usenet/argument_for_ethical_eating.html
From our archives of Tom's USENET posts. Some of these posts are over a decade old. The author may have mellowed with age since these were written, but the basic views remain. (Please note that web links inside this document may be broken.)
<![CDATA[From tms Thu Apr 29 18:15:25 EDT 1993
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: argument for ethical eating
Summary:
Expires:
References: <23602@mindlink.bc.ca> <mhulsey-280493113224@fatrat.
fcs.uga.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)
Keywords:
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>If you have a rational argument that would suggest, given the option of
>killing nothing, that it is ethically superior to kill non-sentient beings
>rather than sentient beings for food, I would love to read it.
Killing nothing is not an option.
Your body probably kills hundred, if not thousands, of bacteria per day,
if you immune system is in working order. Scratch an itch, kill a few dozen
skin mites.
Even if you keep to a diet of only seeds, nuts and fruits, you'll kill
millions of cells.
===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu | "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
"You all look like happy campers to me. Happy campers you are, happy
campers you have been, and, as far as I am concerned, happy campers you
will always be."
-- Former Vice President Dan Quayle, to the American Samoans,
whose capital Quayle pronounces "Pogo Pogo"
From tms Sat May 1 13:14:24 EDT 1993
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: argument for ethical eating
Summary:
Expires:
References: <mhulsey-290493094156@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> <C69GAy.
DF6@wpg.com> <mhulsey-300493074129@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)
Keywords:
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>Yes, and sentience and sapience are irrelevant when evaluating a living
>being's capacity for death or injury.
True, but not useful. The capacity to suffer death and injury in not
a consideration in the ethics of animal treatment. A single bacterium can
suffer death and injury. What we are concered with (I beleive almost all
ethical vegetarians will agree) is mental processes.
>This is a bogus analogy. We are not talking about injury or irritating
>noise. We are talking about the death of living beings. Again, just
>because non-sentient beings cannot "experience" death doesn't imply that
>they cannot suffer death.
The can "suffer", meaning "to be the object of some action", death,
meaning undergo death, become dead. They cannot "suffer", however, meaning
"to undergo or feel pain or distress." Which is the point.
>> It's clear to many of us that non-human animals do, indeed, experience
>> pain and pleasure in life. As such, we have an obligation to
>> take their experiences into account when we're planning our meals.
>
>This does not follow. The fact that non-sentient beings may not experience
>pain and pleasure makes them no less dead when you eat them. Those who
>would claim ethical superiority at dinnertime have an obligation to
>consider the death/injury of living beings when planning their meals.
One more time: death, by itself, the biological phenomena whereby
certain chemical reactions cease and complex molecules breakdown, is not
the concern. What is the concern is that, as a result of the death of some
organisms, there is an ending of what might be called a "life experience".
It is the ending of such an experience that is deemed unethical.
>> On the other hand, there's no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate
>> that cabbages experience their environments in any way.
>
>So what? You aren't altering a non-sentient being's environment when you
>eat it. You are killing it. All living beings have an equal capacity to
>suffer death.
True. So what? That bacterium a white cell in your body in destroying
can suffer death _just as well as you can!_ Oh no!
>My point is not as you suggest above, but as follows:
>
>Given the option of fruitarianism and its related regimens, it is not more
>ethical to kill and eat living beings.
First, I am not convinced that a fruitarian diet, even an
ovo/lacto/fruitarian diet, would be healthy. Putting that aside, hovever,
let me repeat: the ethical criteron here is not life. It is the ability to
experience. (IMHO, of course. But I don't thing any ethical vegetarians
will disagree. Note that I would therefore grant ethical consideration to a
non-living experiencer, such as an intelligent computer, or an
extraterrestial being based on a chemistry we wouldn't consdier as living.)
>Sentience and sapience have no
>bearing on an organism's capacity for death.
True, but not useful. What they bear on is the ending of experience.
>They are vague criteria for
>determining what is and is not ethical to eat, because you and others have
>failed to indicate which species are and are not sentient/sapient.
Mammals, to a high degree. Birds, to a fairly high degree. Reptiles,
less so. Amphibians, even less so. Fish, less so. Invertebrates, barely.
These are speculations based on the relative complexity and capacity
of nervous systems. I can never know for sure if another being is sentient
or sapient, having no way to get inside its head. I don't even know for
sure if other human beings have any interal experience; maybe you're all
dark inside. But from our limited knowledge of physiology and behavioral
observations, we can estimate to what degree various animals have an
experience of life.
>Vegetarians and omnivores both kill living beings for their nutriture, so
>these regimens have equal ethical implications.
Clearly and completely false. Cannibals kill living beings for food
(I can't find "nutriture" in my dictionary); does your my diet have the
same ethical implications as that of a man who kills other men for food?
>Lacto/ovo/fruitarian
>dietary regimens have the ethical advantage that no intentional killing of
>any living being is required.
As currently performed, dairy product and egg production involve the
severe mistreatment of animals; this needs to be considered.
===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu | "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member
of congress. But I repeat myself."
-- Mark Twain
From tms Mon May 3 14:50:14 EDT 1993
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: argument for ethical eating
Summary:
Expires:
References: <mhulsey-300493074129@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> <67136@
mimsy.umd.edu> <mhulsey-030593090552@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)
Keywords:
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
)) Killing nothing is not an option.
)
)Let us not use the unavoidable, inadvertent killing of microscopic
)organisms to justify the avoidable, intentional killing of macroscopic
)organisms.
...
)Let us distinguish between "killing" cells which represent a *potential*
)for life as opposed to those which are or comprise living beings capable of
)independent existence. If one wants to avoid killing potential life forms
)such as seeds, one can always eat fruit and plant the seeds.
For the sake of argument, ok.
)) True, but not useful. The capacity to suffer death and injury in not
))a consideration in the ethics of animal treatment.
)
)You are waving your hands. We are not discussing "the ethics of animal
)treatment." We are discussing the ethics of intentionally killing and
)eating sentient & non-sentient beings as opposed to the option of killing
)nothing. If you presume to rebut my arguments, please stay on topic.
Do you deny that this discussion takes place in the context of the
ethics of animal treatment? (This is, after all, rec.food.veg)
)) The can "suffer", meaning "to be the object of some action", death,
))meaning undergo death, become dead. They cannot "suffer", however, meaning
))"to undergo or feel pain or distress." Which is the point.
)
)No, that is not the point. Non-sentient living beings cannot suffer in a
)painful sense, but they can certainly suffer. Even in the non-painful
)sense, "suffer" does not *only* mean "to be the object of some action." or
)"to undergo or sustain." It *also* means "to sustain loss, injury, harm or
)punishment."
)
)Ted and I have expended much bandwidth on this trivial point already. I
)respectfully suggest that you and others consult your dictionaries lest we
)waste more.
I did indeed consult my dictionary.
A non-sentient living being can "suffer" injury the same way a
building can "suffer" damage from an earthquake. That is the _only_ way it
can suffer. Your use of the word is clearly an attempt to confuse the
different meanings of the words as clearly a rhetorical ploy.
)) One more time: death, by itself, the biological phenomena whereby
))certain chemical reactions cease and complex molecules breakdown, is not
))the concern.
)
)Yes it is. Have you been reading this thread?
For _you_, it may be the concern. To _me_, it isn't. Fair enough?
)))Given the option of fruitarianism and its related regimens, it is not more
)))ethical to kill and eat living beings.
))
)) First, I am not convinced that a fruitarian diet, even an
))ovo/lacto/fruitarian diet, would be healthy.
)
)Good point. A fruitarian diet would be fundamentally deficient in vitamin
)B-12, just as a vegan regimen is fundamentally deficient. Both regimens
)would require supplementation or fortification with respect to that
)nutrient.
A vegan regimen need not be fundamentally deficient in B-12. This is
mostly a product of modern food production techniques. B-12 is produced by
various bacteria; if we ate our vegetables straight from the soil, we'd get
enough B-12.
)A lacto- or ovolactofruitarian diet is nutritionally complete just as a
)lacto- or ovolactovegetarian diet, and would not require any
)supplementation.
There's more to a healthy diet that merely the presence of all
required nutrients. A lacto/ovo/fruitarian diet would, I think, tend to be
higher in fat that the vegan diet; certainly higher in cholesterol.
)Fruitarianism and its related regimens have an additional
)ethical advantage over vegetarianism in that they do not require the
)intentional killing of organisms for food.
Only if you grant ethical consideration to plants.
))Note that I would therefore grant ethical consideration to a
))non-living experiencer, such as an intelligent computer, or an
))extraterrestial being based on a chemistry we wouldn't consdier as living.)
)
)But you apparently grant no ethical consideration to terrestrial beings
)that do not share human-like characteristics such as sentience and
)sapience.
My ethical concern is with those beings capable of experiences.
)If my suppositions are correct, how can you justify this position?
...
)You seem ready to grant consideration to extraterrestrial beings of
)uncertain sentience/sapience, yet you seem to grant no consideration to
)non-sentient living beings just because you like to eat them. This seems
)inconsistent to me. Please explain.
The difference between inanimate objects and living non-sentient
beings is mostly one of chemistry. It's an interesting difference, to be
sure; but it is not one that arouses in me any compassion.
Whether I like to eat them is irrelavent. I don't eat poision ivy, but
that doesn't mean I give it ethical consideration.
What is the source of _your_ ethical concern about living,
non-sentient beings?
)))They are vague criteria for
)))determining what is and is not ethical to eat, because you and others have
)))failed to indicate which species are and are not sentient/sapient.
))
)) Mammals, to a high degree. Birds, to a fairly high degree. Reptiles,
))less so. Amphibians, even less so. Fish, less so. Invertebrates, barely.
)) These are speculations based on the relative complexity and capacity
))of nervous systems. I can never know for sure if another being is sentient
))or sapient, having no way to get inside its head. I don't even know for
))sure if other human beings have any interal experience; maybe you're all
))dark inside. But from our limited knowledge of physiology and behavioral
))observations, we can estimate to what degree various animals have an
))experience of life.
)
)"Degree?" "Speculations?" "Estimate?" Thank you for reaffirming that
)sentience/sapience are vague criteria for determining which species are and
)are not ethical to eat.
The criteria are not vague, but our knowledge about them is. With
greater knowledge of the relationship between the brain and the mind, we
could possibly quantify this.
)))Vegetarians and omnivores both kill living beings for their nutriture, so
)))these regimens have equal ethical implications.
))
)) Clearly and completely false. Cannibals kill living beings for food
))(I can't find "nutriture" in my dictionary); does your my diet have the
))same ethical implications as that of a man who kills other men for food?
)
)I have addressed this previously. Killing one's own species for food is
)usually maladaptive, and is therefore usually considered unethical.
"Maladaptive" has nothing to do with "unethical". "Maladaptive" refers
to a matter of practicality, not ethics.
Let's get this straight: ethics is that branch of philosophy that
deals with how we "should" live our lives. While practical matters must be
dealt with in any field of thought, they do not dictate ethics.
===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu | "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
Johnny Hart's comic strip "B.C.": "If man evolved from the ape, how come
there are still apes around? Some of them were given choices."
]]>
1 day 37 min ago
3 days 20 hours ago
3 days 21 hours ago
5 days 23 hours ago
2 weeks 3 days ago
6 weeks 5 days ago
7 weeks 5 days ago
8 weeks 1 hour ago
8 weeks 22 hours ago
8 weeks 4 days ago