Why don't animals deserve the right to not be slaughtered to be eaten...

Whatever you say ,Atheist dude

Some are good too eat,but not all of them, That's I'm trying to say here, Don't be like china, where they eat everything that moves, I.e dogs, rats and shits,not to mention fake rice bullshit

Humans can tell me to stop eating them, thus I've violated their rights
Animals can't tell me to stop, so their rights don't exist

>forgetting animals kill other animals in addition to humans

so then if you were put in a situation where killing another person would benefit you and no one found out, would you do it?

Survival of the fittest, and greater good mentality. Both tend to be attributed to the most strictly logical veins of thought.

Animals have less intelligence, less capacity for reason and logical thinking, can't develop strategies for survival and can't work together as effectively as humans can. Compared to human equivalents, the societies and technology of the smartest and most advanced animals is less than stone age.

Intellectually and physically, we're the fittest. Therefore we reap the benefits of hunting and cooking meat of animals.

Then there's the greater good - humans have and continue to benefit vastly from the nutrients gained from meat. Animals are plentiful and just one cow or deer can feed an entire family for days, even weeks. To cut that part of our diets out entirely at any point in history would've massively impacted the progress of human civilization simply because we'd have less fuel to work on.

As for the continued eating of animals, that stems from the fact that humans killing animals is now a part of the global ecosystem. If we stopped hunting and eating animals all together, overpopulation would fuck up the environment.

Should we treat lesser beings humanely and mercifully? Yes, but that's more a question of civilization and morale. Should we stop eating certain animals to prevent fucking up the ecosystem? Yes, absolutely. Should we stop killing all the woodland critters and let them roam free? No. People need to eat, meat tastes good, and if you don't eat meat, you lose essential nutrients. Because even if we could make synthetic deadless food that tastes exactly like a ten ounce steak medium rare steak, overpopulation would fuck shit up son.

Animals eat other animals, why should we be any different?

desu i respect chinese eating habits more than western people being squeamish about dogs. if ure gonna eat one animal, might as well eat all the fucking things, especially the insects which probably are barely "alive" as we would see it.

dont see why people get so offended about eating dogs.

then why shouldn't we eat other humans? plus

Humans are special because they have the ability to morally reason. Animals do not. Morally reasoning makes humans special, and gives us rights.
Do you even kant bro?

Rights descend from the social contract, and so are only possessed by human beings.

but theres an arbitrary line to the logical thinking thing. why not just kill retards? they arent fit. kill the autists, schizophrenics etc etc.

also, we are at a level of technology when we can probably manufacture foods without killing animals with everything we need so the nutrients thing really isn't an argument.

animals do morally reason actually.

i understand that society requires consent and understanding so for that reason animals cant be a part of that so i think to some limits then i think its okay to dictate control over them or use a limited force for the benefit of both us and then (especially as we are more intelligent) but i dont think that necessarily means we should inflict pain on them if we don't have to.

I'm fine with killing animals for food yet don't advocate for executing the mentally infirm for the biological reason that I'm opposed to the death of members of my own kind. That and killing someone with mental illness does very little for a society they can contribute to and function in, whereas killing an animal feeds hungry families. People with autism and schizophrenia are still people in the sense that they contribute and have the capacity improve the human condition.

Sure, pulling the plug on a vegetable or slipping some bleach into the sippy cup of someone with Downs will stop them from carrying on their genes and being a drain on society, but they weren't going to reproduce in the first place the long run they don't do that much harm.

I mentioned some kind of universal tofu that tastes exactly like steak, but I should have mentioned that even though we could probably manufacture foods that don't involve dead animal bits, the fact that a fucking vast portion of the world lives in abject, crushing poverty and starvation means that eating animals is the only option, when it even is an available option. If you're not eating meat and you don't have much to go on in the first place you're going to have medical complications and you're more likely to starve to death.

> Deserve rights
Theres your problem. No one deserves rights. You only have the rights that you can protect. The reason humans dont kill each other more than they do is because we form societies for safety. If you kill one, there will be consequences.
There are about as many consequences to killing a cow as there are to killing an apple. They are both living and both have chemicals that are released in the event of injury. Just because an apple doesnt squeal, cry, or move doesnt mean it doesnt have its own interpretation of "pain." Neither can protect itself and we need food to survive. Now if you try to kill a wolf in front of a wolf pack then you will be in deep shit.
Just think that if you end up in some sort of death camp, you cant just say you have the right to life. Because clearly you dont. You cant defend that right in that hypothetical moment and no one is coming to your rescue. Therefore you dont have the right to life and your captors decide what happens.
Is it fair? no. But thats what life is.
Animals also need population control.
Cutting out meat would limit the food supply and increase prices, no one wants that.

discriminating because of same kind is illogical and is dangergous because it potentially justifies things like racism. i think everyone on this board would agree utilitarianism is not the most desireable moral system and can become paradoxically inconsistent at sometimes.

ill say that this isnt an activist post saying lets become vegan, lets move the world to veganism. this is simply a moral question about what we should do and i think that assumes that we have the resouces to do it.

i think at the end of the day all morality actually has some inconsistencies because even with the poverty stuff, the discrimination thing looms up so its weird. i do actually dispute though that people in poverty eat mostly meat. i expect that meat is actually more expensive (as traditionally; we probably eat more meat now than we ever have done in the past) but i think in todays world maybe it depends and its not an issue i find important to discuss.

Because I'm hungry
>and i want to kill

except iceage maybe. but thats a guess.

those issues have been covered elsewhere in the thread i think.

i think the two extremes of this argument are either a utilitarian one or respecting every living thing. but this gives no answers.

The animals are there to be eaten. That's what God put them on this Earth for.

Now should we be depriving them of little or all movement to be cannibalized like in slaughterhouses with pigs? The answer is obviously not. Economically speaking, pigs are not even an agricultural beast until later on in the civilizational process.

If I may bring in outside philosophical arguments, if you want to argue against an animal's rights, you have to argue that animals are not worthy OF rights. There are several philosophers who argue that since animals are incapable of reason, they do not have moral standing and are therefore not entitled to the rights that a rational agent such as humans would. I can't personally come up with a reason at the moment, just stating a way one could be formulated.

ironically, the god argument is the best one. but i think theres no good reason to believe in god so that kinda fails.

dude see this you have no logical reaon not to kill them without random discrimination. i think i mixed up some of the posts i was supposed to reference to but you will all see them if you read. and ill direct you in case.

look at very early up i adresssed someone already who asked me if we have rights. i think maybe we dont have rights but then if we use cost benefit then that doesnt discriminate but the fact is we do disciminate arbitrarily. can you defend that? i mean cost-benefit depends on the size of your group and thats probably why we have wars and arguments so its not really an argument.

but the problem is that these philosophers are making non-scientific assumptions. ive actually already adressed up there the social contract and that all animals need to be capable of consent but i dont think saying they have no moral standing is valid because we are on a continuum with them, share much biology and psychology. they clearly do have some standings, its just if they can understand and consent. but again, you have to ask, does that justfiy hurting them if its not necessary. i.e. we have technology to produce food not to need to eat animals.

the poverty thing is the biggest argument in my opinion. the most dificult one for animal rights or vegans, its like the many moral predicaments you might get given in a philosophy class like with the trains.

Sheeesh, do we really need to argue about foods?

I get that you're not saying "why are you savages still eating meat it's 2016", and I appreciate the debate because it's created a good dialogue.

I don't agree with utilitarianism either, and I don't agree with killing someone because they're mentally ill or a "drain on society", that was just me taking morals out of the equation for a second. What I was trying to illustrate was that comparing the reasoning behind killing animals because it's practical isn't comparable to the reasoning behind killing humans with mental problems. One's just nature and the other is being an advocate for eugenics. I don't personally agree with eugenics at all, I was just using it to illustrate a point.

Discrimination isn't about animal vs. human, it's human vs. human. Considering animals to be "lesser" than humans isn't illogical nor can it justify racism - racism against blacks or asians or whites isn't morally or scientifically correct because in no significant way is any race lesser or superior than another.

I don't discrimination against animals, I just tdon't consider them to be sentient creatures - that's why I feel alright with eating them. They're animals - at risk of stretching things a bit, I'd compare them to particularly complicated, intelligent and fuzzy plants. They don't have societies or civilizations or rational thought. They act out of instinct. That's why I think it's okay for us to kill them without consequence, as long as it's humane, non-painful and doesn't impact on their ability to live their lives and be a part of the ecosystem.

Insects are fine, But dogs? Cats? Come on can you really eat a dog in front of Your dog?

Please don't use the chicken to refute this.

Westerners are squeamish about eating dogs because we as a society are so close to them. They've been cultivated and evolved alongside us. Eastern cultures simply don't hold the same views of companionship as we do.

The argue for not eating dogs is that they're both incredibly useful and incredibly close to us. They're practically comparable to a fellow human, in terms of how they contribute to and are included in our society.

you weak immoral fuck. eat one shit eat it all faggot.

paragraph 2 : you say its not comparable yet you wont be able to come up with a logically consistent reason.

the idea of arbitrarily distinguishing groups can justify racism and that is pretty much what splitting animals and humans is. you say "no significant way race is less or more superior blah" but give me scientific reasons. theres no fucking necessity that thats the case. just as poor people usually have poorer education and less income than rich people and depressed people usually are unhappier than happy people.

im sorry but if u look at phylogeny and animal brains, they are literally so similar to us. pretty much the same. cognitively, emotionally, so similar; we are animals; theres no discontinuum. and i work with rats and study neuroscience and cognition. instinct is an unscientific idea; even rats have similar cognitive capabilities to humas or we wouldn't use them to test drugs on executive deficits. at the end of the day i think your argument doesn't necessarily outweight the idea of inflicting as little pain as possible without meaning. if we dont have to eat animals, we dont have to hurt them.

What about a human baby

same with easterners... sign of lack of logic.

come on, i need a conor mcgregor to knock me out. someone give me something good ffs.

ha that sounded bad, i mean, dogs can potentially have the same relationship with easterners and they still have to come against any other normal arguments for animal rights. im no libcuck; not gonna excuse them for being azn.

How so?

they share similar emotions and emotional parts of the brain that does similar things as humans; many of them can form social structures and do altruistic acts. animals, mainly mammals and birds definitely have the ability to morally reason good and bad; maybe not as good but its a continuum and they have the same foundations. i think humans are just more intelligent and thats the main difference.

If animal brains are so similar to ours, why haven't they developed civilizations? Why aren't they possessing of rational thought? Why are we the only intelligent life on Earth? Why haven't they achieved sapience?

Yes we are animals in the sense that we're the same classification of organism. But we're not animals in the sense that we're above woodland creatures and insects and farm animals and fish because we can create technology, advanced languages, rational thinking, complex societies and civilizations.

I'm not arbitrarily distinguishing between groups when I say animals, as in fish and moose and ants and birds, and human beings, as in homo sapiens, are different and distinguishable from each other. Because they fucking are. Biologically we're animals, yes, but intellectually we're sapient life.

And I say racism is scientifically baseless because other than physical traits and ancestry every human being is equally capable of say, learning rocket science or writing a sonnet. All that "muh aryan master race" stuff is pseudo science. Racism is justified by "you look different and do things different, and my way of doing things is fucking better because I say so and I don't want to bother learning why you do things the way you do so you're subhuman". It's just autism. Weather a person should be considered inferior or not is based on their choices, not their ancestry or their skin tone or whether their great great grandfather moved to India or to the Caucasus mountains eons ago.

If we don't have to eat animals or cull their populations to avoid damage to the ecosystem, then yes, we shouldn't kill them. It's just needless destruction. But at this moment in time, and throughout history, we've had to eat animals. Until we create Star Trek style replicators that can create synthetic meat, we're perfectly justified in killing and eating animals.

>i think
When you have actual proof of these things please present them.

dude if you look at the structure of cognition and the both the structure and function of the brain you will see it is of a continuum. chimps are very close. desu i think you really have to learn about neuroscience. it really is a fallacy to think animals and humans are just complete distinct beings. yes we are different but you set an arbitrary distinction and you can set those between any set of animals. it doesnt make logical sense and i think there are other distinctions which though are still kind of arbitrary, do alot less harm to beings involved.

ive seen how some people think apes or dolphins or certain birds should have rights because they are intelligent. yes they are but other animals still feel pain and things like rats are marginally less intelligent. better arguments come about when you consider other hominids not as intelligent. what is the fucking line. those hominids almost as intelligent as us. sorry no. some people are less intelligent than some chimps i suspect too.

i think racism isnt as simple as saying "i dont say you're better because of looks". i actually think that not being racist is more about solidarity than a "lack of racism per say" because logically i guess different groups of people can be better at different things. while the right wing chooses to want to force those things, i think not being racist is more about solidarity and uniting people and treating people equally just because theyre human.

And i think thats also a nicer way to look at the world rather than simply just saying "i dont discriminate because of your looks", i say, you can do more than that, right. I think the IQ race threads are a good example of those discussions.

fair enough on your final point thouhg.

Humans don't taste very good.

i said i think humans being more intelligent is the difference but we know for a fact the similarities of their brains and behaviours so... again? you just picked one word from my whole sentence without context didn't you?

you can also go back in time to maybe 10,000 years ago and say "why havent humans developed civilisation"

bump

because meat is tasty as fuck

irony you chose a pic with the shittest burger. why not 5 guys. fucking moron

Ask the animals. When they can answer, I'll consider their rights.

im destroying newborns as we speak fuckboy.

I didn't say that demand decides morality, I said that it's not a question of morals at all.

People can and do fully acknowledge that the actions that they take lead to suffering, and still do them, because it's convenient and pleasurable for them to do so. You can probably think of many scenarios, even ones not related to animals, where this is the case.

Vegetarianism or veganism takes either a profound act of willpower or a strong cultural pressure, both of which are difficult to come by in the general population. I won't say that knowledge doesn't help, but it's not enough. Human beings are incredibly good at compartmentalization, we do not act in ideologically consistent ways.

yeah but the reasons people do this is through a culturally defined morality. i don't think people always do things because of logic straight out by thinking of it. they do it because it feels right due to norms, thats kind of what morality is and why its illogical. but we have an ability and a duty to shape our norms. just as we think its good not to kill people or discriminate against people.we can do it in a better way to shape it to the morality that we like, which i think anyone would say, is the reduction of suffering. because ultimately thats what society is about. altruism is about reduction of suffering and we do that in love and empathy. and even when we get to the selish parts of the spectrum, economics is also about reducing suffering, even if thats by bargaining and exchange. so we can all agree, reduction of suffering is the best thing.

/thread.

also, its not just about the individual actions. but its about the stance and the attitude of the whole society. people always do wrong, thats a fact. but what is the standard we hold them by, what is the standard you hold yourself by.

desu i wouldnt say veganism is about willpower, more about belief. ive met vegan friends that are shit organizers, shit at impulse control. humans are not consistent naturally and i said before, morality always has challenges in certain situations which can be difficult logically e.g. train situation, poverty situation; but i think in general we can hold up society to a statuts of valuing lives and wanting them not to feel pain.

again, many people give excuses that describe what people do. but im not looking for that am i? im looking at what is the best people can do, to improve. you saying that people tend to do one thing is like saying dogs tend to shit on the floor. its natural, but dogs learn if they need to.

many examples of humans in the past acting inconsistently to things that we would say are more or less standard in todays society. sure there are criminals but its still a standard to evaluate people. are you a big boy?

They're bred to be slaughtered. They're literally brought to life to die. They wouldn't have even existed otherwise.

Treating them inhumanely is a different story, but we cant feed our ever growing 3rd world population without cost cutting. You'd first have to make the argument of decreasing populations in the West to what they were before mass immigration booms.

You'd have to change that culture, which would take a lot of steps. You'd have to drastically reduce the supply of meat so it no longer saturates the food market, you'd have to change the staples of many different cultures (ethnic and national), you'd have to flood the media with anti-carnivore and pro-animal messages, and so on. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it would be very difficult and would take centuries. And then you'd have to crack down on the black market that would inevitably develop.

My point is that it's not just a matter of making logical arguments until everyone agrees with you.

paragraph 1: niggers are brought to life. if i didn't buy mine then they woulda been slaughtered by kurt wallace in boise. good thing i kept em, saved their lives. i slave em on the fields 20 hours a day but they alive. god damn niggers dont know what they thankful for.

paragraph 2: i think this borders on logistical argument and ive actually talked about this above just now with people on this thread but i guess its long for you to look.

one of my contesting things is actually how much meat do you think 3rd world populations actually eat. desu, you probably eat alot more meat than any poor person.

you have a point though and economics is not a thing we can control and i said before that this does bring up an inconsistency of discrimination with humans which for me is natural. but also this doesnt excuse someone in a well off situation eating meat does it?

so you're telling me, the fact that sahid in hindu kash can only afford to eat pork means that someone in fucking bel air is let off from eating it? is that your fucking argument?

come on big boy, come on.

i understand that you're not actually making an argument in your post but ill just say this for anyone.

ive said this before, im not talking about logistics so much.youll see in my comment below and some above that i understand things like poverty. human culture i understand as a norm though it isnt justifiable. the point is that no one here on this thread is willing to admit that eating meat might be a bad thing.. everyone has an if, or but.

btw, ive said before above but im not a vegetarian. i eat meat. this is a moral exercise. im not campaigning for anything.

also, when has anything changed overnight, whether that been attitudes to sex or race or even the animal rights we have now (not same as my debate), your point isnt even that relevant. those changes have happened before in terms of things such as i've listed above, maybe not overnight, but it is a documented fact that we do change.

im also not sure you can put a prediction on how long it will take. im sure things took a long time in medieval time. maybe attitudes change alot more quickly now. even if not, im not sure you can predict change reliably, unless you can give me a good reason. and its probaboly different dependent where you are. i also think people underestimate how much things have changed in the last few decades.

this is a really shit example but im just gonna say it coz i noticed it and found it interesting before and regardless of this debate, but in the tv show friends, they make loads of gay jokes like 10 - 20 years ago. you cant get away with the same kind of jokes on a tv show now. just kinda weird. the attitude to gays has changed completely.

and remember homosexuality was illegal in britain in 1976.

theres no big boys left.

come on big boys.

i won. first time vegetarian arguments one. i am god. fuck you Veeky Forums. cunts.

because humans established society (morals) so that they can live without having to worry about getting killed by other humans randomly.
there is "right", there is only compromise, and we call that morality.

yeah but the thing is that that is defined by group dynamics and its only been recently that we look at ourselves as a global human group. cost and benefit is for the individual, expands to a group. that group can be anything. can justify racism.

i think youre crazy if you think your morality is defined by that and not something a little bit deeper...

i also did address some kind of social contract/consent stuff further up.

user the fact we have pepsin means we are supposed to eat meat.

>i think youre crazy if you think your morality is defined by that and not something a little bit deeper...
do you have anything solid to suggest otherwise? that morality is beyond society? I don't think you do.

You can't be serious.

self awareness

also, it is literally the nature of this world. when we decide animals can no longer be food does this mean we need to go out and kill all of the prey animals of this world. why is it ok for a lion to eat meat but not ok for a human to do the same? because humans have an unfair advantage over their prey? do not lions also have an advantage over their prey? isnt it the same for all predators in that they have an advantage of their prey?

your ideas are merely virtue signalling that completely disregards the laws of nature and the natural world simply for the benefit of being able to feel morally superior.

the morality that you feel in yourself. if you're telling me you would feel nothing if you saw someone say fall into a river or just any other bad predicament. not necessarily a life threatening one. Just the fact that you would react to a human in a sense of frailty or danger or something like that, supports my point.

Yes I am serious, a digestive enzyme meant to break down protein or meat is evidence our system requires protein to live dumbass.

Because we need to eat meat, it's required as a part of our diet.

If we are treating animals like humans, we must hold them to the same moral accountability and incarcerate them for killing other animals.

Retard op logic

That's not an argument against the existence of animal rights though, it's merely a practical obstacle. How can you not differentiate this very simple point?

dude ive been through this earlier up and animals definitely have self awareness. atleast some do, mammals, birds, probably reptiles and amphibians to some extent but i dont know alot about them. you look at a rat they have the same kind of brain areas, which are in a neuroscientific sense considered homologous. we use rats as models on human cognition and they seem to do pretty well.

dude, i welcome you to be a lion all you want. but i wont give you the honour of having the morality of a human who through their own empathy wants to minimise the suffering of other living creatures. ive said before, you can take a utilitarian stake on it but utilitarian ideologies can bite u in the ass, you can take a speciest take on it but any arbitrary boundary also bites you in the ass. i guess morality isn't logical but if you want to live in a unified fair society under law then it should be and it should be fairly given out. you cant just use random priors or survival of the fittest. i dont think i even have to go into why thats ridiculous because you know it already... so there.

Falls under 'Human rights', kid.

That is not an argument against the existence of animal rights though, it's merely a practical obstacle. How can you not differentiate this very simple point?

i don't feel morality "in myself". i feel morality inserted in me through cultural indoctrination & conditioning.
> Just the fact that you would react to a human in a sense of frailty or danger or something like that, supports my point.
well you need something else because this isn't correct

i literally should have a sign on here saying; before you post, read the rest of the thread because ive probably answered what you're about to say. and your argument is a fucking stupid one. "muh lions" "muh lions can kill"

Animals kill each other for food and therefore are subject to the same treatment. Animals are subject to animalistic treatment, and humans are subject to Humane treatment. / thread

The problem of enforcing a moral rule is separate from whether that moral rule makes sense in the first place. You are conflating two separate issues here. It's equivalent to saying early, hunter gatherer man should not be subject to the same moral constraints of human rights because it would be difficult to round them all up and prevent hunter gatherer societies from killing eathother. It's lazy, dumb high school thinking.

dude, read the fucking other posts and you'll see that i actually have a very sophisticated answer to your shit statement, probablty more than you could come up by yourself so fuck off.

False. In my second post, the one you are replying to, I didn't say anything about the logistics of enforcing it.

humans kill animals for food dickhead,,,,

"muh treat me like an animal"

>rights are social constructs!
>might makes right!
lol

Are you even trying to make a point?

Oh okay so let's have a discussion about morality and NOT acknowledge the existence of universal moral standards. Just retarded

rights aren't social constructs?