pacifism. In other words, the world is messy, but utilitarianism--as used by Mets--overlooks that. He simply pushes for an approach which ultimately is not usable (except for promoting one's emotionally held worldview--e.g. veganism). If one is a "scientist," and uses his "science" without a scientific method, then we don't call that person a scientist. It's the same with Mets and his ethical system.

sooo what in your opinion is an ethical system that doesn't qualify as an "emotionally held worldview"? what about mets' morality is so emotional? how is your morality non-emotional? with your reasoning, any ethical system can be criticized as "emotional" since it hasn't been proven to be correct.

your own emotional hatred for utilitarianism is (ironically) leaking here

Moral decisions are context-specific, and all that can be provided are a set of guidelines--each of which has limited impact or scope in dealing with everyday problems.* However, those overarching plans for morality/ethics (e.g. Mets' interpretation of utilitarianism, Marxism, Natural Rights libertarianism) are ridiculous because they forget about the circumstances of time and place, and they ignore the lack of soundness for their premises. It's like Rousseau and the French Revolution ("Oops, we forgot that our assumptions about human behavior were guided by our own interpretations of human behavior"). They didn't control for their own bias, which Mets' system fails to do. ("Gee, everyone just needs to be a vegetarian, and it all works out." = "Gee, everyone just needs to be a communist, and it all works out"). That's a useless approach.

again, what is your system of morality? your criticism applies to every system. you criticize but don't deliver

it was directed at BBS for the most part.

you just suffer from a short-sighted understanding of utilitarianism (for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

You don't need a highly developed ethical doctrine to tell you that.

yes you do... how can you "justify" things without a reason behind your justification?

In comparison, Mets is going through leaps and bounds to justify some nonexistent guardianship over specific kinds of living creatures. There's a significant difference in the two forms of utilitarianism at play here.

a difference? so mets is against all animal testing? do you have a link to that post, i must have missed it.

Also, if you applied utilitarianism as consistently as Mets, then you couldn't come to the conclusion in your example. You have to consider the interests of the millions of animals as well--the test subjects and their furry families, john! Yet, you concluded in favor of humans. Why's that? Upon what is your valuation of humans and animals grounded?

more highly-developed brains are more important to utilitarians. obviously science doesn't have all the answers yet, but i think you'll agree that animal welfare is still valuable, despite having a lower priority than human welfare (humans are still animals, after all)

[john9blue]

(for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

I'm not against animal testing in SOME instances. I do have a problem with using animals to test things like makeup and shit like that, though. For me, it's very dependent on the potential benefit, and I don't really weigh "happiness" in with that benefit.

then how do you measure that benefit?

[PLAYER57832]

(for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

I'm not against animal testing in SOME instances. I do have a problem with using animals to test things like makeup and shit like that, though. For me, it's very dependent on the potential benefit, and I don't really weigh "happiness" in with that benefit.

then how do you measure that benefit?

One measure I have heard proposed is that the benefit should be to, if not the individual (that doesn't necessarily apply to even voluntary human subjects), but at least to the species.

That said, if you want to narrow harm to animals, the ironic reality is that its not the so-called dangerous testing regimes or eating animals that are the most harmful, it is the day to day activities that go unquestioned.. the mere addition of a few additives to this or that, buying various products with components who's duration and impacts are just not known. Or, simply buying a patch of "wilderness" and manicuring it to a nice, neat carefully constructed home. No matter how ecologically sound the house, it leaves a major imprint with damage that is often nearly permanent.

[Funkyterrance]

Sorry if this was already covered and I'm repeating but I just can't read through what I've missed and I simply MUST give my opinion on the subject.
For me, plants, animals and all living things have equal right to live. Any particular trait you may attach to a living thing to make it seem more viable to eat is so hazy and biased that it all just comes down to circumstances/power. I think it's a little self-righteous to base value of life in respect to how "human" the life form in question appears to be. If you treat all living things with equal respect it's just the manner in which you go about eating them that matters.

[Woodruff]

(for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

I'm not against animal testing in SOME instances. I do have a problem with using animals to test things like makeup and shit like that, though. For me, it's very dependent on the potential benefit, and I don't really weigh "happiness" in with that benefit.

then how do you measure that benefit?

Societal benefit. "Happiness" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with benefit to society.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, that brings up a good question. Granting that my current diet is NOT particularly healthy (yes, I realize it, but I'm a selfish little foodie and if I live five years less but I'm happier with my food...), but are the meat and cheese substitutes healthier from a sodium perspective (I know they're healthier overall, or at least the meat substitutes certainly are)?

It REALLY depends on what you mean. Most processed foods are far worse for you and definitely worse for the environment than more natural ones, regardless of whether they are meat or fully vegan. The biggest benefits of vegetarianism come in 3 major forms. The reduction of fat and overall protein consumption, plus a reduction in overall calories. Also, by and large, most vegetarians tend to be more "thoughtful eaters". They tend to think about things like vitamins and so forth more. Other benefits are reported, but have much less evidence, though note that those factors are HUGE!

When you get into broader ethical or environmental issues, a lot of stuff put out is either flat wrong or misguided. For example, animals traditionally are slaughtered in human ways that minimize or almost eliminate pain, but so-called "modern", mass production results in failures. The problem is that failures ALSO happen in mass vegetarian production. For example, most protein comes from soy and the way soy is grown is not always great for the environment. Plus, a lot of commercial soy has residues of pesticides and such or has been modified in some way that may not be beneficial to humans. To those who argue, "but no pain to animals", I suggest viewing the results of heavy pesticide use and general poor management of crops on animal life. That the impact is more indirect does not mean it is less. Honestly, I think it is far more honest, shows more integrity to raise and slaughter the animals you eat, controlling the whole process -- or to obtain them from people who you trust to do that well, rather than just buying off the shelf vegetarian items. In many cases, the greater harm comes from the mass-produced vegetarian products.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry if this was already covered and I'm repeating but I just can't read through what I've missed and I simply MUST give my opinion on the subject.
For me, plants, animals and all living things have equal right to live. Any particular trait you may attach to a living thing to make it seem more viable to eat is so hazy and biased that it all just comes down to circumstances/power. I think it's a little self-righteous to base value of life in respect to how "human" the life form in question appears to be. If you treat all living things with equal respect it's just the manner in which you go about eating them that matters.

I think I agree with you. I have hear it called "mindful eating".

Its not just how you eat them, its also paying attention to the whole production and methodology. Unfortunately, a lot of people today have been far removed from that process and so have illusions about the decisions they make that just don't hold up.

This vegan/vegetarian versus meat eating is a very good example. While most people would benefit from decreasing their animal protein consumption and overall calories, the benefit of massive numbers of people going vegetarian are highly debatable and often may be harmful. It also depends on the individual situation. Not everyone has all the best options open to them. For many in the city, eating vegetarian is a quick and easy way to have a better diet. That's OK, it just becomes a problem when the argument becomes this is what is best for everyone or even that this is really the best overall choice, instead of just the easiest one for busy people in a highly commercial environment.

I agree with you that what we really and truly need is "mindful

[Metsfanmax]

When you get into broader ethical or environmental issues, a lot of stuff put out is either flat wrong or misguided. For example, animals traditionally are slaughtered in human ways that minimize or almost eliminate pain, but so-called "modern", mass production results in failures. The problem is that failures ALSO happen in mass vegetarian production. For example, most protein comes from soy and the way soy is grown is not always great for the environment. Plus, a lot of commercial soy has residues of pesticides and such or has been modified in some way that may not be beneficial to humans. To those who argue, "but no pain to animals", I suggest viewing the results of heavy pesticide use and general poor management of crops on animal life. That the impact is more indirect does not mean it is less. Honestly, I think it is far more honest, shows more integrity to raise and slaughter the animals you eat, controlling the whole process -- or to obtain them from people who you trust to do that well, rather than just buying off the shelf vegetarian items. In many cases, the greater harm comes from the mass-produced vegetarian products.

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

[Funkyterrance]

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

Yeah but humans and animals can't and don't always eat the same stuff. I can't sustain off grass but a cow can and it's a hell of a lot easier to grow grass than it is vegetables that humans can eat.

[Metsfanmax]

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

Yeah but humans and animals can't and don't always eat the same stuff. I can't sustain off grass but a cow can and it's a hell of a lot easier to grow grass than it is vegetables that humans can eat.
Also, technically speaking you could eat only meat just as easily as you could eat only vegetables.

Right, but my point is, regardless of whether animals can be only grass-fed, the fact is that they aren't. This is a result of trying to produce meat for hundreds of millions of people -- people are always going to go with the system that scales the best, even if it's not the best for the environment. People who eat meat (especially if they only eat meat) are responsible for the consumption of more soy than people who are vegan as it currently stands. This doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.

[Funkyterrance]

Yeah, this is true that pound for pound an acre of soy produces tons more food than what meat an acre of soy feeds. I'm not sure if that's comparing apples to oranges though since I'm not sure the cattle are eating the same grade of soy that the people are. Generally speaking, crops grown to feed people require more care than those grown to feed animals since their digestive systems allow them to eat more resilient stuff that our wimpy systems would reject.

[john9blue]

(for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

I'm not against animal testing in SOME instances. I do have a problem with using animals to test things like makeup and shit like that, though. For me, it's very dependent on the potential benefit, and I don't really weigh "happiness" in with that benefit.

then how do you measure that benefit?

Societal benefit. "Happiness" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with benefit to society.

"how do you measure what things are beneficial?"

"by whether they are beneficial to society, of course"

thanks for elaborating woody

[Woodruff]

(for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

I'm not against animal testing in SOME instances. I do have a problem with using animals to test things like makeup and shit like that, though. For me, it's very dependent on the potential benefit, and I don't really weigh "happiness" in with that benefit.

then how do you measure that benefit?

Societal benefit. "Happiness" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with benefit to society.

"how do you measure what things are beneficial?"
"by whether they are beneficial to society, of course"
thanks for elaborating woody

I measure it by my determination of its potential societal value. I thought I made that fairly obvious.

[john9blue]

"how do you measure what things are beneficial?"
"by whether they are beneficial to society, of course"
thanks for elaborating woody

I measure it by my determination of its potential societal value. I thought I made that fairly obvious.

but this determination of value has to come from somewhere. presumably you aren't just pulling numbers out of your ass. what exactly makes one thing more valuable to society than another?

either you're dodging the question or you really don't understand what i'm asking. either way, -_-

[AAFitz]

Makes sense, when you think about it. But I would never have put it into terms like "doing math"...which makes it more interesting to me:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... metic.html

What does this do to the Vegetarian/Vegan movement (or at least that portion that doesn't eat animals for moral reasons)?

I think the math that suggests, not raising so much livestock would feed, perhaps every living human would be enough to counteract the suffering lettuce.

(Sorry to the lettuce lovers, but God but it here for us to hunt, kill and eat.)

[AAFitz]

Yeah, this is true that pound for pound an acre of soy produces tons more food than what meat an acre of soy feeds. I'm not sure if that's comparing apples to oranges though since I'm not sure the cattle are eating the same grade of soy that the people are. Generally speaking, crops grown to feed people require more care than those grown to feed animals since their digestive systems allow them to eat more resilient stuff that our wimpy systems would reject.

I think the kids starving would probably take the chance of eating some soy grown for cattle, or burlap or sand for that matter, to stop the excruciating hunger pains.

[AAFitz]

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

Yeah but humans and animals can't and don't always eat the same stuff. I can't sustain off grass but a cow can and it's a hell of a lot easier to grow grass than it is vegetables that humans can eat.

...except they are primarily fed corn

[Metsfanmax]

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

Yeah but humans and animals can't and don't always eat the same stuff. I can't sustain off grass but a cow can and it's a hell of a lot easier to grow grass than it is vegetables that humans can eat.

...except they are primarily fed corn

Sure, they are fed some mix of corn and soy. The point I made in response to FT doesn't depend on what the particular crop is. The point is that we grow foods that humans can eat, and feed them to livestock instead.

[Woodruff]

"how do you measure what things are beneficial?"
"by whether they are beneficial to society, of course"
thanks for elaborating woody

I measure it by my determination of its potential societal value. I thought I made that fairly obvious.

but this determination of value has to come from somewhere. presumably you aren't just pulling numbers out of your ass. what exactly makes one thing more valuable to society than another?

Numbers? I am making a judgement. I'm not taking some measurement as if by micrometer or anythign like that, if that's what you mean. Nor have I suggested that I am doing anything of the sort.

either you're dodging the question or you really don't understand what i'm asking. either way, -_-

Or the question is irrelevant to the point, and there is no answer I can give you to it which will satisfy you. But go ahead and mark it up as a "gotcha" if it'll make your day.

[Funkyterrance]

[john9blue]

but this determination of value has to come from somewhere. presumably you aren't just pulling numbers out of your ass. what exactly makes one thing more valuable to society than another?

Numbers? I am making a judgement. I'm not taking some measurement as if by micrometer or anythign like that, if that's what you mean. Nor have I suggested that I am doing anything of the sort.

either you're dodging the question or you really don't understand what i'm asking. either way, -_-

Or the question is irrelevant to the point, and there is no answer I can give you to it which will satisfy you. But go ahead and mark it up as a "gotcha" if it'll make your day.

mm okay, then i'll phrase it this way: to what end do actions that are "beneficial for society" strive towards?

do we want the earth to have as many humans as possible?

or do we want to be as technologically advanced as possible?

or do we want the average person to live as long as possible?

or do we want something else?

we can't have all of these at the same time. i'm asking you to decide for yourself which is important, because that itself is an important decision.

[Woodruff]

but this determination of value has to come from somewhere. presumably you aren't just pulling numbers out of your ass. what exactly makes one thing more valuable to society than another?

Numbers? I am making a judgement. I'm not taking some measurement as if by micrometer or anythign like that, if that's what you mean. Nor have I suggested that I am doing anything of the sort.

either you're dodging the question or you really don't understand what i'm asking. either way, -_-

Or the question is irrelevant to the point, and there is no answer I can give you to it which will satisfy you. But go ahead and mark it up as a "gotcha" if it'll make your day.

mm okay, then i'll phrase it this way: to what end do actions that are "beneficial for society" strive towards?
do we want the earth to have as many humans as possible?

Not necessarily in my opinion, no. I don't think total numbers equate to a healthy society.

or do we want to be as technologically advanced as possible?

This would certainly figure into it for me.

or do we want the average person to live as long as possible?

This would certainly figure into it for me, though not nearly as much as the previous item. "High age" isn't necessarily "good age", if that makes sense.

or do we want something else?

The ability to feed everyone we have.
Advancing toward a moneyless culture.
The ability to get back out into space.
Important advances in medicine or science.
There are certainly many other items, I would think, but those come to mind off the top of my head, in varying degrees.

we can't have all of these at the same time. i'm asking you to decide for yourself which is important, because that itself is an important decision.

Why can't we have all of those at the same time?