The pandemic has thrown into high relief some of the longstanding issues surrounding working conditions in meatpacking facilities. John Oliver explains why g...
I don't see why ethical considerations should centre around humans, if your understanding of ethics is that causing pain for pleasure is bad then there's no discernible difference between the pain response of humans and non-human animals.
In regards to humans working in fields, when you buy meat there's both the exploitation of the farm workers who produce the meat, as well as the farm workers who produce the feed for farm animals so it's an extra layer of exploitation.
no, ethical considerations center around humans because humans are the nexus of ethical behavior & ethical standards... we do not look to non-human animals as models for ethical behavior, nor do animals look to humans, they are separate domains.
animals need other organisms to die in order to sustain themselves, just as humans do... the key is where the lines are drawn for humans' most intense ethical attachments & spiritual affinities. those rest and have always rested solidly with fellow human persons. this is expressed in our legal system as well as in our normative standards for interpersonal & intersubjective conceptions
animals deserve an exceeding amount of respect & care & those under human control should not be subjected to undue pain or torture from humans. legal conventions already protect against animal cruelty, and I agree they don't go far enough
I don't really understand this argument. Humans are animals, the only separation between us is that we know that we are sapient. Many animals show intelligence on a level of toddlers or infants, should our ethical considerations only centre around adults and not children who are insufficiently developed?
Pointing at legal systems and normative standards doesn't mean much, most of our legal structure is extremely archaic and as leftists we're constantly calling for overhauling what's considered normal. Veganism is just another avenue of radical social change.
Humans are humans and are capable of making human ethical calculations & Animals show animal intelligence, and their animal ethics are completely of an animal kind. Children have legal personhood & are themselves capable of "rationale" after a certain "Age of Reason", which means they are capable of imputing consciousness into other humans, and are themselves capable of determining that animals are not persons. Children are not animals, though I know that's not what you're trying to say
Pointing at legal systems and normative standards is pretty much the only edifice that means anything. That's because the legal system is the only accountable system amenable to changing human conventions & societal concerns. Most of our legal structure is based in ancient, but evolving, characteristics of political reality, politics that always concerned humans first & foremost, and ecology second. I agree that humanity depends on ecology & that animals shouldn't be tortured or made to suffer unduly
But veganism as an individualist & finger-wagging aesthetic in this way is not radical, it's merely a way to dehumanize first-order human ethics & divert attention away from class considerations... considerations which usually leave the lowest humans beneath the most esteemed animals within these hierarchies
You still haven't made an argument for what distinguishes human and animal intelligence besides legal norms of personhood. Animals like chimps, orcas and dolphins can have very complicated social systems and demonstrate intelligence on the level of young children/early humans. What's the difference in intelligence between a child and a dolphin? If we're not basing the distinction between humans and non-humans on intelligence what material basis are you distinguishing on?
Like I said, humans have a human ethical framework & different animals have their own animal ethical frameworks, mostly unknowable to us. i agree that animals are not profligate destroyers & killers & unguided by any behavioral good sense. Non-humans and humans alike are guided by self-preservation & kin selection & reciprocal altruism. and no, children do not demonstrate animal intelligence at a young age, they exhibit developing human intelligence
The difference between a child & a dolphin on this level is that a child has the ability to make mistakes and be held(or have their guardians be held) ethically & moralistically, and yes legally, accountable by the society. particularly after reaching this "age of reason" or being determined as of sound mind. dolphins that accidentally drown their trainers or "rape" scuba divers are not going to be held ethically or legally accountable ever, no matter how smart you think they are
the material basis is the material outcome. children are scolded & can learn these behaviors in ways that are not always considered base "operant conditioning", but because the child is able over time to make discernible MORAL calculations of right & wrong, not just what gets them scolded/deprived of treats... the intervening factor is recognition of ideals and fleshing out the contours of what constitutes "moral turpitude"
I don't see why ethical considerations should centre around humans, if your understanding of ethics is that causing pain for pleasure is bad then there's no discernible difference between the pain response of humans and non-human animals.
In regards to humans working in fields, when you buy meat there's both the exploitation of the farm workers who produce the meat, as well as the farm workers who produce the feed for farm animals so it's an extra layer of exploitation.
no, ethical considerations center around humans because humans are the nexus of ethical behavior & ethical standards... we do not look to non-human animals as models for ethical behavior, nor do animals look to humans, they are separate domains.
animals need other organisms to die in order to sustain themselves, just as humans do... the key is where the lines are drawn for humans' most intense ethical attachments & spiritual affinities. those rest and have always rested solidly with fellow human persons. this is expressed in our legal system as well as in our normative standards for interpersonal & intersubjective conceptions
animals deserve an exceeding amount of respect & care & those under human control should not be subjected to undue pain or torture from humans. legal conventions already protect against animal cruelty, and I agree they don't go far enough
I don't really understand this argument. Humans are animals, the only separation between us is that we know that we are sapient. Many animals show intelligence on a level of toddlers or infants, should our ethical considerations only centre around adults and not children who are insufficiently developed?
Pointing at legal systems and normative standards doesn't mean much, most of our legal structure is extremely archaic and as leftists we're constantly calling for overhauling what's considered normal. Veganism is just another avenue of radical social change.
Humans are humans and are capable of making human ethical calculations & Animals show animal intelligence, and their animal ethics are completely of an animal kind. Children have legal personhood & are themselves capable of "rationale" after a certain "Age of Reason", which means they are capable of imputing consciousness into other humans, and are themselves capable of determining that animals are not persons. Children are not animals, though I know that's not what you're trying to say
Pointing at legal systems and normative standards is pretty much the only edifice that means anything. That's because the legal system is the only accountable system amenable to changing human conventions & societal concerns. Most of our legal structure is based in ancient, but evolving, characteristics of political reality, politics that always concerned humans first & foremost, and ecology second. I agree that humanity depends on ecology & that animals shouldn't be tortured or made to suffer unduly
But veganism as an individualist & finger-wagging aesthetic in this way is not radical, it's merely a way to dehumanize first-order human ethics & divert attention away from class considerations... considerations which usually leave the lowest humans beneath the most esteemed animals within these hierarchies
You still haven't made an argument for what distinguishes human and animal intelligence besides legal norms of personhood. Animals like chimps, orcas and dolphins can have very complicated social systems and demonstrate intelligence on the level of young children/early humans. What's the difference in intelligence between a child and a dolphin? If we're not basing the distinction between humans and non-humans on intelligence what material basis are you distinguishing on?
Like I said, humans have a human ethical framework & different animals have their own animal ethical frameworks, mostly unknowable to us. i agree that animals are not profligate destroyers & killers & unguided by any behavioral good sense. Non-humans and humans alike are guided by self-preservation & kin selection & reciprocal altruism. and no, children do not demonstrate animal intelligence at a young age, they exhibit developing human intelligence
The difference between a child & a dolphin on this level is that a child has the ability to make mistakes and be held(or have their guardians be held) ethically & moralistically, and yes legally, accountable by the society. particularly after reaching this "age of reason" or being determined as of sound mind. dolphins that accidentally drown their trainers or "rape" scuba divers are not going to be held ethically or legally accountable ever, no matter how smart you think they are
the material basis is the material outcome. children are scolded & can learn these behaviors in ways that are not always considered base "operant conditioning", but because the child is able over time to make discernible MORAL calculations of right & wrong, not just what gets them scolded/deprived of treats... the intervening factor is recognition of ideals and fleshing out the contours of what constitutes "moral turpitude"