I don’t think anybody called pigs or cows morally inferior?
Our farming practices were arrived at mostly through utilitarianism. What was easy to raise, what tasted good, what animals had food readily available for them nearby, what would sell, etc.
I don’t think anybody called pigs or cows morally inferior?
Many, many people say or think “they’re just animals, so it’s not wrong to kill them”, which is the same argument.
Our farming practices were arrived at mostly through utilitarianism.
Maybe you meant pragmatically? Utilitarianism would include the suffering of the victim, but 99% of meat eaters I met (also my former self) buy meat from supermarkets and restaurants with no regard or even thought of the living conditions that the animals had to endure.
Our farming practices were arrived at by the free market. Farmers have to continually lower production costs to stay cost-competetive, because most customers buy the cheapest products available. If two restaurants had the same meal, one at 12$ and the other 10$, almost everyone will choose the cheaper option of course, no questions asked.
Cost reduction had been the main driving factor for our farming practices in the last few decades. Suffering is irrelevant for capitalism.
Many, many people say or think “they’re just animals, so it’s not wrong to kill them”, which is the same argument.
Morally inferior would be “they have a differing belief structure that is lesser than mine”. Like how most religions on the planet see each other, for example. To speak broadly, animals do not have morals because they do not have beliefs unless you broaden the word heavily.
Maybe you meant pragmatically?
No, farmers / people who raised their own livestock all across the world independently did what was convenient for them at the time and most arrived at similar practices. To look at your examples, you may be meaning post-industrialization. I was meaning the most of the rest of human history. Although after industrialization, I could argue they were both both pragmatic and utilitarian. Suffering does not factor into either of those things. It’s a byproduct, not a goal.
Morally inferior would be “they have a differing belief structure that is lesser than mine”.
Oh, that’s the misunderstanding. I meant morally inferior in terms of their moral value (how much their lives are worth to us).
To speak broadly, animals do not have morals because they do not have beliefs unless you broaden the word heavily.
I agree that they don’t have moral systems. When we save people from burning buildings or oppose murder, thats because we see them as having moral value, their beliefs have nothing to do with that.
To look at your examples, you may be meaning post-industrialization.
Yes, our farming practices changed a lot after the industrialization, and current practices are what’s relevant now. In the past people just scrambled not to starve or be malnourished in the winter, which fortunately isn’t a concern in most societies anymore. Almost everyone has access to supermarkets and can live a healthy life without meat, which wasn’t possible in the past.
If some people have to steal food to survive, that doesn’t justify stealing when it’s not a necessity anymore. So talking about historic situations is besides the point here.
Although after industrialization, I could argue they were both both pragmatic and utilitarian. Suffering does not factor into either of those things.
That literally goes against the definition of utilitarianism:
In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.
If you take the negative effects on affected individuals out of the equation, that’s not utilitarianism, that’s egoism. Putting animals on miserable factory farms for their whole life to get a few minutes of taste pleasure doesn’t maximize utility, it minimizes utility. Not to speak of the resource cost and environmental destruction which is a huge negative for human society.
It’s odd to me that definition is the primary one on Wikipedia as it doesn’t match with the definition I knew of. I have never seen the word
“happiness” used in conjunction with the definition of that word in my entire literary history, but it seems to be a viable definition.
The definitions I knew of are:
“Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that asserts that right and wrong are best determined by focusing on outcomes of actions and choices.”
Or to use the dictionary definition, “the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.”
To use the primary definition for the moment - for the farmer, raising the animals, slaughtering them in an efficient manner, and getting them to market is utilitarian. Doubly so if you don’t consider animals on the same level as the humans (which many, including the animals themselves due to a lack of broad thought, do not).
If you factor in that plants can also feel pain, you’re left with a real moral quandary if your primary reason to be vegan is to not harm living things.
Not understanding the pain or finding a way to measure the pain does not mean there is no pain.
Even if plants could feel pain, we could reduce suffering by skipping the inefficient middleman that endures suffering and causes “suffering” to many more plants than what is needed for anyone’s sustenance.
Not baseless. There are many sources and studies claiming the opposite of yours, and as someone who worked in forestry (and lived on a non-corporate farm that produced mostly alfalfa), it’s somewhat more apparent once you’re there and present in that world.
Do not make the mistake of ignoring the evidence because you don’t like the outcome. You not understanding the pain does not mean there is no pain. Life for some means death for others. Period. You can not avoid it on a micro or macro scale, all you can do is change WHAT you kill.
I don’t think anybody called pigs or cows morally inferior?
Our farming practices were arrived at mostly through utilitarianism. What was easy to raise, what tasted good, what animals had food readily available for them nearby, what would sell, etc.
Many, many people say or think “they’re just animals, so it’s not wrong to kill them”, which is the same argument.
Maybe you meant pragmatically? Utilitarianism would include the suffering of the victim, but 99% of meat eaters I met (also my former self) buy meat from supermarkets and restaurants with no regard or even thought of the living conditions that the animals had to endure.
Our farming practices were arrived at by the free market. Farmers have to continually lower production costs to stay cost-competetive, because most customers buy the cheapest products available. If two restaurants had the same meal, one at 12$ and the other 10$, almost everyone will choose the cheaper option of course, no questions asked.
Cost reduction had been the main driving factor for our farming practices in the last few decades. Suffering is irrelevant for capitalism.
Morally inferior would be “they have a differing belief structure that is lesser than mine”. Like how most religions on the planet see each other, for example. To speak broadly, animals do not have morals because they do not have beliefs unless you broaden the word heavily.
No, farmers / people who raised their own livestock all across the world independently did what was convenient for them at the time and most arrived at similar practices. To look at your examples, you may be meaning post-industrialization. I was meaning the most of the rest of human history. Although after industrialization, I could argue they were both both pragmatic and utilitarian. Suffering does not factor into either of those things. It’s a byproduct, not a goal.
Oh, that’s the misunderstanding. I meant morally inferior in terms of their moral value (how much their lives are worth to us).
I agree that they don’t have moral systems. When we save people from burning buildings or oppose murder, thats because we see them as having moral value, their beliefs have nothing to do with that.
Yes, our farming practices changed a lot after the industrialization, and current practices are what’s relevant now. In the past people just scrambled not to starve or be malnourished in the winter, which fortunately isn’t a concern in most societies anymore. Almost everyone has access to supermarkets and can live a healthy life without meat, which wasn’t possible in the past.
If some people have to steal food to survive, that doesn’t justify stealing when it’s not a necessity anymore. So talking about historic situations is besides the point here.
That literally goes against the definition of utilitarianism:
If you take the negative effects on affected individuals out of the equation, that’s not utilitarianism, that’s egoism. Putting animals on miserable factory farms for their whole life to get a few minutes of taste pleasure doesn’t maximize utility, it minimizes utility. Not to speak of the resource cost and environmental destruction which is a huge negative for human society.
It’s odd to me that definition is the primary one on Wikipedia as it doesn’t match with the definition I knew of. I have never seen the word “happiness” used in conjunction with the definition of that word in my entire literary history, but it seems to be a viable definition.
The definitions I knew of are: “Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that asserts that right and wrong are best determined by focusing on outcomes of actions and choices.”
Or to use the dictionary definition, “the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.”
To use the primary definition for the moment - for the farmer, raising the animals, slaughtering them in an efficient manner, and getting them to market is utilitarian. Doubly so if you don’t consider animals on the same level as the humans (which many, including the animals themselves due to a lack of broad thought, do not).
If you factor in that plants can also feel pain, you’re left with a real moral quandary if your primary reason to be vegan is to not harm living things.
Not understanding the pain or finding a way to measure the pain does not mean there is no pain.
Seems like a baseless claim, we have a pretty good understanding of plant experience.
Mallatt, J., Blatt, M.R., Draguhn, A. et al. Debunking a myth: plant consciousness. Protoplasma 258, 459–476 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w
Hamilton, Adam & McBrayer, Justin. (2020). Do Plants Feel Pain?. Disputatio. 12. 71-98. 10.2478/disp-2020-0003.
Even if plants could feel pain, we could reduce suffering by skipping the inefficient middleman that endures suffering and causes “suffering” to many more plants than what is needed for anyone’s sustenance.
Not baseless. There are many sources and studies claiming the opposite of yours, and as someone who worked in forestry (and lived on a non-corporate farm that produced mostly alfalfa), it’s somewhat more apparent once you’re there and present in that world.
To quote myself on another thread:
I trust you know how to use search, but: https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group-of-scientists-suggest-that-plants-feel-pain.htm You can find many more if you look. We’ve known for a while that trees do this, and fungi are absolutely notorious for this. Plants respond to warnings from their peers about dangers, brace for pain, and signal pain to others.
Do not make the mistake of ignoring the evidence because you don’t like the outcome. You not understanding the pain does not mean there is no pain. Life for some means death for others. Period. You can not avoid it on a micro or macro scale, all you can do is change WHAT you kill.
Yeah. I don’t eat bacon because pigs are racists. I eat it because I can, and I like it