The video is to prove a point really fast, but, cows actually do only eat proteins. They have three stomachs that they use to feed grass to bacterial colonies, which they then pull into their fourth stomach to eat, with any of the grass that's left un-eaten by the bacteria being shit straight out without being processed any further. They don't eat the grass, the grass is there to feed what they do eat, which is supplemented by eating any large animal small enough to fit in their mouth. I read a study once that almost all cows when dissected had at least 1 animal in their digestive system at a time.

The notion that cows are good peaceful harmless herbivores who eat nothing but grass is nonsense. Here's a video of a cow eating the corpse of a donkey. Of note: there's grass right next to the body. And it isn't just a result of cows being fucked up by human domestication, wild deer (who you cannot blame on humans malnourishing it or contaminating its feed or whatever) do it too.

constructing an elaborate worldview out of a kindergarten level understanding of biology and then getting extremely smug about it annoys me relentlessly. Cows would eat you if they had the chance

  • crispyhexagon [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    waaah i dont like it when people respond in bad faith after i did a badfaith waaaaaah

    get over it.

    animal ethics

    not a thing. animals do not have ethics.

    feel free to fuck off at anytime tho, idgaf

    • volkvulture [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      animal ethics is one of the most rich areas of philosophical & legal and biological scientific understanding

      animals certainly have social & ecological considerations & their decisions & behaviors are moderated in many ways, genetically & environmentally & between individuals, that promote certain adaptations and social frameworks over others

      I will no longer respond when I stop receiving these notifications

      • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Assuming animals did have their own "ethics" in a way that suggests an internal evaluation of right or wrong, it would not necessarily follow that those ethics would mirror humanity's, for a huge number of reasons.

        If perception, group dynamics, breeding habits, parent-offspring-sibling relationships, level and kind of intelligence, environment, diet, neurochemistry all vary wildly, an animals "ethics" if that is a meaningful concept could be as broadly different from ours, and thus our own standards not necessarily applicable just because it's engaged in a *kind * of ethics.

        you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves.

        Yes, you can. In fact, we as humans even do this with members of our own species who have diminished capacity, in holding them to a different standard if their perception or affect or intellectual capability greatly differ: an individual suffering schizophrenia or pronounced intellectual disability will often receive a different prison sentence (rightly) because of their different capacity.

        An ethical framework that precludes the eating of non-human animals does not thereby humanize or personify animals to the degree it requires of them the same moral behaviour. I do not expect the same moral decision making from a 3 year old child as an adult human. Why? Because of their level of intellectual capacity, they cannot understand the ethics of say having to repay debts or obligations.

        I would say it should be an obvious point to begin with that a mature and complex intellect are a prerequisite for being subject to moral rules.

        Put it much more simply: do you think animals understand human moral rules? do you think animals are capable of grasping the categorical imperative or the best calculus for maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering? If they aren't ever capable of knowing those rules, knowing it applies to them, why would we (humans) apply it to them? I know they're not capable of grasping that morality, I know that if I expected them to hold to it they would fail, they would not understand they've failed and do not care they've failed.

        should we shame the cow or show them how much more ethical it would’ve been to not eat the baby chick?

        No, because we don't know whether they're capable of feeling shame or whether they would understand what about this instance should cause them shame or the rationale for why this action and not others is shameful.

        Here's an action I hope we would agree is immoral, unethical, bad: one human engaging in sex with another without the other's willingness, using overt and coercive means to procure sex. This happens all of the time in and amongst animals. Territorial violence and unprovoked aggression to the point of murder also happen all of the time in and amongst animals. It is absolutely pointless to try and get grizzly bears or bottlenose dolphins to understand not to do these things. Does it therefore follow then that it is pointless to try and get humans to understand these things are bad?

        • volkvulture [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          I didn't say anything about it mirroring humanity's ethics. But even different human groups have different taboos & stigmas & sociological behavior that hardly can be said to be homogeneous, and certain practices in Papuan tribal groups would shock or concern certain people in industrial society. We can see similarities in kin selection & reciprocal altruism between species, however. Honor killings for instance also may not be "universally" acceptable, but that doesn't keep affinity groups in those areas from carrying them out.

          Members of human society with diminished capacity are not without will & certainly not without humanity. You're talking about whether there is a conscience that animals or schizophrenics have, and that's its own issue. We're still talking about whether it's "right" or "wrong" to eat animals, not whether it's "right" or "wrong" to execute the severely mentally handicapped. Schizophrenics get executed quite often.

          Do I think Harambe should've been killed? Not necessarily. Do I think human-eating tigers & lions in the wild should be killed? Probably. I am not saying that animals in either instance made "moral" calculations, and specifically was referring to their own conspecific circumstances & animal social behavioral contexts.

          Animals are deserving of a very high level of ethical consideration, but not exceeding or even necessarily equal to fellow humans. You admit this when you say that animals can't make moral decisions or be held accountable juridicially for "deviations"/what humans would label as excesses in their behavior. We're already agreeing that animals don't get the same "moral" or "spiritual" acknowledgment

          I am not saying we should get animals to understand these things. I am saying that basic & culturally imbibed ethical standards lead us to consider kinship ties & interpersonal relationships before "out-group" individuals. Animals in many contexts also behave in this way. These kinship ties & interpersonal relationships also lead us to consider animals less than other humans. Not saying this is universal or concrete or immutable, I am saying that wild animals & even domesticated animals have their own conspecific & interspecies calculations & aren't profligate killers or completely unmoored in these decisions. Animals protect their young, and herds/schools protect one another from predators, etc.

          It follows that humans will still eat meat whether some people think it's wrong or morally repugnant, and it will certainly never be "illegal"... unless that's where you're wanting to go.

          • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            I didn’t say anything about it mirroring humanity’s ethics.

            If animal ethics doesn't mirror humans, and they can't understand human ethics, why on earth would we attempt to apply human ethics to them?

            We’re still talking about whether it’s “right” or “wrong” to eat animals, not whether it’s “right” or “wrong” to execute the severely mentally handicapped. Schizophrenics get executed quite often.

            I'm not talking about whether it's "right" or "wrong" to eat animals at all, I'm talking about whether it necessarily follows that for animals to be objects of moral or ethical consideration, they have to be subject to the same moral system. We don't expect children to be beholden to the same moral obligations or stipulations as adults because their understanding lacks the capacity. Animals understanding lacks the capacity.

            Animals are deserving of a very high level of ethical consideration, but not exceeding or even necessarily equal to fellow humans.

            Not eating animals doesn't mean you've placed their level of consideration at or above humans.

            I am saying that basic & culturally imbibed ethical standards lead us to consider kinship ties & interpersonal relationships before “out-group” individuals. Animals in many contexts also behave in this way.

            Sure, and they still do not understand deontological ethics or the principle of maximizing the most happiness, they have their own distinct quasi-ethics. Great. So why for us not to eat them does it follow they have to also become vegetarians? This is the crucial point of disagreement.

            It follows that humans will still eat meat whether some people thing it’s wrong or morally repugnant,

            People are going to keep committing marital infidelity though it may be wrong or unethical. The fact that people keep on doing something does not make it good. On the contrary, if people did not have the urge or tendency to commit immoral actions, presumably there would be no need for moral or ethical systems whatsoever.

            and it will certainly never be “illegal”… unless that’s where you’re wanting to go.

            I have no idea what human consumption will look like in the future or the legality thereof, and I haven't stated any particular preference.

            • volkvulture [none/use name]
              ·
              4 years ago

              I said we can't apply human ethics to them, that's my whole point. We have to apply animal ethics to these matters as our human conventions & industry & social standards shift. We can't consider animals as equals from a human morality standpoint, that's what this entire exchange is about. We can however apply exceedingly high ethical considerations in the law concerning how animals are protected in the wild & in industries using animals.

              I didn't say animals have to be subject to the same moral system, I am saying that animals make their own calculations & have factors limiting their own behaviors, just as humans do. These aren't the same "moral" calculus between species.

              Not eating animals is simply not eating animals. One can choose not to eat animals without it being a crusade or coming with an overarching universalized ethical justification.

              I don't think that humans necessarily "understand" deontological ethics or maximizing "happiness" either. These aren't simple binaries, nor are they concise arguments. And I don't think we can try to pass them off as simple or 1:1 scalable across different societies.

              Also didn't say animals have to become vegetarians. Nowhere did I ever say that. You keep setting up this argumentative point that I never made, and attacking it.

              Haven't stated any particular preference along those lines either.

              • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                ·
                4 years ago

                I said we can’t apply human ethics to them, that’s my whole point.

                They are not subject to human moral prescriptions (like do not eat things that feel pain, as a hypothetical) because they are not moral agents, but despite their lack of moral agency may still be the object of human morals.

                We can’t consider animals as equals from a human morality standpoint, that’s what this entire exchange is about.

                We don't need to treat them as equals to refrain from eating them. I do not treat a child as though it has the same moral understanding or obligation as me, but I still have more complex moral obligations towards the child.

                Also didn’t say animals have to become vegetarians. Nowhere did I ever say that.

                You asked "should we shame the cow or show them how much more ethical it would’ve been to not eat the baby chick?" with the argument "you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves."

                You've argued for us to refrain from eating animals, we have to expect the same from animals. This is not the case.

                If you are in fact agreeing that it can be ethical for humans to refrain from eating meat while animals have different ethics, there is no argument.

                • volkvulture [none/use name]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 years ago

                  Animals aren't human children, and we can make discerning & specific differentiations between the two. This comes back to the kin selection & other evolutionary biological principles influencing conspecific animal & human behaviors. Human children can be reasoned with after a certain age, this is a legal & long-standing philosophical principle. Legal proscriptions & basic societal level taboos condemn mistreatment of children, and eating human children is among the lowest human acts. Saying that I don't think it's totally immoral for someone to eat animals doesn't mean I think it's okay for them to eat children. I think you can agree with that.

                  That's not me saying that animals should be vegetarians, nor is it me saying that animals can be reasoned with in any way. I am saying that using this interpersonal shaming to try & make the case that animal meat shouldn't be consumed isn't the same as making the ethical case for treating animals better.

                  I didn't argue that refraining from eating animals is the same as moral recognition of individual animal personhood, something I do not personally believe in. I subscribe somewhat to a "relational" approach, and recognize that animal husbandry & agriculture depend totally on irreversible social/animal relationships that date from prehistory. There is no undoing this history, and humans' and animals' futures will remain intertwined.

                  I do not agree that it's always unethical for humans to eat animals, but for the sake of our conversation I recognize the individual human's ability & validity in coming up with such a rationale in deciding for themselves not to use animal products.

                  • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    Saying that I don’t think it’s totally immoral for someone to eat animals doesn’t mean I think it’s okay for them to eat children.

                    The point of highlighting children as a comparison is to show that despite us (human adults) having higher order moral obligations than children, we treat them with a greater degree of consideration than they themselves are capable of giving.

                    We (humans) can have higher order moral obligations (such as do not eat animals) than animals themselves are capable of.

                    That’s not me saying that animals should be vegetarians, nor is it me saying that animals can be reasoned with in any way. I am saying that using this interpersonal shaming to try & make the case that animal meat shouldn’t be consumed isn’t the same as making the ethical case for treating animals better.

                    There is no way that "you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves. should we shame the cow or show them how much more ethical it would’ve been to not eat the baby chick?" is supposed to be interpreted to mean "using this interpersonal shaming to try & make the case that animal meat shouldn’t be consumed isn’t the same as making the ethical case for treating animals better."

                    you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves.

                    This is the point of disagreement. You can think it's ethical not to eat animals without expecting non-human animals to refrain from eating animals. If that's something you agree with, then there is no argument at all.