Jump to content

Common ground between vegans and hunters?


SiNa94
 Share

Recommended Posts

"I'm a hunter, I kill stuff quite a lot, so I know a thing or two about it. Those poor animals in factory farms get tortured to death. That's a step too far kids, be sure that if you're going to kill an animal, shoot it in the head, that's right, in the brain, because it won't suffer then. Animals are for killing, not torturing, be sure to make that distinction! Take care of yourselves, and each other."

 

HAHAHA!

 

Actually, I think you've got it pretty spot on.

 

But I just think that a message like that coming from an unlikely source would get people to think. Just like in Peaceable Kingdom, where it's people that have raised and slaughtered animals saying factory farming is wrong... it's pretty powerful. Although... all of those people are now vegan... so there is a slight difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain to me how acting totalitarian, militant, and morally-superior are GOOD for the movement. Religious zealots are what have turned me, as well as many other people I know, off from religion. Maybe if you're Hitler you can unite an entire country in veganism by telling them it's the only way to kill the Jews, but if you're not, I don't see how getting in people's faces, cursing them because they eat meat, vandalizing their property, etc. is going to make them have a lot of respect for the vegan movement. Instead, it's going to give them plenty of good reasons to be wary of it. It's just like your stereotypical "never shuts up in class" kid... even if they have something good to say, everyone is so sick of their voice and the fact that they never get a chance to have their opinion heard that they don't care.

Please, don't put words in my mouth. I do not appreciate false and mileading statements like the insulting, and imaginary, picture you using to charaterize me. I said nothing about being "totalitarian" or "militant." That was your misrepresentation of vegan advocay, which you again repeat here without an agrument -- it's just your negative opinion. I do believe these statements are cynical and disparaging about veganism, to say the least.

 

I also think it is hateful and appalling to associate vegan advocacy with Hitler the way you are doing. Where in the world did you dream up that grotesque association of linking a vegan movement with killing Jews? I don't believe that anyone who understood the philsophy of veganism would write such a thing -- it's completely counter to what veganism stands for.

 

I'd like to point out that no one, other than yourself, has said anything about "getting in people's faces, cursing them because they eat meat, vandalizing their property, etc." Is this really what you think of vegan advocacy? Because it doesn't show any respect for the vegan advocates. Why do you think that if a person doesn't support the violence of stalking and killing free-living animals or the violence of so-called "humane" rape, enslavement and mass killing then that person must use violence to promote such nonviolence? That is a totally illogical and contradictory conclusion.

 

I, personally, think it is strange that you say such warm, positive things about people who get pleasure out of doing violence to free-living nonhumans, but have such a defeatist and hostile view of vegan advocacy and the people who encourage nonviolence towards all animals -- human and nonhuman.

 

I haven't had time to read your article, and perhaps your own philosophy will make more sense in that context. I'll get to it when I can. But, judging by some of what you've said here, it seems as if you could be the type of person that goes off on people about their food choices at a moments notice. If you think that attitude is going to win people over, you are sadly mistaken. I could be wrong about you though, but your argument seems to hint at that.

Yes, it's called prejudice when you judge someone too quickly. My arguement doesn't hint at anything close to what you describe, yet you have made a personal attack against me as a person -- this is prejudice. Ironically, this means you're the one going off on me. I simply arguing my view about whether it is a good idea to support hunting to ban factory farming. I agree with Hero and say no to both stalking-killing free-living animals and the superexploitation of enslaved nonhumans for food. Veganism is opposed to hunting, period. I don't see how it is fair to make assumptions about me simply because I disagree with you. Nor do I think it is appropriate to malign vegan advocacy in the way you have by implying that the promotion of veganism -- that is, opposed to all violence and exploitation of animals -- is "totalitarian" or necessitates "getting in people's faces."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, don't put words in my mouth. I do not appreciate false and mileading statements like the insulting, and imaginary, picture you using to charaterize me. I said nothing about being "totalitarian" or "militant." That was your misrepresentation of vegan advocay, which you again repeat here without an agrument -- it's just your negative opinion. I do believe these statements are cynical and disparaging about veganism, to say the least.

 

Yes. Those were my words. That's the point I'm trying to make. That wasn't a statement about you, it was a caution to vegans against taking an off-putting approach that some religious organizations have. It isn't that vegans do that, as a whole, or even as individuals... but there are those that think those things about vegans, and it only takes one person actually acting that way to ruin it for everyone. It was never, at least intentionally, an attack against you or vegans in general.

 

And that last bit was in response to the condescending tone your writing appears to be taking. My apologies if your writing is coming across stronger than you intended it to, but it has seemed ever since your first post that rather than discussing the idea you just wanted to bash the idea and my sense of veganism.

 

Finally, veganism is a philosophy about what you do, not about what you think. People are vegans for any number of reasons, and they have differently philosophies that led them to veganism. That's why people like Peter Singer and Tom Reagan can arrive at the same conclusion, but completely disagree about the journey.

 

Again, my apologies for defending myself from what appeared to be a personal attack. As I believe Joseph Williams said, an authors "ethos" or the way they portray their self in their writing can cause readers to have unexpected reactions to the piece in question when, if worded differently, they would have agreed with the argument whole-heartedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear SiNa94 influence by Peter Singer. PeTA is also influenced by Singer. However, Singer doesn't support animals right.

 

I am having trouble understanding in what way Singer is NOT a supporter of AR. Perhaps you and Singer define "rights" differently, but to my mind, Singer (and PeTA, for that matter) have an AR philosophy. The fact that they support welfare reforms does not necessarily mean that they do not support rights reforms. To say that endorsing better animal welfare means you're not an AR supporter seems to me like saying endorsing humane treatment of prisoners, if that is all that can happen at that time, means you can't be against prisons. Please let me know if I'm understanding you correctly here.

 

Nor is Matthew Scully a supporter of either veganism or animal rights. Both Singer and Scully, like PeTA, appeal to the status quo that believes it's okay to exploit nonhumans as long as the so-called "worst abuses" are eliminated.

 

I agree that Scully does not openly advocate veganism or AR. I have not read enough of his work to know whether he is opposed to either, however. Is this what you are saying? As to Singer, I didn't know why anyone would "go vegan" until I read Animal Liberation, which was the start of my vegan journey. The book seemed to me to advocate the personal decision to go vegan and to work to improve conditions for animals who are being exploited until such a time as they shall all be free. This seems commensurate with PeTA's philosophy as well. I disagree that this means they support the status quo or that they believe exploitation is OK. I think what it DOES mean is they have a different idea than you do of HOW to bring that about. I agree with their philosophy but would like to learn more about yours. When I have time I will certainly read your article you posted. Meanwhile, I will also be trying to learn all I can from others' responses on this thread.

 

If I want to read pro-hunting, anti-nonhuman stuff I can open any newspaper.

 

Are you saying you have read anti-nonhuman sentiments here in this thread? If so, where are they?

 

The threads "vegetarians are evil" and "10 reasons why the vegan diet will kill you" are critical of those titles, unlike this thread were "Support hunting to ban factory farms?" is being argued in a way that is counter to the interests of free-living animals.

 

I think this is a matter of opinion. I believe that the thread's purpose is to discuss effective ways to reduce non-human suffering--whether or not you think finding common ground with hunters is effective. You seem to believe it's not, and that's why we need your opinion here. We can all learn from one another.

 

In responding to this thread, I am hoping to learn more about different ways of thinking and do not want to get sucked into arguments or bashing each other. I don't have all the answers. I'm human and fallible. I'm not here to show that MY VEGANISM is the RIGHT KIND. I have a long way to go in improving my veganism. Part of this process is sharpening my discussion skills on "hot-button" issues.

 

By the way, I noticed you changed the thread title, SiNa. I think it makes the topic a bit clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having trouble understanding in what way Singer is NOT a supporter of AR. Perhaps you and Singer define "rights" differently, but to my mind, Singer (and PeTA, for that matter) have an AR philosophy. The fact that they support welfare reforms does not necessarily mean that they do not support rights reforms. To say that endorsing better animal welfare means you're not an AR supporter seems to me like saying endorsing humane treatment of prisoners, if that is all that can happen at that time, means you can't be against prisons. Please let me know if I'm understanding you correctly here.

 

Singer says it would be illogical to talk about animal rights, A) because he doesn't believe in rights at all (not even for humans) and B) because to talk about an animals right to vote or some other such thing doesn't make sense because the animal is not CAPABLE of that.

 

What Singer argues for is equal consideration. Humans and nonhumans have different desires. What a human wants on a hot day is a nice air-conditioned room and a popsicle. What a pig wants is a mud bath. If we wanted to consider the pig equally with humans, we wouldn't give it an air conditioned room and a popsicle, we'd give it a mud bath so it could control it's body's temperature like it wants to.

 

Another example is, if you swat a human baby and a grown horse with equal force, it's going to hurt the baby more than it's going to hurt the horse because the horse's hide is thicker. An equal amount of something doesn't result in an equal amount of pain or pleasure.

 

People have attacked Singer because of his view. I believe he said a retarded child did not have rights, which is the same thing he thinks about every other organism, retarded or not. Of course, his statement was misconstrued as an attack on the mentally handicapped, and so he was attacked, or received death threats, or something of that nature. I don't remember the exact details.

 

In the newest edition of Animal Liberation Singer says:

 

In misguided attempts to refute the arguments of this book some philosophers have gone to much trouble developing arguments to show that animals do not have rights. They have claimed that to have rights a being must be autonomous, or must be a member of a community, or must have the ability to respect the rights of others, or must possess a sense of justice. These claims are irrelevant to the case for Animal Liberation. The language of rights is a convenient political short hand. It is even more valuable in the era of thirty-second TV news clips than it was in Bentham's day; but in the argument for a radical change in our attitudes to animals, it is in no way necessary.

 

Rights aren't necessary for Animal Liberation. Saying "rights" is simply more convenient than trying to sum up what he really means in an interview. He wouldn't get a chance to make a point if he had to spend the entire interview explaining his philosophy.

 

By the way, I noticed you changed the thread title, SiNa. I think it makes the topic a bit clearer.

 

You can thank Richard for that... he's the one that recommended it.

 

By the way Richard, I wanted to thank you for raising a very reasonable objection to my argument. Unfortunately, I guess it's something that we can't resolve without actually having a discussion with those hunting groups. o_0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Scully does not openly advocate veganism or AR. I have not read enough of his work to know whether he is opposed to either, however. Is this what you are saying? As to Singer, I didn't know why anyone would "go vegan" until I read Animal Liberation, which was the start of my vegan journey. The book seemed to me to advocate the personal decision to go vegan and to work to improve conditions for animals who are being exploited until such a time as they shall all be free. This seems commensurate with PeTA's philosophy as well. I disagree that this means they support the status quo or that they believe exploitation is OK. I think what it DOES mean is they have a different idea than you do of HOW to bring that about. I agree with their philosophy but would like to learn more about yours. When I have time I will certainly read your article you posted. Meanwhile, I will also be trying to learn all I can from others' responses on this thread.

In the chapter titled "A Response," in Singer and His Critics (ed. Dale Jamieson), Singer writes that he has "moved to a near-vegan diet, but I am not strict about it, and do not advocate veganism to others, or at least not to those who are not already in the animal movement, because at the present stage of development of our society's concern for animals, this seems to be asking more than most people are prepared to give. In other words, to advocate veganism may be counterproductive."

 

The "present stage of development of our society" is almost identical to the definition of status quo: the existing state of affairs, esp. regarding social or political issues. Of course veganism is "asking more than most people are prepared to give." That's the whole point of working for social change. Antiracist activist Tim Wise points out: "In 1963, about three-quarters of white Americans, according to Gallup polls, believed that the civil rights movement was moving 'too fast' and asking for 'too much.'" And Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "White America is not even psychologically organized to close the gap—essentially, it seeks only to make it less painful and less obvious."

 

As Frederick Douglass, a former slave and abolitionist, wrote in a letter in 1849:

 

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.

So even though in 1963 civil rights were, as Singer puts it for animals, "asking more than most people are prepared to give," the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, and it was only passed because people did what Singer is not willing to do: advocate! As Douglass wrote: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will."

 

Rights aren't necessary for Animal Liberation.

Perhaps not. But I think it is a false "liberation" that leaves the so-called "liberated" exploited and oppressed. As you likely know, Singer is not opposed to exploitation of nonhuman animals. If Singer doesn't believe that nonhumans deserve freedom than Singer's use of the term "liberation" too hollow and insincere. I like how Gary Francione addresses this in Introduction to Animal Rights:

 

it is my view that the requirement that we abolish animal exploitation must be part of any theory that purports to accord moral significance to animals. If we really believe that animals are not merely things and that they have morally significant interests, then whether we otherwise endorse rights theory or not, we are committed to the view that we can no longer treat animals as our resources.

So even if I don't agree with Francione's rights philosophy at least we agree on abolishing animal exploitation, which is more than I can say for Singer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps not. But I think it is a false "liberation" that leaves the so-called "liberated" exploited and oppressed. As you likely know, Singer is not opposed to exploitation of nonhuman animals. If Singer doesn't believe that nonhumans deserve freedom than Singer's use of the term "liberation" too hollow and insincere.

 

Singer does not agree with animal exploitation, and I don't know where you came up with that. Singer is a Utilitarian, and as such believes that utility should be maximized, or, as he often puts it, suffering should be minimized. If you are exploiting an animal, then you are causing it to suffer, and that Singer doesn't agree with.

 

What you may be confused about is when there is more than one life hanging in the balance. Singer says that if sacrificing one dog to a medical experiment could guarantee (which they rarely can) that you're going to save thousands of lives from a debilitating and life-threatening disease, then of course you should go through with it. You're causing suffering to only one being rather than to thousands (i.e. You're minimizing suffering).

 

Singer doesn't show prejudice. He says that if a building was on fire and your child is in one room, but 20 children are in another room, and you can only make it to one of the rooms, you should save the 20 children. He does concede that most people wouldn't be able to make that choice however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Singer does not agree with animal exploitation, and I don't know where you came up with that.

Actually, Singer is quite clear on being supportive of a world in which animal exploitation continues, whether it's humans using nonhumans for their own benefit, or humans using other humans. That is, Singer's "end goal" is compatible with animal exploitation. In fact, when Singer was asked the question: "What is the end goal for which you are advocating?" by The Minnesota Daily in March 2006:

 

I'm prepared to leave that as a somewhat open question - whether it requires a completely vegan lifestyle or whether it simply requires us to ensure animals live good lives and have their interests reasonably provided for, and whether we nevertheless make use of some animal products in that process.

And when responding in the journal Behavioral and Brain Science in 1990:

 

I certainly would never deny that we are justified in using animals for human goals, because as a consequentialist, I must also hold that in appropriate circumstances we are justified in using humans to achieve human goals (or the goal of assisting animals). I am not the kind of moral absolutist who holds that the ends can never justify the means. Nor have I said that no animal experimentation is ever of use to humans (though I do think much of it is of minimal or zero value) or that all animal experimentation involves suffering. (If I seem testy here, it is because such oversimplifications are bad enough when they come from the popular press; when they come from people who teach at distinguished universities, they may well cause even highly sophisticated folks to wonder about the worth-whileness of a college education).

So Singer is not opposed to the exploitation when it comes to using nonhumans for human benefits. This is a constant part Singer's philosophy going back to Animal Liberation. An example:

 

Assuming you can get free-range eggs, the ethical objections to eating them are relatively minor. Hens provided with shelter and an outdoor run to walk and scratch around in live comfortably. They do not appear to mind the removal of their eggs. They will be killed when they cease to lay productively, but they will have a pleasant existence until that time.

And in an interview from the Autumn 2006 issue of The Vegan, the magazine of The Vegan Society:

 

to avoid inflicting suffering on animals—not to mention the environmental costs of intensive animal production—we need to cut down drastically on the animal products we consume. But does that mean a vegan world? That’s one solution, but not necessarily the only one. If it is the infliction of suffering that we are concerned about, rather than killing, then I can also imagine a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm.

So Singer is perfectly fine with exploitation, at least as long as the suffering brought on is not far beyond that experienced by a so-called "free-range" hen. Mind you, in Singer's book The Way We Eat, co-authored with Jim Mason, Singer describes the living conditions of "free-range" hens as "factory farming." And at the end of that book, Singer still goes on to recommended that consumers "buy the more expensive but better-tasting eggs from hens free to move around inside sheds." (These aren't even so-called "free-range" eggs, but the even more intensively produced so-called "cage-free" eggs.) Singer describes a vegan lifestyle as the less attractive "other choice," as opposed to the "better-tasting" one.

 

Also, The Vegan is a publication that goes to the members of The Vegan Society, which means that the readers are basically all vegans. And in an interview for this publication Singer calls "free-range" eggs -- again, eggs that come from the same type of exploitive setup Singer called a "factory farm" in The Way We Eat -- a "luxury," and even went on to endorse the consumption of flesh. So, the subtext of all this is that while Singer won't advocate veganism to people, Singer will advocate the consumption of animal products to vegans.

 

I disagree with Singer's philosophy largely because the philosophy is not oppose to exploitation. Were Singer really opposed to animal exploitation I would most likely think differently. Saying "Singer does not agree with animal exploitation" is just the sort of "oversimplification" that is likely to make the philosopher "testy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming you can get free-range eggs, the ethical objections to eating them are relatively minor. Hens provided with shelter and an outdoor run to walk and scratch around in live comfortably. They do not appear to mind the removal of their eggs. They will be killed when they cease to lay productively, but they will have a pleasant existence until that time.

 

I haven't read, or at least read thoroughly, the other pieces you've quoted here, but this particular quote sounded familiar, and completely taken out of it's original context. If you would have continued with the rest of the paragraph (on page 175 for those of us with the newest edition) it would have gone something like this:

 

They do not appear to mind the removal of their eggs. The main grounds for objection are that the male chicks of the egg-laying strain will have been killed on hatching, and the hens themselves will be killed when they cease to lay productively. The question is, therefore, whether the pleasant lives of the hens (plus the benefits to us of the eggs) are sufficient to outweight the killing that is a part of the system. One's answer to that will depend on ones' view about killing, as distinct from the infliction of suffering... In keeping with the reasons given there, I do no, on balance, object to free-range production.

 

This last line is the necessary disclaimer that you conveniently forgot in order to make your point. If you recall from the beginning of the book, Singer says that because in the field of philosophy killing and death are such complicated matters that haven't even been settled with respect to humans, it would be impractical to tackle it in the context of animals. This particular books focuses solely on the suffering of animals. Because none of the evidence he'd provided in the book had set up the possibility to argue against the consumption of eggs, he could not argue that the consumption of eggs in which it does not appear any animals are suffering is morally wrong. He said that the readers themselves would have to decide without his help whether killing was wrong or not.

 

I can guess at the context for the other quotes, because I'm sure what you're quoting is a little biased against Singer. If somebody came to Singer and told him that they've stopped eating animal products three days a week he would not scorn them. He would congratulate them for being able to accomplish such a major lifestyle change because no matter how small it may be in comparison what other people are doing, fewer animals ARE suffering because of that persons actions. That's why an all-or-nothing mentality is a negative influence on the movement. If we tell people that they may as well not bother if they're not going to go all of the way, then we're losing chances to minimize suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read, or at least read thoroughly, the other pieces you've quoted here, but this particular quote sounded familiar, and completely taken out of it's original context.

Actually, it is the original context. Singer, as you point out, straight up says, "I do not, on balance, object to free-range egg production." Regardless of whatever "on balance" refers to, Singer is still talking about the exploitation of hens. Singer even admits that all male chicks are slaughtered and is still "on balance" is not opposed to "free-range" eggs.

 

Of course, it isn't Singer's life being balanced away as "relatively minor" so that some animal exploiter can profit from pandering to the taste buds of people who like the "luxury" of Egg Foo Yong (see early versions of Animal Liberation for Singer's recipe, which instructs the reader to "beat up some eggs -- free-range, of course"). I don't agree that "on balance" the vital interest in a hen and her male chicks living and not being exploited is "relatively minor," as Singer put it, when compared to the nonvital interest of a human making a profit so another human can have an insignificant taste sensation. I think Singer isn't even attempting an "equal consideration of interest." How does a taste sensation win out over life?

 

This last line is the necessary disclaimer that you conveniently forgot in order to make your point.

That line makes my point directly. That Singer does "not ... object to free-range egg production" -- a form of exploitation that Singer calls "factory farming" in The Way We Eat.

 

This particular books focuses solely on the suffering of animals. Because none of the evidence he'd provided in the book had set up the possibility to argue against the consumption of eggs, he could not argue that the consumption of eggs in which it does not appear any animals are suffering is morally wrong.

Exploitation is using others for one's own benefit. Using hens to produce eggs and then killing them "when they cease to lay productively" is a clear cut case of exploitation. In short, Singer is not "committed to the view that we can no longer treat animals as our resources." Using hens to produce eggs, regardless of the method, is still treating these animals as resources.

 

I can guess at the context for the other quotes, because I'm sure what you're quoting is a little biased against Singer.

All the quotes are Singer's own words. Are you saying Singer is biased against himself?

 

As for killing? There is nothing else which one can steal form another that is of greater worth. Life is a prerequisite to anything else. Killing really is just about the ultimate in exploitation, isn't it? When a person take another's life for their own benefit they have basically exploited the one they killed to the utmost -- totally used the other up to the point there is nothing left to take.

 

Veganism pre-dates Peter Singer's philosophy by more than 30-years. Veganism is a movement founded in 1944 as a way of life that rejects exploitation of animals, including killing. The term "vegan" was created by Donald Watson who became vegan after visiting an uncle's family farm where all the animals were living in what Singer would call "natural conditions." Watson came to the conclusion that "the idyllic scene was nothing more than death row, where every creature's days were numbered by the point at which they were no longer of service to human beings." Thus, Watson joined with others to build a vegan movement that is opposed to such idyllic scenes. Keep in mind, this wasn't even the industrial "free-range" operations that Singer is in support of. What Watson is talking about is a pre-World War II, pre-industrial agriculture, pastoral farm. Singer sees the much less idyllic scene of the "free-range" industry where animals, like the hen and her chicks, are being killed when they are not of use to their exploiters and comes to the exact opposite conclusion as Watson.

 

In the "disclaimer" you highlight, Singer clearly talks about not being opposing to what Watson rightly calls "death row." So long as Singer thinks "on balance" the enslaved and executed didn't suffer more than the benefit derived from that enslavement and subsequent slaughter he is willing to support it. However, exploitation and killing are still exploitation and killing. Regardless of whether Peter Singer thinks that exploitation was "pleasant" enough to justify killing, exploitation and killing are not vegan. It never was, and never will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SiNa94, I just want to let you know that, while I disagree with you on many points, I consider each of your posts to be a gift. I appreciate the chance you are giving me to exercise my brain by challenging my thinking as I continue to strive to end the institutional exploitation and killing of other animals. The more I disagree with your posts, the more I am challenged, and the more I am thankful for your gift. I feel you are helping me become a better vegan advocate by giving me these opportunities, and I'm pleased to accept each of your gifts and look forward to the next.

 

<3 Guest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'll be! Though I've only skimmed through the replies since yesterday (and will likely, due to time limitations, need to bow out from following and responding to this thread), I certainly learned something new today. I had no idea Singer is not vegan. I was 15 when I put down Animal Liberation because I could not bear to read any more and decided I had learned enough that I had to go vegan. I wasn't successful through many tries, but it's finally stuck. I could have sworn Singer advocated a vegan diet, but I guess he did not. SiNa and Guest appear to have more detailed knowledge of their (and my!) sources than I do. That being said, I still subscribe to his basic philosophies and approach. I am still making SLOW progress through Singer's work...there's only so much I can read without sacrificing my mental health, at which point I'm no good for anyone, let alone nonhuman animals. While I don't agree with everything Guest has said on this thread (obviously!), I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to participate...and, as I said previously, to learn something new!

 

You're all an inspiration to me. Thanks for being here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad that you appreciate my posts, but you missed the point of my last one entirely. I don't think you understand how exactly philosophers work. They don't work to take something complicated and make it simple; they work to make something simple and make it complicated. As I already said, and perhaps worded in a confusing way, death and killing are not being argued against in Animal Liberation.

 

That does not mean that Singer agrees with them.

 

Philosophers are taught only to argue only for that which they can fully defend with logic alone, without emotion. Singer states that trying to argue against something as complicated as death in such a small amount of writing would be difficult to defend as entirely as it needed to be. This books argues against suffering alone, but that doesn't mean Singer has no opinion about killing and death. This book is 248 pages in and of itself. I imagine a book on such a complicated matter as killing would be at least 5 times that, because first he'd have to explain why killing humans is wrong in such a way that people could not object. Then he'd have to explain why killing humans to put them out of their misery is wrong, because that's part of killing. But does anyone really believe that it's better to let someone suffer in pain and disfigurement (after surviving a bomb blast perhaps) than just putting them out of their misery? If so, they are the one that is cruel. And that's what Singer means by death being complicated. Killing is not universally accepted as being immoral because there are instances where we believe it is right (self-defense, and end to suffering, etc. depending on the person).

 

Good philosophers don't pretend to know everything. They only know what they know. You can't argue a "gut-reaction" or "emotional response". You're taking this open-endedness to mean that he agrees with things that he doesn't, or at least doesn't any more. Not all cage-free eggs come from shed operations... I know, because I work at a farm that I wish would strictly grow vegetables, but the owners won't budge. While those chickens are exploited, they don't suffer. In fact, they have it quite good: a warm place to sleep, an acre or more to run around on, treats when there are food scraps, protection from wild animals, etc. I know I'm certainly not prepared to right a book on why exploitation is wrong, but that doesn't mean I don't believe it. So far I have: Exploitation is stealing and stealing is wrong. That's simply not book material. I'd have to explain to the general populace by stealing from animals is the same from stealing from humans. That's a matter that isn't easily argued in a logical manner that will actually convince people that regularly exploit animals.

 

I'll finish with Singers exact words:

 

So far I have said a lot about inflicting suffering on animals, but nothing about killing them. This omission has been deliberate. The application of the principle of equality to the infliction of suffering is, in theory at least, fairly straightforward. Pain and suffering are in themselves bad and should be prevented or minimized irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. How bad a pain is depends on how intense it is and how long it lasts, but pains of the same intensity and duration are equally bad, whether felt by humans or animals.

 

The wrongness of killing a being is more complicated. I have kept, and shall continue to keep, the question of killing in the background because in the present state of human tyranny over other species the more simple, straightforward principle of equal consideration of pain or pleasure is a sufficient basis for identifying and protesting against all the major abuses of animals tat human beings practice...

 

We need to proceed more cautiously here, however, because people hold widely differing views about when it is legitimate to kill humans, as the continuing debates over abortion and euthanasia attest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I appreciate the lively debate as well, as frustrating as it has been at times.

 

Perhaps we should get back to the original topic however, as it isn't a thread about what Singer thinks, but about what we think on a very specific issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I grew up in Ohio and the majority of the people I knew hunted (they even gave us excused days off in high school so that we could go hunt). I brother is a big time hunter/fisher. All of them also consumed factory farmed meat,eggs, and dairy. Very few of them even hunted for food. They hunted for "sport". A lot of the time they didn't even eat the meat and just had the animal stuffed. I should also add that I know some of them were not very good shots and even of the best of them couldn't kill the dear instantly ( the deer would usually run for several yards at least before dropping).

 

Hunting is murder and so is factory farming. One type of murder isn't any better than another. There is so such thing as human murder or "happy meat". Say you replaced deer with humans. Would you want to work with the hunters of human because they give humans a chance to live and run away instead of the farm where they cage and restrict them? I wouldn't and I don't support either. Animals have a right to live. They are not here for us to exploit,abuse, and murder. There is no reason to hunt in todays world (especially in developed countries). And if you use the "well people in undeveloped countries need to use animals" as an excuse that might be true except if you take into consideration that if the land used to grow food for the animals was used for the production of food for people then everyone on earth could be fed. Even with the land we have now most developed countries have a surplus of plants/vegetables that could be used to feed people they just choose not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loads of people at school hunted animals, they kept going on about it to try and upset me.

 

They all ate factory farmed flesh, they all found vegetarianism (and certainly veganism !) to be absolutely mockworthy and contemptible, and i doubt that many of them have dramatically changed their mindsets since then.

 

Loads of people on the island where I live hunt animals.

Of the ones i know about, they all eat factory farmed flesh and find vegetarianism to be quite laughable.

 

I have encountered many people online who hunt animals.

The vast majority self-confessedly and wholeheartedly eat factory farmed flesh, and find vegetarianism to be quite laughable.

 

The others just didn't "get it" - not actually making a point of viewing veg*ns as inferior but just not seeing the point of compassion or respect for nonhumans, and not wanting to see the point.

 

Peter Singer is a pillock....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunting is murder and so is factory farming. One type of murder isn't any better than another.

^^^bottom line.

 

all of them - hunters, and factory farmers are guilty, and will have to stand before the truth and reconciliation commissions, confess their crimes, and go to the reeducation camps after the revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand how exactly philosophers work. They don't work to take something complicated and make it simple; they work to make something simple and make it complicated.

 

It depends on how good they are at their chosen pursuit, and what sort of philosophy they engage themselves in.

 

 

 

If we tell people that they may as well not bother if they're not going to go all of the way, then we're losing chances to minimize suffering.

 

No doubt, but has anyone vegan been known to say this to anyone ?

 

 

Hunting is murder and so is factory farming. One type of murder isn't any better than another.

 

Well, I would say that if someone is going to kill somebody then it is best for them not to keep that person in their basement in squallor and torture them for a long time beforehand.... while I am loathe to refer to any despicable act as being 'better' than any other atrocious endeavour... I would say that it is worse for someone to torture, abuse and neglect someone before killing them.... if killing them is going to be the end result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...