Why is killing a human worse than killing a chicken?

I see your line of thought, but when you kill the chicken its for food to survive. You killing a human is not essential to your ultimate survival. Obviously cases like self defense are different.

Edit: I should add though I feel that killing animals just for the sake of killing them is along the same level of killing a human.

Is it?

I believe humans have souls and animals don’t.

I would feel worse killing a bear in the woods that never did anything wrong than I would killing a rapist.

I don’t know…would you feel worse killing a rapist in front of his mother than you would a bear? What about his sister, or child? If you knew that he was loved by someone?

Taking a human life has these kinds of permanent emotional consequences that aren’t really equivalent in the life of other animals. The fact that we can perceive our future and the consequences of our actions – as well as our deaths.

Further, humans are your species. Most species are more inclined to protect their own and value their own more than another species. Value is a subjective thing. ;-)

Finally, most things are alive that we need or use. Why is plant life less “worthy” to us than animal life? Would you feel worse killing a bug or a mouse?

Personally, I eat meat, but not a lot of it. I eat it only if it’s from a local and small farm, where I can at least determine the quality of life. If it’s good, I have no moral issue with it – because, as a matter of fact, it wouldn’t have been alive if it wasn’t going to be eaten in any case.

But I have zero problems killing the person that harms my family or others without cause. I would feel worse killing a bear in the woods that never did anything wrong than I would killing a rapist. There lies part of your perception. Because the human did an act you felt very strongly was heinous or reprehensible his/her worth became less than the bear, the motivation would be vengeance or some sense of justice or payback. What if the bear was noted for roaming through a given camp ground laying waste any tent that got in its way in search of food? What if that bear had killed 3 people who had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and 2 were children? I think that bear would start to look way better dead to you than breathing. It is the perception of us humans, it is not even consistent in the animal kingdom. Many people who would get rankled over a tiger, elephant, whale or lion being killed will think nothing dropping a live lobster they chose from the tank in boiling water so they can feast off him when he is cooked, or think little of the death of that cow while they enjoy that prime rib eye.

My motivations of why no matter what humans trump animals have a religious base, what motivations others have I don’t know.

It’s not.

Killing a human would be worse for me because I don’t need them for food. Killing a child molester, rapist, torturer or violent murderer would be hard but I’d do it in order to remove that person from society and the gene pool. The fact that other people may love them like parents, children and friends wouldn’t deter me- it’s about the safety of others alive more than to do with damage done, to me.

On all levels of seriousness (which I know I tend to lack here on Fluther most times). Until you are faced with the opportunity to kill someone, no matter if they are shooting at you, trying to rob you, kill you or anything else for that fact it is unfair for you to say what you would do.
The first time I was faced with the choice to lay there and get shot at or to shoot back, the only reason I lifted my weapon was because of the men next to me.
You will feel something greater than what you would expect. Shooting a bear or a rapist seems like an absurd thing to do but I am willing to bet a few fingers that you would walk away with not much haunt post bear killing. You will feel something for the man you kill simply because you also are human and that is a much deeper connection than you are throwing credit towards. I will admit more, than most post war vets that killing is an option and I will admit to having raised my rifle so to speak. I will also admit to having it still haunt me at my most quite times even though there are still some people I’d love to raise it towards and pull the trigger endlessly.
Either way, I hope you are never faced with the choice and that if you ever are you choose wisely.

It isn’t, truly, worse. Humans are as alive as any other creature.

I would make a very bad soldier because I don’t believe in killing anything that you aren’t planning to eat.

Many animals kill and for many of the same reasons humans do: for food, to defend or claim territory, to protect their young, in self defense. We’re animals too, just like you said. If the bear in the woods is just minding his own business, I don’t think it’s at all odd to feel worse about killing an innocent animal that has done you no harm than you would killing a person who has victimized other people. I’m not saying either is right or wrong necessarily just that it kind of makes sense that you might feel that way.

Here’s how I look at it.

All sentient beings have the right not to be used as means to an end by moral agents. That includes humans as well as chickens. That means that harming an innocent chicken and harming an innocent human are both morally reprehensible.

In terms of which is worse- equivalent harms are morally equivalent. We have good data that both chickens and humans perceive pain in much the same way, and have similar reactions and sensations. Causing equivalent amounts of pain to a human and a chicken, therefore, are morally equivalent.

The harm that death is, however, is a function of how much a being gets from living, and it’s possible to make the argument that humans have richer lives than chickens do, and that more harm is done when a human is killed due to the harm it also causes to other humans. Therefore, the death of a human and the death of a chicken are not morally equivalent. Killing either one when it poses no threat to you is wrong, but killing a human is a greater wrong.

There are possibly some cases where the situation can be reversed. Killing a chimpanzee is, in my eye, a greater moral wrong than killing an irreversibly comatose human, for example.

@crisw Is it ok to kill chickens and eat them? I do like Popeyes Fried Chicken..:)

Because chickens don’t vote, pay taxes or write Letters to the Editor. Or have many other people do those things on their behalf. They can’t hire attorneys. They have no organization to speak of. No political clout whatever. And their relatives aren’t going to demand justice, either. Oh, they’ll squawk a lot, but it amounts to nothing in the end.

@plethora

“s it ok to kill chickens and eat them?”

Not unless it’s the chicken’s life or yours. Raising and killing animals for food is most definitely using a sentient being as a means to an end.

@crisw Excellent answer :)

@CyanoticWasp

Lots of people don’t do any of these things either- is it OK to kill them?

Seems like apples and oranges to me.

A human being has the potential to “purposely” save a life, to show compassion, to love another person, and help humanity in a multitude of ways. Only another human being can procreate with you to further the human species and civilization, and all the gifts and innovations mankind has to offer. A chicken can’t do those things.

Sure, there are human beings who are evil, and whose lives may be deemed much less worthy than the lives of wild animals like bears, but those are specific cases and do not represent humanity as a whole. An aggressive, crazy wild bear that kills a loving, young innocent child——which of these two lives would you deem more valuable? For me, it’s really a no-brainer.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir killing a Human is more emotive than killing a chicken, more suffering is involved, because Humans belong to a complex group, with a sophisticated level of peer bonding and deeper relationship dynamics. However Habitually undervaluing the life of a chicken, can also cause profound suffering, it is preferably to value all life highly and equally.

How do you feel about killing bacteria? We construct a hierarchy of life based on the intelligence of the animal. Killing a bear is worse than killing a chicken and killing a chimpanzee is worse than killing a bear. I would feel just about as badly about killing sentient extra terrestrials as killing humans.

I kill an ant
and realize my three children
have been watching.

Shuson Kato (b.1905)

Virtually all living creatures are predatory. Humans just happen to be at the top of the food chain. As long as my prey has had a good life I feel no guilt in eating it. Killing a human is different to me because they are on the same level as me. But that said, I am not opposed to capitol punishment as long as I don’t have to pull the trigger (or kill the chicken as far as that goes). Probably that makes me a coward or a hypocrite, and I accept that.

We dealt with this question back in my Philosophy 101 class. Of course, they ask questions with multiple (or no) right answers, designed to break student brains, so that’s where this one might end up, too. You may enjoy this Peter Singer article, which we read for that class.

I agree that a life is a life and yes, I do eat meat on occasion, but infrequently.

I have never bought into humans having a monopoly over all other living creatures.

So while I may partake of a rare steak dinner I also have done much good for the animal kingdom and do not see my life as being any more or less important than that of any other life.

I have over 5 acres of mountain property that is a haven for wildlife and I keep geese as pets. If my geese were the last food item on the planet I would not eat them. I mean that 100%.

If you spend a little more time studying human history, you’ll find that killing people is not generally considered wrong, only killing people who are valued is. In the USA it is legal to kill murderers: the death penalty under which they are killed is legal by federal law, and by state laws in 35 states. It is legal by US laws for US soldiers, under orders from military leaders, to kill “enemy combatants” not only individually, but also by mass bombing raids as have been done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Japan, and dozens of other countries. Killing unborn human babies is legal in all 50 states. It’s legal to kill your customers as long as you do it slowly and with their consent, with beef fat, tobacco, and alcohol.

The only problem is when someone wants to kill someone whom other people value. If you wanted to kill someone who has a lot of friends and family, they might not only want to defend your intended victim, they might also want to kill you in return. These things have ways of escalating. Thus if the Turks and the Armenians (for instance) keep killing each other, then seeking revenge, they can and do get into cycles of antagonism that last hundreds of years.

These wars, border skirmishes, family feuds and so forth are avoidable if we set rules on the killing. The rules for killing change over time, but they’ve never been disallowed here. Not so long ago it was fine for random people to kill each other, as long as they had equal and fair chances to kill or be killed; it was called a duel.

@crisw @Simone_De_Beauvoir I do like Popeye’s Fried Chicken. They’re gonna kill them anyway, right?

@plethora

“They’re gonna kill them anyway, right?”

They raise them to be killed because you eat them. If people reduce meat consumption, fewer animals will be killed. If they stop eating meat, then factory farms stop too.

The Peter Singer article cited by @laureth brings up an important point about the suffering that we put animals through. I consider this a separate issue from killing. I believe that making animals suffer for extended periods of time is unconscionable.

@plethora I am pretty sure the chicken you eat from Popeye’s is grown in a lab. Much like a greenhouse but for chickens. They grow them fat and without feathers and without brains. Zombie chickens! You should get a bucket for Halloween brah.

@judochop They could probably do away with the chicken and I wouldn’t miss it. It’s all the batter and seasonings I like.

@LostInParadise I agree that making animals suffer is horrific.

@plethora

“It’s all the batter and seasonings I like.”

Amen to that. When I became vegetarian, one of the things I missed the most was the batter from fried chicken! I haven’t yet found a great commercially-available alternative, although I have learned to make some pretty darn yummy oven-fried Quorn!

Aw, @crisw that’s an easy problem to solve. Mix corn meal and flour in even parts, add salt, pepper and the first 11 herbs and spices that you find in your cabinet, add some milk and an egg, (or substitute soy milk if you’re vegan) stir, and drop blobs into hot oil to make some wonderful guilt free hush puppies. That’s fried chicken without the chicken.

@GeorgeGee

Well, if you are trying to cut down on fat, the deep-fried stuff isn’t such a good option! I do love hush puppies though…

Is killing a chicken worse than killing a tree? Life is life, and trees are living beings.

@mattbrowne

I agree. I am still mad that some neighbors cut down a magnificent heritage oak that had to be pushing 300–400 years old last year because a limb fell on their brick driveway pillars during a storm.

This tree was an icon at the corner of one of the roads I turn on to get to my house.

It still pisses me off everytime I go by. Grrrrrrr!

@mattbrowne – I stand with @crisw on this one – life is life, and there’s no need to take it when it’s superfluous (I do not, personally, have a moral objection in taking it when it’s unnecessary – I think it’s to high a bar to set, and too difficult a demand to place on people generally). Superfluous has to do with over consumption – much consumption isn’t necessary, but people want their luxuries, and when you take those away, that’s when the bitchin’ starts. ;-)

@crisw – I agree with reduction in consumption, and a stop to the CAFO (factory farming) style of raising meat. However, I feel pretty strongly in favor of non-factory raising of meat for consumption, where the lives of the animals raised are respected in the most basic forms. As they wouldn’t be born if they weren’t raised for meat, we in the end get more life, and life that’s lived in a worthwhile way.

Eagles eat rabbits.
People eat chicken. Or choose not to eat chicken.

I’ve been too busy to comment on my own question, but will at some point. A lot of people have made really interesting comments.

I wish I had not arbitrarily picked “chicken” as the animal in my question. I didn’t think about how it prompted discussion about the food chain. I more wanted to look at it from a purely ethical standpoint, not a survival one. It isn’t immoral for a eagle to kill a rabbit, nor a human to eat meat to survive. What I’m driving at is the fact that humans are animals with the largest brains, but still just animals. Instead of “chicken”, let’s say “rhinoceros” or “porcupine,” or imagine any non-domesticated animal of your choice.

@cockswain – I think you’re collapsing “ethics” and “morals” in a way that will confuse the point you’re trying to make. I think you’re discussing morality as opposed to an act’s ethical nature…but let us know.

@mattbrowne

“Is killing a chicken worse than killing a tree? Life is life, and trees are living beings.”

Yes, it is worse. As I have explained, chickens feel pain and pleasure, can have preferences, are subjects of a life. Trees don’t.

@iamthemob
“However, I feel pretty strongly in favor of non-factory raising of meat for consumption, where the lives of the animals raised are respected in the most basic forms.”

Killing an animal to eat it isn’t respecting the animal. Certainly small family farms are better than CAFOs, and, as long as people are still eating meat, they are preferable. But this doesn’t remove the base ethical question of whether killing animals is moral.

“As they wouldn’t be born if they weren’t raised for meat, we in the end get more life,”

Nonexistent beings cannot suffer. Once we bring a being into existence, we have the responsibility of treating it ethically. There is no ethical wrong in not breeding animals for food.

@mattbrowne
“Eagles eat rabbits.
People eat chicken.”

I am surprised that you’d commit the naturalistic fallacy. Unlike eagles, we are moral agents, and we can choose to act ethically.

Killing an animal to eat it isn’t respecting the animal.

Raising it in a manner that allows it to live a life free of pain is. Killing it in a humane fashion is. That’s respecting the life of an animal.

Nonexistent beings cannot suffer. Once we bring a being into existence, we have the responsibility of treating it ethically. There is no ethical wrong in not breeding animals for food.

This is why I am addressing the question of morals over ethics. By the above argument, there’s nothing ethically wrong in aborting children with cystic fibrosis when it’s detected early enough in the pregnancy. Would that be moral though? Of course, the reasons for attempting to raise a chicken and a child differ in this context, but not breeding something even though there will be joy or comfort in it’s life because of knowledge that it will suffer in the end, even the slightest bit, is more morally murky – following this logic to its inevitable conclusion, you have a pretty nihilistic result – life is never worth it, as it will always result in suffering.

@iamthemob

May I suggest that your read the Piers Anthony story In The Barn? it’s about a society where livestock are raised kindly, treated well, and, of course, killed now and then.

Those “livestock” happen to be humans bred to be stupid and voiceless.

Would that be ethical? They are humans no more intelligent than cows. They are treated well and killed humanely. Yet I suppose you’d find it abhorrent, as would most people. You would not find it “respectful.”

So why is it any more “respectful” to do it to a different animal?

As far as abortion, that is an entirely different can of worms and not appropriate for this discussion- feel free to ask a question about it if you wish. All I will say on the issue here is that, as the early fetus isn’t sentient, I have no moral qualms with it.

I stand by what I said. There is no moral wrong is not breeding animals, as nonexistent beings cannot be harmed. And, once a being is born, the circumstances of its birth don’t permit us to abandon our ethical obligations to that being.

Quite frankly I’d rather be killed by a bear than a serial killer.

Although, if one wishes to be really honest it is rather one and the same.

The psychotic human is simply acting on it’s nature as is the bear, but the bear or the lion makes a clean kill and does not enjoy watching it’s victim suffer.

There is no fault with either a wild animal or a disordered human acting out of their nature.

At least the bear won’t shove a stick up my ass and get off on it. lol

@crisw – that’s not my argument. My argument is that once alive, allowing animals freedom of movement, interaction, and killing them humanely is treating them “ethically” or with respect. Again, I am concerned with the moral issues associated with raising livestock at all – and I do not consider it immoral to raise anything with a good life at all. Therefore, I consider nothing immoral with the scenario of “In The Barn” in the same way that I don’t consider it immoral, at a basic level, to generate human clones without any real perception (e.g., brain activity fully snipped) to get organs for someone that are necessary to save their life. I don’t think that it would be considered ethical, but that’s an issue for medical science to deal with as those professionals are the one that generally regulate their code of ethics.

We therefore differ about what we consider our ethical duties when the animal is born. If it is born because we are raising it for food, then it is well within our ethical right to kill it for food. I’m not saying there is a “moral wrong” in not raising the animal, but there is an ethical duty to treat it with respect when alive and at death that I think produces a good life, a “moral right” in the end.

The issue can be illuminated, I think, when we bring hunting into the equation. Personally, I think if people had to look an animal in the eye before it was killed, we’d consume far, far less meat. However, we would still consume meat. Over our evolution, we’ve resulted with a biology that uses meat for energy as much as plants. If we do not raise that meat as livestock, it will certainly be hunted. Hunting is regulated, but not easily so – and it’s easy due to the tragedy of the commons to overexploit the animal so that the population is reduced to a point of “no return.” Raising livestock is a way to avoid this issue, and therefore may have a significant ecological benefit (therefore, producing a moral good). Fishing is a main way we still do this now, and see the effects now…and certain farm-raised fish have become vogue to avoid the problem of over-fishing, as well as the sale of “fishing credits” in the Australian-area waters. And of course, there is the moral benefit of hunting when a population becomes over-populated.

I don’t think the abortion issue is outside, as we are discussing the valuation of life at different stages of consciousness. Abortion approved during early as opposed to later trimesters is a realization of this idea. Because there is no “moral wrong” in not breeding, we can translate this into the fact that there is no “moral wrong” in preventing a child from being born at an early stage for whatever reason, because it is arguable that causes no suffering, and it wouldn’t realize anything about its life. Therefore, there is no moral wrong in aborting a fetus because it will be gay (there is suffering involved with the gay lifestyle because of societal pressures) or ugly (ditto) etc. Inevitably, we come to an argument for eugenics.

This is why it’s relevant to the argument – we can’t simply rely on the moral right or wrong of the single act itself, but rather if that we state that it is morally wrong because of that, we end up producing effects that end up being morally detrimental to society. If it’s morally correct to abort a child for whatever reason as non-conscious life is of no real value, then it’s okay to do it for the worst reasons. If it’s morally wrong to raise animals for food, then the potential negatives arising from that are perfectly acceptable because the initial point was a morally correct one. Whether or not a particular act is moral must take all of these into consideration, and I feel that reducing it to the points of the decision (as your argument – but not you by implication – suggests we do) then we are not really looking at the true morality of it.

@iamthemob

“If it is born because we are raising it for food, then it is well within our ethical right to kill it for food.”

How, exactly, do you derive this? What if it were a normal human? Would your feelings be the same? What if we substitute “torture” for “food”?

“If we do not raise that meat as livestock, it will certainly be hunted”

You fail to prove this in any way. False dilemma. There are many other options, plus you ignore the harm that raising livestock does to the environment.

I refuse to discuss the abortion issue here as it isn’t releavnt to the OP’s stated question. If you want to discuss it elsewhere, I will be happy to.

@cockswain you’re still thinking pretty high on the “development” ladder. How about an ant, a fly or a bacterium, for that matter? Are those okay to kill because they don’t have faces and defined families?

(1) The difference between morals and ethics. All ethical decisions are not moral in the most basic sense, but ethics are governed by an almost hermetically sealed, professional set of guidelines. Morality is generalized. Therefore, if breeding animals for food is moral in a general sense, then by necessity killing an animal so bred is ethically proper. The reasons why you and I differ as to whether it is moral in the first place is where our difference in the ethics seem to come from. However, if we do accept that those who consider it a moral choice to raise animals for food, then we must accept that it is generally ethical for them to carry out their intent.

(2) if it were a normal human, no – but you yourself have stated that it’s morally right to value more sentient life over less sentient life. If a shark ate me for food, this wouldn’t be any less moral than me eating it…on a most basic level. Of course, because we can choose taking into account the future ramifications of our behavior, and the current real-life necessity of it, it is less moral in certain circumstances.

(3) There is clearly no reason to raise an animal for torture. Therefore, no – there is no ethical reason to torture an animal.

(4) If you can prove that humans will shift to a completely vegetarian diet, and that this is a proper ecological and moral decision, then I am willing to change my opinion. However, as we have eyes in the front of our head, a system that has forgone the appendix in favor of cooked meat, teeth that are appropriate for the chewing of meat as well as vegetable product, then it is reasonable to assume that our eating of meat is a biologically suitable, and therefore basically moral, choice. Further, I am of the opinion (unsupported at this point, by my admission, but not unreasonable I think) that one will never convince people that they must give up meat 100% – and I think that a focus on a pure vegetarian option is a waste of energy when we can get people to make more ecologically sound decisions as to how they eat meat. This isn’t a false dilemna, therefore, because there are really two options – people will either eat meat, or they will not. If they do, and it is immoral for them to raise meat to be eaten, then we shouldn’t do it. If we do not raise meat to be eaten, then it must be hunted from the animals born naturally. Therefore, there are only two options, and if we choose one of the two, it results further in two options. Please tell me how this is a false dilemna.

PS – I also do not ignore that harm, as I have mentioned it earlier with my statements regarding CAFOs and industrialized farming, which is where the environmental harm comes from, and the reason why I try to refrain from buying from the big four generally. You also seem to ignore the environmental impact that mass raising of GMO vegetables has on the environment, especially when we consider potential cross-contamination of patented seed products, particularly those with a suicide gene (although I’m sure you really haven’t…but accusation leads to accusation).

(5) You can refuse to discuss it here, but your judgment that it isn’t relevant to the OP is misplaced, as that is your judgment, and therefore not an objective assessment of whether or not it’s relevant. Considering that the morality is based on a value-judgment of the complexity of the life in question, and whether it’s conscious, I think it’s totally relevant. If the OP comments otherwise, I will be glad to drop it. You, of course, are not the OP. ;-)

@CyanoticWasp

There is no clearly-defined line, but I think it lies somewhere in the invertebrates, with animals like octopus on the side of animals that possess rights, and most other invertebrates on the other. If the criterion for rights-possession is being the subject of a life with the ability to feel pain and pleasure, to have preferences, etc., the research I’m aware of show that most invertebrtates fail the criterion but most, if not all, vertebrates pass it.

A good shorthand is “personality.” If an animal can have a personality, it’s showing that it has preference autonomy and this is one of the key requirements for sentience.

@iamthemob

Tons of prose, tons of logical fallacies like the naturalistic fallacy, begging the question, slippery slope etc. plus misunderstanding and misstating things I have said. Not much to actually respond to.

The one point I will agree on is that, as long as people are eating meat, family farms are better.

@crisw – No naturalistic fallacy in particular, but if you could point it out, perhaps I should clarify. I do however, find it enlightening that you choose to ignore everything said instead of responding. I’m glad that you’re self-righteous enough to do so. ;-)

and just when I thought that we were going to be able to talk through an issue rather than choosing to insult one another.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

That pretty much sinks it.

I don’t lose sleep over the injustices of the world, I do my part and that is all any of us can do.

@crisw – Yes, wild chickens have felt pain outside of farms for thousands of years with food scarcity, predators and diseases and no farmer and vet around to help. Of course ethical consumers have to demand animal husbandry which often means being willing to spend more for meat and eggs.

Yes, we humans are moral agents, and we can choose to act ethically, because we have a human brain which only advanced this far because we often ate meat over the past 200,000 years. Consider the irony! In my earlier post I stated that we can choose. And I respect the choice vegetarians make. Non-vegetarians expect the same. That’s all.

@mattbrowne – I don’t know…I think there are some choices that non-vegetarians make that are very, very damaging, though. Strictly, I agree that whether or not one chooses to be a vegetarian is cool as long as their doing it smartly.

@mattbrowne

“Yes, we humans are moral agents, and we can choose to act ethically, because we have a human brain which only advanced this far because we often ate meat over the past 200,000 years.”

This can’t be used as an argument to eat meat today though. Just because something was true in the past doesn’t make that thing true today.

“In my earlier post I stated that we can choose. And I respect the choice vegetarians make. Non-vegetarians expect the same. ”

The problem with this statement is that “live and let live” as an ethical policy only applies to situations where no sentient beings are harmed. This is not such a case, The eating of meat must, by necessity, harm animals. Therefore, it’s an ethical issue. At its simplest, see if you agree with these premises:

1. Acts by moral agents that cause harm to sentient beings must be morally justified
2. Eating meat causes harm to sentient beings.
3, Therefore, eating meat must be morally justified.

So far, you haven’t really presented any moral justification.

Can we clear this up? We’re addressing the moral appropriateness of certain acts. Therefore, we’re talking about morality generally, but in reference to acts. We’re using ethics in a general sense, when ethics is particular based on what type we’re talking about.

It seems that we’re discussing normative ethics in general. Is this right?

@iamthemob

I am not a philosophical definitions purist. I tend to use “moral” and “ethical” interchangeably (as I think most people do.)

Yes, it’s normative ethics.

Cool. I would say that your premises above can be addressed, but there are some underlying assumptions:

(1) eating meat causes more harm than good to sentient beings. If this is not the case, then there is no need to morally justify it. This can be broken down:

(a) eating meat of a specific or group of specific animals does not benefit other animals or such benefit does not outweigh that harm.

(b) eating a specific animal raised for food is a harm that is not outweighed by any enjoyment it gets out of life.

(c) killing an animal and not eating it means that there is no harm to the animal (population thinning hunting procedures).

(2) Eating no meat will cause less harm to sentient species generally than eating meat.

I think that how the above assumptions actually play out relates to the relative utility of your premises. If eating meat to a certain extent produces a benefit for sentient species that outweighs specific harm to specific sentient species, than would it be morally justified?

@iamthemob

“If eating meat to a certain extent produces a benefit for sentient species that outweighs specific harm to specific sentient species, than would it be morally justified?”

This can be looked at in several ways.

If the benefit accrues to group A but the harm to group B, then no. I am not a utilitarian.

I think it’s impossible for animals that are killed to get any benefit from being killed. Death is the ultimate harm. Therefore, animals cannot benefit themselves enough from being raised for meat to justify killing them. Again, I do not agree that potential life has any value in and of itself, and potential beings cannot themselves be harmed. Once an actual being exists, we have ethical obligations to that being, and the reason it was brought into existence don’t outweigh those obligations.

Lastly, we have the issue of moral patients- beings who are sentient but not held morally accountable for their actions. As they are not accountable, we cannot blame them for what they do. Therefore, there is no moral wrong in a fox eating a rabbit.

@crisw

Right!

I was bummed out when the coyotes ran off with my cat Sept. 1.

Sad but no desire to kill the coyote.

At least my cat fell ‘prey’ to contributing to another creatures survival even if it was sad for me.

Death is the ultimate harm.

Euthanasia supporters would disagree – as would anyone who has had to put down an animal because it was suffering. As would anyone who, arguably with good cause, committed suicide. Finally, those who have suffered because of the Death Row phenomenon have a strong argument that death is not the most significant sanction – being denied and tortured with the threat of death is.

It’s also problematic to say “I’m not a utilitarian” and then demand moral justification based on your premises, as you are privileging your choice of moral philosophy over those of others. Of course, that’s well within your right to do for yourself, but you can’t critique another person by demanding that they justify a behavior as moral if it fits into one moral scheme and not yours, because you are setting up the argument so that they can only fail in your eyes.

If you’re not of the mind that we need to look at general benefits, and the beneficial effects that can come from harm, as part of the analysis of whether harm can be done in a moral fashion…your premises become personal and unique to you, and therefore devalued in a way if we’re trying to get at a general analysis of the normative ethics of a situation. Inevitably, the answer will be no to you, but yes to another, and both answers are right.

@iamthemob

“Euthanasia supporters would disagree”

The animals killed for food are not terminally ill. Therefore their deaths are not euthanasia and the cases are in no way comparable. Death is the ultimate harm to a living being who wants to go on living as it preempts all ability to satisfy preferences.

“It’s also problematic to say “I’m not a utilitarian”...”

We don’t have the space here for me to write a book. I could explain, in detail, why I am not a utilitarian and the flaws I see in utilitarian philosophy, but that would bore everyone to death. I prefer to actually talk about salient points rather than to obfuscate or get totally off track.

“If you’re not of the mind that we need to look at general benefits, and the beneficial effects that can come from harm, as part of the analysis of whether harm can be done in a moral fashion…your premises become personal and unique to you”

No they don’t. Utilitarianism is not the only ethical system out there, you know; there are many rights-based ethical systems out there that specifically disavow utilitarianism. My ethical system is specifically rights-based and is probably closest to that of Tom Regan. Rights-based systems tend to believe that the ends do not justify the means, while utilitarian systems believe that they do. Tom Regan explained some of the problems with utilitarianism here.

@crisw – you stated that death is the ultimate harm. That is an absolute statement. Because you made it, you open up room for criticism of it as an absolute statement. This requires us to look at cases where there are harms other than death. Therefore, contrary examples are completely applicable.

If we’re talking about why something is right or wrong, it’s impossible not to “write a book.” If you are not a utilitarian, that’s fine. But, don’t claim that your morality is superior to others if others (like myself) address the question from a more (and not completely) utilitarian perspective.

Examining the issue partially from a utilitarian perspective is not committing to the perspective. When we ask about ethics as they are to be applied, it is important to look at multiple ethical models in order to even attempt to get at answers that are the best all around. This is the general problem of putting theory into practice, and when we’re talking about morality, the difficulty of determining the validity of a moral system is perhaps the most impossible question we can address.

Interestingly, your first link incorporates aspects of utilitarianism, it seems – stating that utilitarianism is the classic “goal oriented” system and appears to end with the following:

This allows the possibility that an adequate normative ethics may include not only rights (as constraints) but also goals (or positive rights).

Maybe we ought morally both to respect the rights of others and to promote the goals of others.

Utilitarianism is embraced in a normative ethical system. Further, Tom Regan’s article does the most cursory job of discussing a rights-based system, particularly ignoring the difference between negative and positive rights. Positive rights are the rights, of course, to do something – e.g., to have an education, to labor as you choose, etc. If animals have the right to eat whatever they choose when available, so do we. A system that respects these rights equally, therefore, seems to necessitate that we utilize resources as available rather than as cultivated. This forgoes the possibility of us raising crops. Aspects of this idea are of course attractive, because it’s perhaps the ultimate statement of a sustainable system. It also, however, requires us to abandon technological progress. It also requires that those who would desire to raise crops, or raise meat, would not be allowed to do so as it places specific limits on the rights of those around them – vegetable, animal, sentient and human (my use of this land means that you can’t use it as you see fit). By necessity, we are constantly acknowledging that some rights at some times are given up in favor of others, and to others. It’s an almost Foucaultian recognition of a rights-dynamic parallel to his concept of a power-dynamic.

If we give up a positive right to cultivate, it also means that, to survive, we would most likely still be eating meat…as it is part of the available food sources around us.

This is, of course, not what you suggest – but it is an outgrowth of a rights-based methodology. ALL methodologies have their beginning and end points of utility. I’m surprised that you would dismiss one in favor of another, knowing that, logically, all require some form of hypocrisy in the end.

@iamthemob

You seem to be expecting a PhD thesis on a chat board. I am interested in writing something that other people (besides just you) may actually read.

If you think it’s all too cursory, and you truly are interested in the subject, may I suggest that you read Regan’s book The Case for Animal Rights? That’s 474 pages of hard philosophy that goes into the detail you seem to seek, inlcluding a much more in-depth critique of utilitarianism. You could also look up some of the debates Regan has had with Peter Singer on this issue (if you know much philosophy, you know that Singer is a hard-core utilitarian.) And it’s very close to what I believe.

“If animals have the right to eat whatever they choose when available, so do we.”

Naturalistic fallacy. Also confusing moral agents with moral patients.

I don’t know from where in a rights-based ethic you are obtaining statements such as “it is wrong to grow crops.” As plants do not feel pain and are not sentient, this objection doesn’t make much sense.

I think, though, that you may be saying this because of competition between animals and people. In that case the least harm principle comes into play. We have the right, as existing beings, to survive; we have the obligation to cause the least harm in doing so. Obviously, the very act of being alive causes home harm to other beings; the question is how we minimize it.

@crisw

All moral agents are moral patients, and vice versa, in a sensible rights-based methodology. Rights imply responsibilities, and if we are working within a rights-based methodology, if you have no responsibility you should have no real rights, or they should be deprivileged. Therefore, we need to look to other methodologies – partially, utilitarianism.

You seem to recognize this with the least harm principle – which is exactly what I’ve been referencing the entire time. I’ve said over and over that we need to determine the road that causes the least harm overall before we require others to “morally justify” certain statements…and if we believe in the least harm principle, we are bringing utilitarian concepts into the mix! It’s been mentioned before (but in my case, it was come to independently) that it’s rather intellectually dishonest to resort to a utilitarian defense of a rights-based ethical conclusion.

Unless you don’t believe in the LHP – in which case, we’re in a solely rights-based world…and kind of stuck with the “naturalistic fallacies” you seem to see in my arguments (you keep using that term – but I do not think it means what you think it means. ;-))

@iamthemob

“All moral agents are moral patients,”

I think you don’t know the philosophical definition of these terms. A “moral agent” is capable of making moral decisions; the canonical example is a normal adult human. A “moral patient” is not capable of making such decisions; examples include babies, the severely mentally handicapped, the senile and animals.

Saying that “Rights imply responsibilities” is a huge leap, as it would disenfranchise all moral patients, which no just society is willing to do.

As for the “least harm principle”- raining animals for food, no matter how humanely, isn’t an example of it, as the least harm is to raise no animals for food at all.

And I know exactly what a naturalistic fallacy is; and stating that because animals eat other animals, we can eat other animals is certainly an example of it.

Good debate..pouring cocktail while waiting on dinner lol

@crisw – I think you don’t know the fact that a moral agent is at times a moral patient, depending on the situation – consider this article from the Harvard Department of Psychology regarding how they interact, linked here: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Gray%20&%20Wegner%20(2009)%20Moral%20Typecasting.pdf

At any one point, a moral agent can be a moral patient. You’re right that there are “types” that are moral patients at all times – human infants, for instance.

BUT, we see the effective nature of rights generally in the legal context. When we’re dealing with humans who are effectively only moral patients (infants, let’s say) they have ZERO legal rights. Considering that they are not able to make decisions, all living situations generally – including the medical decision of whether they get to live or die, are made by others for them. They are not legally responsible for anything, and so have no rights. This is how it plays out in the practical world, and how if we’re going to talk about real rights, we must also discuss responsibilities.

However, children can at times be moral agents (e.g., when interacting with other children) as well as moral patients (when they are acted on by parents). In the legal context, this is recognized by the fact that they may have, in certain situations, a guardian ad litem appointed to them, they are still having their rights decided by others. The same goes for the senile, the severely mentally disabled. Those that are considered in a permanent vegetative state get the fact of whether they live or die decided by their family (or someone else by previously written contract).

Also, moral patients have no right to vote (literal disenfranchisement, which in fact every society does do), or their rights are limited depending on their relative ability to be a moral agent. For instance, we can own pets. We can’t own people. Is owning pets a moral wrong?

The idea of a moral agent and moral patient, therefore, means nothing if we don’t talk about it in the real world – and this relationship is also recognized in their philosophical definitions. A purely moral patient has less rights in every sense than a full moral agent, this is true throughout history (even a sacred cow can’t own property). This is partially because they are held less responsible for their actions by others. The role of the moral agent and the moral patient play against each other, and change in different situations. Where they don’t, and one is a pure patient, they are provided less rights.

You’re statement about the LHP provides no support, and is a pure assertion that is given with no evidence. I will address it when you support it, somehow.

The naturalistic fallacies that you claim I made, I have said are necessary outgrowths of a rights-based ethical system where all rights are equal. If all rights are not equal, then we need to consider that moral agents are provided more and better rights than patients. If we need to consider how their rights interact with ours because we want to cause the least overall harm, then we are bringing utilitarian aspects into the debate, and you haven’t disavowed utilitarianism, and we are outside a rights-based methodology.

And the rights based world falls apart.

@iamthemob

I pointed this out in the mouse DNA thread (these are so similar that I am getting the two confused!) – moral rights and legal rights are in no way equivalent or directly comparable.

@iamthemob

“The naturalistic fallacies that you claim I made, I have said are necessary outgrowths of a rights-based ethical system where all rights are equal. ”

You accuse me of making assumptions but make plenty of your own. As other have pointed out, this is a pattern of yours across many issues and many threads.

Nowhere did I say that “all rights are equal.” In this thread alone I discussed the difference between the harms of pain and death, for example.

Humans have a soul…....the chicken just has feathers, that is why we have chicken nuggets and not human nuggets.

Did Homo erectus have a soul?

@iamthemob

Another point I thought of-

“At any one point, a moral agent can be a moral patient.”

This is true. However, the reverse- which is much more important to a discussion of animal rights- is not. No matter what, a dog or a chicken or a wolf or a mouse will not become a moral agent. It is almost certainly true that no nonhuman animals are moral agents, and, if any are (great apes, cetaceans), the circle is small and the agency very limited.

Moral patients have rights, but they do not have correlative responsibilities.

Is anyone else but the two of us reading this discussion? It’s enjoyable, but I don’t know how much effort I want to put into a two-person discussion if no one else is getting anything out of it. .

@crisw – No, the eating of meat must not, by necessity, harm animals. Earlier I explained that the opposite is true (caring farmers and vets). There are no easy answers for many ethical questions and this seems to be one of them. So we disagree.

I think there are two other reasons for not eating too much meat and to me they are more important:

1) Eating too much meat harms our bodies
2) Eating too much meat harms our atmosphere and is a strain on our energy and water resources

@crisw

“At any one point, a moral agent can be a moral patient.”

This is true. However, the reverse- which is much more important to a discussion of animal rights- is not. No matter what, a dog or a chicken or a wolf or a mouse will not become a moral agent.

Wrong. But I already discussed this. It is possible to be only a moral patients, but if moral agents can be moral patients, then, by necessity the reverse is true. You can have a purely moral patient, but that doesn’t mean no moral patient can ever be a moral agent (I gave you the example of a child already).

Nowhere did I say that “all rights are equal.” In this thread alone I discussed the difference between the harms of pain and death, for example.

I never said you did. But, I said the problem with the LPH is that it’s a utilitarian defense of a rights-based methodology. Also, the argument is that all agents have equal rights, not that all rights are equal. If one individual has more rights than another, then we are dealing with some utilitarian aspects. Also, there is a difference here if we discuss positive rights (which must be provided and may interfere with each other) and negative rights (which may be interfered with by positive rights but can be provided generally equally as they only require that you refrain from doing something). Also, harms are not rights, so your second sentence doesn’t apply. Harms are harms, rights are rights.

“The naturalistic fallacies that you claim I made, I have said are necessary outgrowths of a rights-based ethical system where all rights are equal. ”

You accuse me of making assumptions but make plenty of your own. As other [_sic have pointed out, this is a pattern of yours across many issues and many threads._

If you’ve read the above regarding the equal rights scenario, maybe you’ll see that I wasn’t accusing you of making assumptions, but rather attempting to lay out what happens when we have a “rights-based only“methodology with utilitarian rescue. I say that the naturalistic fallacy is an outgrowth of it if we don’t bring in LPH, but LPH is utilitarian and therefore we no longer are resting solely on rights-based methodology. It’s following where the argument seems to lead, but if you disagree, I’d appreciate counterarguments instead of accusations and ad hominem attacks, which (he types recognizing the irony) it seems that you and your three little friends are so fond of.

moral rights and legal rights are in no way equivalent or directly comparable.

One is the outgrowth of the other. Legal rights are the way that our morality plays out in the real world. Legal rights are, in many ways, therefore, the practical outgrowth of what our idea of moral rights are. I doubt you disagree. That’s what I repeatedly said above, so the statement you make isn’t really applicable to the conversation.

If we’re talking about an ethical model that will practically work in the real world, it will inevitably find the form of laws and regulations.

It’s enjoyable, but I don’t know how much effort I want to put into a two-person discussion if no one else is getting anything out of it. [especially if it’s with someone accusing] me of making assumptions but mak[ing] plenty of [their] own. As other [_sic have pointed out, this is a pattern of yours across many issues and many threads._

You’re right, but I haven’t been enjoying it at all. So I’m going to agree to disagree with you and your band of merries, permanently.

@mattbrowne

“No, the eating of meat must not, by necessity, harm animals.”

How do you eat meat without killing an animal? Killing an animal harms it.

@iamthemob

“You can have a purely moral patient, but that doesn’t mean no moral patient can ever be a moral agent ”

I never said that, nor does it invalidate my point that most if not all nonhuman animals will never be moral agents.

“But, I said the problem with the LPH is that it’s a utilitarian defense of a rights-based methodology.”

I presume you mean LHP? Not if you read Regan’s take of it. Again, without writing a book, if you don’t aggregate harms (and most rights-based philosophies don’t), then it isn’t utilitarianism.

“Harms are harms, rights are rights.”

Rights serve to protect us from unjust harms.

“If we’re talking about an ethical model that will practically work in the real world, it will inevitably find the form of laws and regulations.”

Not always. Everyday politeness, for example, isn’t a legal system.

“So I’m going to agree to disagree with you and your band of merries, permanently.”

That’s nice. I didn’t realize I had a band.

I’ll be happy to continue discussing the topic with anyone else who wants to, but our conversation is apparently done, and that’s fine with me.

@crisw – I’m talking about instant painless death. This is why civilized countries have animals laws. And I am against ritual slaughter of mammals and birds, because I think that secular laws preempt religious “laws”. However not all judges see it this way and I disagree with their views.

@mattbrowne

Whether instant and painless or not, death is still death, and still removes all opportunity of future preference-fulfillment for the being involved. It is still a harm, and it is still treating a sentient being as a means to an end.

I don’t see death as a harmful thing. It is simply death.

I agree with making the death of any creature as painless and fearless as is possible and I do not agree with cruelty based industry, but…death in and of itself is not harmful.

We all ‘kill’ thousands of organisms every day inadvertantly.

Rub your eye, kill mites, spray Lysol in the bathroom, kill germs, drive through a swarm of gnats, mass extermination. lol

The best we can do is boycott cruelty based industry and make our own contributions to doing no harm.

@Coloma

“I don’t see death as a harmful thing. It is simply death.”

So, if someone wants to kill you right now, you would let them, because it doesn’t harm you?

“We all ‘kill’ thousands of organisms every day inadvertantly.”

Most of the organisms you mention aren’t sentient. Again, to a sentient organism, death is a harm.

@crisw

I’m not saying that my physical being would not put up a fight, just that on a basic level of nature death is a natural part of the cycle, so in this manner it is not harmful, it just is what it is.

I understand that germs are not considered sentient beings, but…they too have a will to survive and so, ultimately, regardless of sentience, they have a drive to survive like all living creatures.

I’m simply saying that death is not ‘harmful’ it is just death.

The opposite of life is not death, it is birth, life has no opposite. ;-)

why do I want KFC now…

It sounds like we have a PETA representative in here.

It is a diverse world we live in, there are groups of people who blame global warming on domestic animals, livestock etc and want to kill them all. Then there are those who never want to kill anything.

I just suggested to my dogs (and the neighbor’s chickens) that they go out and get a job to support themselves because apparently they are my equals. They laughed at me and told me how superior they are to me and that is why I must work to support them. We all have our place in this world, big fish eat little fish, big people eat little chickens. I belong to the group who says let all creatures roam free, eat well and have a good life until they are done away with quickly and mercifully. That is what will happen to my dogs when their time comes (and I hope to me as well). If someone really wants to eat them or me after we’re dead, then I just hope you have plenty of ketchup on hand.

@rooeytoo – my boyfriend constantly tells my dog to go get a job. I remind him that our dog does have a job…to be awesome, adorable, and totally hilarious. For that, we compensate him with room and board.

I’d like to redirect this from animals out of our food chain. How do you feel about humans using chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys for experimentation? Further, imagine if other hominid ancestors, like Australopiths, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Homo erectus, or Neandethal were currently in existence. Would it be okay to kill them like we do dolphins or whales? What are the moral implications of that?

Some state humans have a soul. At what point since hominids first appeared 8 million years ago and radiated into many species did they develop a soul? This begs the question, “does the soul exist”, but if one does believe in the soul is it reasonable to assume only Homo sapiens have one?

Finally, as more food for thought, if we think it’s OK to kill “lesser” species, what if human-like aliens landed on our planet and appeared more physically “beautiful” and intelligent (larger brains) than humans. Would we value their life as greater than ours, as they are “more” evolved, or would we want to protect our own species from them? In other words, if you saw a human and one of these “greater” being about to get hit by a car, who would your instinct prompt you to push out of the way?

And super finally, if humans can use chimpanzees and monkeys for experimentation, why would it be different if these aliens used us for experimentation to test viruses, neurological functions, etc..?

Maybe some of these questions should be their own thread, but I’m pleased with the crowd following this thread and hopefully there will be some interesting discourse on these alternates.

@rooeytoo

“It sounds like we have a PETA representative in here.”

Nope, far from it.

“I just suggested to my dogs (and the neighbor’s chickens) that they go out and get a job to support themselves because apparently they are my equals. ”

You are trivializing the discussion. No one has suggested this. Can we keep this on an intellectual level please? I really don’t understand why, when discussing a serious philosophical issue, some people feel the need to respond with trivializations and flippant remarks rather than reasoned, serious discussion.

@Coloma

“I’m not saying that my physical being would not put up a fight, just that on a basic level of nature death is a natural part of the cycle, so in this manner it is not harmful, it just is what it is.”

Sure, death is natural- so are suffering, starvation, disease, parasitism, etc. I am not certain exactly what your conception of “death is natural” has to do with killing animals for food. As moral agents, we have the obligation to cause the least harm possible, and inflicting death is a serious harm indeed.

I also don’t think that germs have any “wants.” They show no signs of preference autonomy. This is a basic prerequisite for a sentient being.

@cockswain

As far as the ape issue, I think Richard Dawkins put it best in his essay “Gaps in the Mind.”. Read it- it’s a powerful essay. In brief, imagine you holding your mother’s hand, who holds your grandmother’s hand, etc. in an unbroken chain through time, back to the last common ancestor of you and a chimpanzee. There is no sharp dividing line, only gradual change.

Now, wipe out the intermediaries. You’re left with us and the chimps. In essence, that’s what’s happened.

“I have argued that the discontinuous gap between humans and ‘apes’ that we erect in our minds is regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of survival and extinction had been different, the gap would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as if cast in stone.”

@crisw – you really sound like a school teacher, thank you for the correction.

I have found all of your arguments so far to be trivial and actually absurd, so I was just adjusting to that level.

If you want to equate humans and chickens, or any animal (except perhaps, my dogs), I disagree.

@rooeytoo

“I have found all of your arguments so far to be trivial and actually absurd, so I was just adjusting to that level.”

Why the need for ad hominem attacks rather than an actual substantial reply to what I said?

@crisw @rooeytoo Guys, seriously. Neither of you will convince the other you are more right. How about contemplating the weird alien idea I put out there instead?

@cockswain

I did (if you are talking about the ape discussion above).

@crisw You did, I know. I didn’t only mention apes though, and although it isn’t up to me if you want to waste time arguing with @rooeytoo, I was hoping you could lend your intelligence to the other questions in there as well. Should you care to.

I haven’t had a chance to read the Dawkins link yet.

@crisw

Well, it is man that has conceptualized and designated what ‘sentient’ means.

If one has not lived the life of a germ, then we simply don’t know what driving forces they experience regardless of our thoughts on such. Bottom line.

In a perfect world yes, we would not kill anything, but we live in an imperfect world so the best we can do is try to afford some measure of life quality for the animals that we harvest.

Germs ‘want’ what every living thing wants, the opportunity to fulfill their life cycle.

I am simply saying that death is not the great enemy, it is not about death but the method of and quality of life proceeding.

Better to be a free range chicken scratching in the grass, taking a dust bath, chasing a bug and then ‘dispatched’ than a crippled, caged and debeaked producton machine.

No argument there.

@cockswain

Sure, I’d be happy to answer them. I just thought it would be too obvious what I would say :>D

I don’t believe in souls, so that one isn’t too germane to me. I do believe that talk of souls is useless in right decisions because no one can prove them and every religion has a different idea of who or what has them.

The ‘aliens experimenting on us” theme is very common in animal rights literature- for obvious reasons. Not only is it logically powerful, it’s emotionally resonant as well. It is especially good at showing that “might makes right” isn’t a workable ethical solution. And, of course, it helps illustrate the point I have been trying to make all along- that there is no sharp dividing line that separates us from all other animals.

@Coloma

“Well, it is man that has conceptualized and designated what ‘sentient’ means.”

This is true of any concept defined with language, so I am not sure of the relevance of this statement to rights possession. Once we have defined the word “sentient” with terms that are meaningful and relevant, then we can use study and reason to determine which beings are sentient and which are not.

“If one has not lived the life of a germ, then we simply don’t know what driving forces they experience regardless of our thoughts on such.”

This is, of course, true of any other living thing. I cannot be 100% certain that every person I encounter is not a robot or a figment of my imagination. I can only make reasoned, data-based decisions.

When it comes to sentiency, there are behaviors, actions, neurological reactions, etc. that can be observed and measured. Those beings that display a wide range of these actions are likely sentient; those that do not likely are not. Germs do not.

In addition, the existence of gray areas doesn’t invalidate the arguments for those beings that clearly do pass the sentience criteria.

“Better to be a free range chicken scratching in the grass, taking a dust bath, chasing a bug and then ‘dispatched’ than a crippled, caged and debeaked producton machine.”

False dilemma. While this is a true statement, it is even better to be a chicken allowed to experience these preferences for a lifetime. The fact that one’s life is good is not a justification for ending it early, and, again, no justification has been provided for why killing this happy chicken, who wants to go on living, because you wish to eat it, is a morally defensible act.

@crisw

Well…as often is the case, choosing the lesser of two evils.

Better a happy chicken with a short life than an unhappy chicken with a long life. lol

I have kept chickens for years and they are quite intelligent, never killed mine, collected eggs yes.

I’m just in a place of acceptance these days in my maturity, I no longer have idealistic fantasies of how things ‘should’ be.

They are what they are and I do my part.

I don’t believe we have the right to randomly kill anything, but we do.

Sooo…IMO it is not about moral defrense it is about acceptance of what is and doing the one and only thing we can, modulate our own individual conduct.

Clearly your biggest investment is in being right, trumping others contributions and getting the last word in.

You’ll fit right in here. lol

@Coloma

“Well…as often is the case, choosing the lesser of two evils.”

False dilemma again- there is no need to kill the chicken.

“I’m just in a place of acceptance these days in my maturity, I no longer have idealistic fantasies of how things ‘should’ be.”

I don’t think anything I have said is “idealistic fantasy.” How is anything I have said either? it’s an argument based on reason and logic. Of course it is true that, right now, most people in our society do not recognize the rights of animals. That doesn’t mean that arguments for animal rights are “fantasy,” any more than any struggle for social justice in the past was a “fantasy” just because it was improbable at the time. Ethics must always examine what ought to be, not just what is.

“it is about acceptance of what is and doing the one and only thing we can, modulate our own individual conduct.”

We can modulate our conduct by not eating any sentient animals. This is not “fantasy,” millions of people do it.

“Clearly your biggest investment is in being right, trumping others contributions and getting the last word in.”

sigh, yet another ad hominem attack…

Why, exactly, do you make such accusations? Should I not defend my position when it’s questioned? Should I not point out things that are illogical, or not defended, or not supported?

I hold myself to the same standard that I would hold others to. When I take a position on an issue, I expect to be able to defend it logically. I don’t see why that is a bad thing.

@crisw, I find your sentience criterion to be problematic. Chickens are extraordinarily stupid. They are close to robotlike in their behavior. A nesting hen attacks anything that approaches. The only reason she does not kill chicks is that her attack instinct is shut off by their peeping sounds. Plug her ears and she will attack the chicks. A chicken is able to run around for a short time after its head is cut off. Thinking of a chicken as being more sentient than say, a bee, seems to me to be a bit of a stretch.

On vegetaianism, I am with matt. We should limit the amount of meat we eat for health and global ecomomic reasons.