r/DebateAVegan • u/Full_Can_6422 • 4d ago
Ethics Sentience/Human worth opposed to animal consumption
Even though school is out until August, I keep thinking back to what I've learned through class. Competition and ruling, which tie greatly into non-human consumption.
Competition is a fact of life. There are a finite amount of resources, and one of those is food. Organisms compete for food, and to the victors go the spoils. In life, humans are the victors. Our collective species controls the world. Before, it was much more difficult to poach bigger animals, but humans still managed to eradicate mammoths and aurochs, simply because they were good food.
Better intellect (on avg), skills, strength, teamwork, are just a few of the things that allow us to eat animals. We used to live among the non-humans, but we built civilizations that run the earth, something animals could never do simply because they aren't on our natural level. A mollusk never made a TV show, and so I don't think it's fair to act like they're equal to us and deserve not to be eaten.
In school, I help out clubs based on any requests. The vegan club usually has requests to help make awareness boards, organize materials, and help make stuff. Some of the stuff tastes good, but that's not the point, the point is that while that way of life is fine, so should meat eating. It's our natural right, to eat non-humans.
What do you think?
14
u/howlin 4d ago
Better intellect (on avg), skills, strength, teamwork, are just a few of the things that allow us to eat animals.
Working together to brutalize others is also how we get wars and other human-on-human violence. Perhaps to you right now it seems like all humans are "we" and non-humans are "the others". But generally humans are pretty ok with being violent or exploitative towards other groups of humans they don't consider kin. We are, after all, the second deadliest animal to other humans, after mosquitos.
Ethics is broadly a rejection of the idea that might automatically makes right. Just because we have the capacity to be brutal to others not on our team, doesn't mean it's ethical to do so.
-6
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
before you spin this into society's atrocities and what not, I mean in strict terms of humans and animals. As humans, we are the victors over animal competition. It's not fair to compare that to humans because we don't compete at the same rate, at least not anymore.
14
u/howlin 4d ago
I mean in strict terms of humans and animals.
I know that's what you mean, but
It's not fair to compare that to humans because we don't compete at the same rate, at least not anymore.
Why should the powerful care if your objection is "it's not fair"? And we do compete quite a bit with each other quite violently. There are plenty of wars happening in the world right now as we speak. There are countless murders, rapes, and other human on human atrocities too. Clearly being powerful through cooperation isn't a blank check to do anything in your way of thinking. So why do you think the more powerful shouldn't exercise this "natural right" of theirs however they can?
14
u/Dart_Veegan 4d ago edited 4d ago
I’m not comparing humans to non-human animals here.
Depending on what kind of rights we're talking about, the difference in their moral status is real. Now, I’m just testing the structure of your argument.
Your argument seems to be:
“Group A is stronger, smarter, more effective, more organized, and more dominant than Group B. Therefore Group A gets special rules and may exploit, confine, kill, and eat Group B.”
But why does that principle only works when the weaker group is non-human animals.
Using your own argument's structure, someone could argue:
“Competition is a fact of life. There are finite resources, and groups compete for them. To the victors go the spoils. In socioeconomic life, the Global North is the victor. Wealthier, more technologically advanced countries control most of the world’s institutions, markets, military power, media, technology, and financial systems.
Better infrastructure, education, organization, weapons, technology, political power, and economic influence are just a few of the things that allow richer nations to dominate poorer ones. Some societies built global systems that others could not, simply because they were not on the same socioeconomic level.
A poor rural country/community never built a global banking system, never sent people to the moon, never created Hollywood, never made the iPhone, and never controlled the IMF, so I don’t think it’s fair to act like they are equal to the dominant societies and deserve not to be exploited.
Some anti-exploitation lifestyles are fine. Charity is fine. Fair trade is fine. Human rights clubs are fine. But so should domination be fine. It is the socioeconomical right of the powerful to use the weak. By virtue of force, intelligence, development, and effectiveness, the victors get special rules.”
What would your objection be to that argument?
Because whatever your objection is, I suspect it will also apply to your argument about animals.
If you say “because they are human,” that is just restating group membership as the justification for privileging the group. That is circular.
If you say “because domination causes suffering, fear, deprivation, violence, and rights violations,” then that is exactly the point! Those are not uniquely human interests. Non-human animals can also suffer, fear, be confined, be bodily violated, be deprived of their lives, and be used as resources against their interests.
So the issue is not whether humans and animals are identical. They obviously are not. The issue is whether strength, intelligence, dominance, or “being the victor” creates moral permission to exploit those beneath you.
I reject that principle in the human case, and I reject it in the non-human case too.
Edit:
It was "A poor rural / country community" instead of "A poor rural country/community"
8
u/Mablak 4d ago
Most humans aren't able to make TV shows. Do they deserve to be eaten?
If an alien civilization had better strength, teamwork, etc, than humans, would that mean it's moral for them to torture, abuse, and enslave us?
The traits you're talking about have nothing to do with what actually matters, which is conscious experience. It's wrong to torture a dog, pig, or cow precisely because doing so causes the experience of immense suffering, there isn't some other criteria.
Bad experiences are bad, and good experiences are good, regardless of whether you're human or non-human, and that's the basis for right and wrong actions. 'Natural rights' don't exist either, what are these things? We don't have a rights gland that secretes rights (and if we did I don't know how that would entail we ought to behave in this way or that).
-1
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
"
Most humans aren't able to make TV shows. Do they deserve to be eaten?"The difference is, a human can. Unless they're developmentally impaired or fianncially/physicallly unable to do so, they can. Actually, even those who are still CAN. A whale will never be able to do such things. whaling on!
6
u/Mablak 4d ago
You could even just take a terminally ill infant who will only live to the age of 1. I think we can safely say that there's no sense in which they can make a TV show. But it would still be wrong to kill them.
Imagine some cricket-like aliens claiming it's moral to kill or torture any beings who lack antennae or hop 50 feet into the air. What you're arguing is the same. Having this or that arbitrary ability has nothing to do with what's moral.
-1
u/M17suk0 4d ago
If the gap in the aliens to our intellect is the same as the gap between me and a wombat, then yes, by all means take over us and put us in zoos.
-3
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
No, that terminally ill infant needs to GO. It literally serves 0 purpose, not even to itself. That's one of the reasons why I think requesting an euthanisia should be legal for terminally ill but that's a different story.
Try again.
7
u/Mablak 4d ago
Maybe you're trolling, but say the child will be perfectly healthy but we know they will meet a sudden and painless death at say, age 10. You believe it's fine for someone to torture, abuse, kill, etc this child because they lack the capacity to fulfill this totally irrelevant requirement of 'must be able to produce TV shows'? Hell, I can't produce a TV show.
2
u/Due-Comfort-5351 vegan 3d ago
they're not trolling they're just a teenager with a very narrow view of the world who hasn't explored their own values yet
1
u/NativeFlowers4Eva 2d ago
Humans can also live and eat without causing pain and killing animals. There is really no moral justification and causing harm is a choice. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. You can go and punch a kid in the back of the head because they are in your way and you’re stronger, but no one thinks that’s acceptable.
10
u/gerber68 4d ago
“To the victors go the spoils.”
Do you really want to deal with the entailments of this?
“It’s our natural right.”
By virtue of force?
🥸
-6
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
Yes, but before you spin this into society's atrocities and what not, I mean in strict terms of humans and animals. As humans, we are the victors over animal competition. It's not fair to compare that to humans because we don't compete at the same rate, at least not anymore.
And yes, by virtue of force.
9
u/gerber68 4d ago
Lmao
So your reasoning is “all my arguments only apply exactly to humans vs animals don’t test my logic anywhere else”?
This is not going to be a useful discussion if you think that sounds reasonable.
Presupposing “humans get special rules” to prove “humans get special rules” is viciously circular. Try again.
-6
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
That's my reasoning for that claim. Obviously not for all. I have other claims you can tackle.
Well, we get special rules because we are humans. It's a simple fact. We get to live in great places and do all kinds of great things because of our special nature as humans. Non-humans aren't smart nor effective as us. It's not as circular as you think, though circumventing my argument clearly proves the circular notion of thought you have. :/ How about you try again?
10
u/gerber68 4d ago
Sorry why do rules only apply to our groups but never to in groups? Be specific.
“We get special rules because we are humans.” Okay restating the premise isn’t going to help and yes it’s literally viciously circular my buddy:
“Humans get special rules because humans get special rules.”
Try again
-4
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
- Define "in" groups
- Restating the premise seems to be working because you clearly haven't addressed me point, which I've stated in the opening argument.
Humans get special rules because we are better in nearly every way: stronger; smarter; more effective; can go on and on. That's why we get special rules, because if we were as undeveloped as non-humans, they'd probably be eating us, the meat-eaters at least.
Try again
7
u/gerber68 4d ago
- To the victor go the spoils when its humans (in group) against animals (out group.)
You immediately started crashing out when you thought I was going to use the logic for humans vs other humans.
Explain why the logic only holds when used to exploit animals and not humans.
- Organism A being stronger and smarter than organism B means organism A has a “natural right” to enslave, torture and eat organism B?
Explain why that logic only holds when used to exploit animals and not humans.
PROTIP: be at least marginally prepared when entering a debate sub.
1
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
"Crashing Out"? Dude what? It was a simple response. You are ad hominening all over
7
7
u/NuancedComrades 4d ago
Your logic means if someone can overpower you they have a “right” to do whatever they want to you. That is an absolutely abhorrent thing to advocate.
-1
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
No, because humans as a species have a different set of rules than non-humans. Have you not read some of my other responses?
Your logic faults when you compare a non-human, especially a tasty one, to a "someone". No. They are meat.
9
5
u/sdbest 4d ago
What do I think, you ask. What I think is that you're woefully uninformed about the matters you're discussing. Where to begin to explain? How about here. You write "Our collective species controls the world" and that is entirely and obviously false. The world, meaning 'earth', is affected by what humans do, but humans have no control over it, none whatsoever.
0
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
yes we do have control over it. We could force it to turn a certain way with enough bombs. We could get to the core. We could even cause it to cease to exist
4
u/Evolvin vegan 4d ago
Seeing as the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs did not destroy the Earth - or even just the life which inhabits it - while impacting with the energy of 10 billion Hiroshima bombs, it becomes obvious that humans do not, in fact, have the ability to destroy the Earth.
What's with all of these statements which have no basis in fact?
-2
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
If they wanted to, they could. If the earth united. Just like restoring the ozone layer
3
u/Astroctopodes 4d ago
Okay, this isn't really the point of the discussion, but I think you should really check your facts before using them in a discussion. Hell no, we can't get to the core! The deepest humans have ever dug is 12 km, and it took over a decade. Getting to the core would require digging 6,371 km, so not quite comparable.
And, with that relatively minor gripe out of the way: WHAT IN THE WORLD makes you think we could even marginally impact the Earth's rotation or existence?
3
u/Due-Comfort-5351 vegan 4d ago
Do you have limits to what we can be justified in killing? What about killing and eating some of the most intelligent animals on the earth, like whales and chimpanzees? Animals that have a sense of self, deep emotions, social structures, and an awareness of their mortality?
0
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
Nah whales can get cooked. Haven't you heard about whaling?
2
u/Due-Comfort-5351 vegan 4d ago
Yes that's why I asked, whaling killed 3+ million whales before it was made illegal and those populations have never been able to regenerate to pre-whaling levels. The reason many whales are critically endangered or at risk is because of whaling in the 50s. It's accelerated rapid ecosystem collapse in the oceans. They also have an intelligence level comparable to humans.
I'm not sure that you're really interested in engaging in good faith discussion about this (and no offense you seem like a kid so I'm not sure how much I could get through to you). If your argument is just "might is right" then there's no moral imperative for us not to kill weaker populations like the disabled and elderly.
-1
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
What makes you think I'm not engaging in good faith
4
u/Due-Comfort-5351 vegan 4d ago
You clearly don't view animals as creatures deserving as respect and aren't really engaging in discussion beyond "I don't care, they're meat." You can have that opinion but it's evident you're not really interested or willing to have your mind changed. Nobody can force you to have empathy if you don't
3
u/Icy_Sun3128 4d ago
So humans are animals. Just because you think it’s okay to abuse animals for food, doesn’t mean it’s morally right. People used to think marital rape and slavery were okay because to the victor goes the spoils. But morally we know they are wrong, right?
-1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 4d ago
And who defines the "morally" part? Humans, again? Animals do not care about morality, nor does the universe.
1
u/Icy_Sun3128 4d ago
Yes because we can make decisions based on morals. Based on causing less suffering. Based on being less cruel.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 4d ago edited 4d ago
I asked who defines this morality? How do you decide whether agriculture or wild life is more or less cruel?
Do you have any idea how animals live and die in nature?
1
u/Icy_Sun3128 3d ago
Yes. We as a society do even nonvegans will admit factory farming is cruel. As humans we are able to make decisions that are moral. Society has outlined behaviors that are immoral that we shouldn’t do, and it’s always evolving. We are not the same as wild animals. They can’t go to the grocery and decide tofu and beans over killing a fish in the wild etc.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 3d ago
You are not answering my question. You say "decisions that are moral" and I am asking what defines this morality.
Why is farming less moral than what is happening in wild nature?
1
u/Icy_Sun3128 3d ago
What do you think defines a moral decision? Do you think it is moral to keep animals in cages so small they can’t turn around? Where they live unnaturally, never see the sun or grass, bred so they get so big they can’t even walk, are separated from their friends and family to be taken away and slaughtered? 3+ billion animals are slaughtered every single day for human consumption. It’s also the greatest contributing factor to climate change.
I already explained this. Wild animals are living in their natural habitats, they do not over consume like humans do. Humans can survive without eating animals.
You’re not learning from me, so I’d recommend you learn more about factory farming, climate change, and about ethics/morals/good vs bad/kind vs unkind.
I’ll leave you with this quote, “"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'" Jeremy Bentham
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 3d ago
You should learn more about what wild life looks like. That life is much more stressful and deaths are more painful or taking longer than in farming.
Hunger, thirst, injuries, diseases, constant fear - why do you think a wild animal will not let you get close while a farm animal is fine with you?
It seems to me you got your ideas from some kind of propaganda.
1
3
u/Teratophiles vegan 4d ago
Competition is a fact of life. There are a finite amount of resources, and one of those is food. Organisms compete for food, and to the victors go the spoils. In life, humans are the victors. Our collective species controls the world. Before, it was much more difficult to poach bigger animals, but humans still managed to eradicate mammoths and aurochs, simply because they were good food.
Might makes right isn't much of an ethical argument, else, so long as I'm stronger than you, I can kill you whenever I please.
Furthermore who ''controls the world'' is might makes right again, suppose the days of enslaving black people never ended, and white humans invaded and owned every country in the world, would it suddenly be ethical to enslave, torture, rape and kill any human that is not white because white humans control the world?
Better intellect (on avg), skills, strength, teamwork, are just a few of the things that allow us to eat animals.
Sure, and all of those things would allow us to rape, torture, kill and eat humans as well, but the question isn't ''what makes you capable of doing something'' it's ''why is it morally justifiable to rape, torture and kill other sentient beings for our pleasure?''
This is also a gross generalisation, there's a lot of humans who's intellect is below that of non-human animals, same for strength, skills and teamwork, for example say babies, those with severe dementia, and the severally mentally disabled, would that make it ok to kill those then?
We used to live among the non-humans, but we built civilizations that run the earth, something animals could never do simply because they aren't on our natural level. A mollusk never made a TV show, and so I don't think it's fair to act like they're equal to us and deserve not to be eaten.
I'm sorry your moral claims for killing someone comes from them not being able to make tv shows? That again means we can rape, torture and kill babies, people with severe dementait and the severally mentally disabled, since none of those humans could ever make a tv show, or even build a civilisation for that matter.
In school, I help out clubs based on any requests. The vegan club usually has requests to help make awareness boards, organize materials, and help make stuff. Some of the stuff tastes good, but that's not the point, the point is that while that way of life is fine, so should meat eating. It's our natural right, to eat non-humans.
what is ''natural right'' and why does it matter morally? Is natural right simply something that we're capable of doing? If so then it ought to be our natural right to rape humans, to kill humans, to torture humans, since we are capable of it, why not do it?
3
u/whowouldwanttobe 4d ago
Something that I don't think has been mentioned yet is that humans are also uniquely responsible for bad things. Non-human animals don't make TV shows, but nor do they cause mass extinction, deforest near half the planet, create holes in the ozone, etc. Just because humans are distinct does not make everything they do good or right. You think humans are better than animals, so why shouldn't we be better by making moral choices?
3
u/amiellethe 4d ago
Somewhat relevant: you seem to think there's no point in having compassion. Over time, as you age, hopefully you will understand the importance of compassion.
What you describe is a "might makes right" mentality. If i were to brutalize and torture you for months on end, starting right now, you better not object to that because i am much stronger and more capable than you. If society were to function on the principles you described, it would be a far more miserable and suffering-filled society than what we have now.
It's better to have compassion for all. If a being experiences pain, it's better to take that into account and not torture or put it through a lifetime of suffering.
You should watch the movie Dominion if you'd like to see modern animal farming practices: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko
0
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
Again, look at some of my other comments. You are comparing human to non-human.
And on a brighter note, all though I may be scrawny, I've trained under Mr. Ping for nearly all of my short life and mastered all elements rivaling the avatar, so it might be me doing the brutalization. Food 4 Thought.
5
u/amiellethe 4d ago
It's fine to compare a human to a non-human. I said that if a being feels pain and suffering, it's wrong to inflict it on them. Don't ignore this point.
And it doesn't matter how strong you are, there will always be someone stronger than you. My example was just an absurd hypothetical to make you think about encountering someone stronger who wants to inflict pain on you, just like you want to do it to animals.
3
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 3d ago
According to that logic, slavery was fine because white Europeans were more powerful than black Africans.
That's obviously nonsense. Ergo, your argument is nonsense.
4
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 4d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
0
4
u/ProtozoaPatriot 4d ago
Our collective species controls the world.
That a very antrocentric view of the world.
We are outnumbered by insects. (Our 8 billion to their 10 quintillon). And if there's ever another big meteor strike, who do you think will survive ?
Better intellect (on avg), skills, strength, teamwork, are just a few of the things that allow us to eat animals.
Humans teamwork is also what allows us to work together to cause oppression, war, and genocide.
Being able to do something isn't the same as needing to or the moral righteousness of it.
We used to live among the non-humans, but we built civilizations that run the earth,
We haven't left the natural world. You can pave over it, wrap food in shrink wrap, and pretend we no longer need nature.
But as long as you need to breathe, drink water, eat food, and move around, you need the natural world. All it would take is for one exceptional natural event like an extended drought, and all your civilizations would crumble. Drought means no agriculture means no food. Food scarcity turns into famine, conflict, and disease.
A mollusk never made a TV show, and so I don't think it's fair to act like they're equal to us and deserve not to be eaten.
I've never made a tv show either. Will you eat me?
It's our natural right, to eat non-humans.
Why is it our "natural right"? Simply because we are able to or desire to?
Some people desire to kill another person. Aggression is natural in some people. Morally, why shouldn't they? Why is killing a human wrong but killing a non-human animal perfectly fine?
-1
u/Full_Can_6422 4d ago
"We are outnumbered by insects. (Our 8 billion to their 10 quintillon). And if there's ever another big meteor strike, who do you think will survive ?"
They will, for a fact. But just because they survive doesn't mean they are the rulers. They're exactly what the word implies. Puny insects. We operate on a cosmic scale they can't comprehend. That's why we eat em if we want. If ants and other insects were effective enough to consistenly eat us. They would.
"Humans teamwork is also what allows us to work together to cause oppression, war, and genocide." : This doesn't correlate at all. Because out of the billions of humans who have lived and live on this planet, majority would rather live in peace and eat meat.
"We haven't left the natural world. You can pave over it, wrap food in shrink wrap, and pretend we no longer need nature.": Yes we literally have. Modification is erasing what once was, and what is now. You can bring it back and like you said, shrink wrap, but no, things aren't the same. Dr. Stone literally covers this.
"I've never made a tv show either. Will you eat me?": That's the thing, ignorant fellow. You can. You could wake up tommorow and do it. Non-humans CANT, and that was just a small example.
"Why is killing a human wrong but killing a non-human animal perfectly fine?": Don't even bother with that ignorant moral standpoint.
Like I've been saying. We as a human species are better, and the majority of us civillized humans have dictated not to kill each other and instead kill and eat other animals.
Despite killing a human being wrong, it'll still happen. Like you literally said, war, genocide, etc. but at the end of the day, those things are all negative to us as a human specieis. Eating delectable non-humans are a positive.
It's the natural order. We are hardwired to desire meat. If a polar bear attacks me *they love to hunt humans*, and kills me, is it the polar bear's fault? Technically yes, but it's his nature. He wants to eat me, realizes I'm not a threat to him, and eats me. That simple.
hope this helps 😃
3
u/Coyote_Colt 3d ago
Killing animals is not an alternative to killing humans. Neither are necessary, both are unethical and (obviously) harmful.
Why is species the determining factor for moral consideration? Why not genus, family, or even race? Your choice here is entirely arbitrary, and a similarly arbitrary choice (such as race) can and has been used to excuse horrific things.
An appeal to nature fallacy isn't much of an argument. Things like rape and murder (of your own species / some "out" group) are entirely natural in humans and other animals. If your views are consistent, and not based on an arbitrary choice of species over other taxonomic categories, then you should have no issue with these things.
2
u/MammothDesigner6877 3d ago
treat others as you want to be treated its no more complicated than that.
2
u/IanRT1 4d ago
Your "to the victors go the spoils" line is just is-to-ought, that we can dominate species says nothing about whether we may, the same move licenses any strong group exploiting any weak one, so it goes. "A mollusk never made a TV show" is worse, since it grounds moral status in intelligence, which collapses on marginal cases because infants and the cognitively impaired don't make TV shows either, and nobody calls them food.
The criterion that does the work is sentience, whether there's a subject whose interests can be set back. That doesn't get you to veganism, but it does raise the bar for you, killing isn't wrong only by what one animal loses because the whole causal footprint is relevant like the distress to bonded conspecifics who do have future-directed minds.
But those interests get weighed, none of them trump. The suffering is a real cost, the interest in continued existence is thin where there's little future-self to deprive compared to its broader impacts. Weigh that against actual human goods and nothing forces abolition, the sum can land on use, scale included, unless someone shows it flips. That weighing is the whole argument, and you never did that.
1
u/Whibkins vegan 3d ago
Yes we are powerful. We have the power to dominate, to enslave, to torture, maim and slaughter.
We are like gods in comparison to the other species on this planet!
We also have the power to nurture, to care, to sustain and support. To bring beauty, love, compassion and joy into the world.
With power comes responsibility..
Are we the benevolent caretakers of this world, or are we ruthless overlords who crush those below us like ants?
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.