Vegetarian Discussion: Moral Agency And Predation.

Moral Agency And Predation.
Posts: 83

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Next  (First | Last)

Buxqi
2008-02-25 14:27:36 EST
In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
are
capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
refrain from
killing. Howevere we are also capable of apprecating the bigger
picture -
the necessity of keeping the overall population stable. Shouldn't we
factor
this into our moral calculations?

Put another way it seems that most AR activists generally applaud
plans
to reintroduce natural predators. If these are so desirable why object
to
humans taking on that role?

Most of the meat we eat does not come from wild populations but we can
compare the domesticated animal populations to wild animal
populations.
It is hard to see a reason we should appreciate the life of a sheep
less than
the life of a deer and the former has the freedom of the latter for
the most part.
Indeed many of the human interventions are beneficial to them in some
way.
Help with delivering the lamb, sheering of the coats in summer,
dipping to
get rid of parasites, provision of shelter and food supplements if
needed...

Rudy Canoza
2008-02-26 03:02:28 EST
Buxqi wrote:
> In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
> and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
> are
> capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
> refrain from
> killing.

This doesn't withstand scrutiny. Rights-holding humans
hold those rights even against humans who are merely
moral patients, not just against moral agents. Moral
patient humans don't get a free pass to violate the
rights of others. The consequences to a moral patient
human for violating another human's rights are
different than the consequences to a moral agent, but
that doesn't change the fact that people hold their
rights against all humans, not just moral agents.

It is only morally wrong for a moral agent to violate
the rights of a rights holder. Animals don't and
cannot hold rights, and so no violation of rights can
occur.

"aras" can't seem to come to grips with the fact they
are engaging in speciesism when they say only humans
must refrain from predation on other animals. We don't
stand idly by and allow moral patient humans to prey
upon other humans, so there could be no legitimate
rationale for allowing non-human predators to prey on
other animals.

Buxqi
2008-02-27 11:59:13 EST
On Feb 26, 8:02 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Buxqi wrote:
> > In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
> > and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
> > are
> > capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
> > refrain from
> > killing.
>
> This doesn't withstand scrutiny.  Rights-holding humans
> hold those rights even against humans who are merely
> moral patients, not just against moral agents.  Moral
> patient humans don't get a free pass to violate the
> rights of others.  The consequences to a moral patient
> human for violating another human's rights are
> different than the consequences to a moral agent, but
> that doesn't change the fact that people hold their
> rights against all humans, not just moral agents.

Ok.

> It is only morally wrong for a moral agent to violate
> the rights of a rights holder.  Animals don't and
> cannot hold rights,

Why not?

> and so no violation of rights can
> occur.
>
> "aras" can't seem to come to grips with the fact they
> are engaging in speciesism when they say only humans
> must refrain from predation on other animals.  We don't
> stand idly by and allow moral patient humans to prey
> upon other humans, so there could be no legitimate
> rationale for allowing non-human predators to prey on
> other animals.

This is similar to the point I was trying to make, I think.
Perhaps slightly more eloquent.

Rudy Canoza
2008-02-28 14:19:19 EST
Buxqi wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:02 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> Buxqi wrote:
>>> In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
>>> and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
>>> are
>>> capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
>>> refrain from
>>> killing.
>> This doesn't withstand scrutiny. Rights-holding humans
>> hold those rights even against humans who are merely
>> moral patients, not just against moral agents. Moral
>> patient humans don't get a free pass to violate the
>> rights of others. The consequences to a moral patient
>> human for violating another human's rights are
>> different than the consequences to a moral agent, but
>> that doesn't change the fact that people hold their
>> rights against all humans, not just moral agents.
>
> Ok.
>
>> It is only morally wrong for a moral agent to violate
>> the rights of a rights holder. Animals don't and
>> cannot hold rights,
>
> Why not?

Because they are not of the kind for which rights makes
any sense or has any meaning.


>
>> and so no violation of rights can
>> occur.
>>
>> "aras" can't seem to come to grips with the fact they
>> are engaging in speciesism when they say only humans
>> must refrain from predation on other animals. We don't
>> stand idly by and allow moral patient humans to prey
>> upon other humans, so there could be no legitimate
>> rationale for allowing non-human predators to prey on
>> other animals.
>
> This is similar to the point I was trying to make, I think.
> Perhaps slightly more eloquent.

D*@.
2008-03-04 09:44:45 EST
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Goo wrote:

>Buxqi wrote:
>> In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
>> and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
>> are
>> capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
>> refrain from
>> killing.
>
>This doesn't withstand scrutiny. Rights-holding humans
>hold those rights even against humans who are merely
>moral patients, not just against moral agents. Moral
>patient humans don't get a free pass to violate the
>rights of others. The consequences to a moral patient
>human for violating another human's rights are
>different than the consequences to a moral agent, but
>that doesn't change the fact that people hold their
>rights against all humans, not just moral agents.
>
>It is only morally wrong for a moral agent to violate
>the rights of a rights holder. Animals don't and
>cannot hold rights, and so no violation of rights can
>occur.
>
>"aras" can't seem to come to grips with the fact they
>are engaging in speciesism when they say only humans
>must refrain from predation on other animals. We don't
>stand idly by and allow moral patient humans to prey
>upon other humans,

Even when they are the property of the state, Goo?


D*@.
2008-03-04 09:46:10 EST
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:27:36 -0800 (PST), Buxqi <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
>and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
>are
>capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
>refrain from
>killing. Howevere we are also capable of apprecating the bigger
>picture -
>the necessity of keeping the overall population stable. Shouldn't we
>factor
>this into our moral calculations?

Eliminationists don't really care about the animals involved.
That's made clear by the fact that they want to eliminate all
domestic animals, not provide them with decent lives of positive
value. So as far as "animal rights" are concerned, it's easy to see
that "ar" would not provide rights or anything else for domestic
animals. From there we see that advocates of the misnomer "ar",
ie eliminationists, *can not* be concerned about rights or anything
else for domestic animals, but they can only be interested in what
makes them feel better themselves. So what about wildlife?
Eliminationists contribute to the deaths of wildlife in the same
ways that most people do by their use of roads and buildings,
wood and paper products, products which have been mined,
their own diets, use of communication systems and electricity...

>Put another way it seems that most AR activists generally applaud
>plans to reintroduce natural predators.

Yes and again that's without having consideration for the
animals themselves. Nonhuman predators live with their prey
year round, and hunt both day and night, killing in more horrible
ways than humans. Humans have seasons and don't hunt at
night, being that much easier on the prey animals. Humans also
don't usually kill pregnant mothers and the very young, which
are some of the best prey for nonhuman predators. So eliminations
in regards to wildlife population "management" want to impose
controlling agents which are far less humane to the prey animals
than human hunters are. Where's the gain for the extra pain?
Do nonhuman predators make better calculations and decisions
about the number of prey animals to be taken, in order to maintain
the best population size for particular areas? No. In fact the idea
never crosses their mind so in that respect, too, they are the
worse choice. How about their own population size? What's to
control that? Oh, after they kill off a high enough percentage
of their preys' populations they will begin to starve and decline,
and humans of course will again have to begin killing them
off themselves when the wolves become a threat to humans
(remember there would be no domestic animals for them to
prey on in human populated areas). Again we see incredible
inconsideration toward the animals themselves unless the
wolves rights would continue to be observed even if they
are killing humans, and people would simply have to accept
the idea that if wolves want to kill them or their children,
it's okay.

>If these are so desirable why object
>to humans taking on that role?

I've asked them if they think it would better to instead of
slaughtering them in the ways we do now, chase them to
terrified exhaustion as wolves do and then strangle them
with wolf like jaws, while other such tools begin to tear them
apart while they're still alive and conscious, like wolves do.
Also as a pro-reintroduction promotion people could take
teams of trained wolves to schools around the country, and
have them demonstrate how wolves kill and eat fawns, lambs
calves, chickens, etc... for delighted assemblies of students
and faculty.

>Most of the meat we eat does not come from wild populations but we can
>compare the domesticated animal populations to wild animal
>populations.
>It is hard to see a reason we should appreciate the life of a sheep
>less than
>the life of a deer and the former has the freedom of the latter for
>the most part.

Some domestic animals have decent lives of positive value
and some don't. Eliminationists are insanely opposed to taking
the fact that billions of livestock do have lives of positive value
into consideration. Then there are opposite situations in which
animals have lives of negative value as well and eliminationists
*do* want us to consider them, but not those of positive value
which would suggest that some alternatives could be ethically
equal or superior to their elimination objective. Some eliminationists
like Goo even go so far as to insist that regardless of conditions
life could never be a benefit to anything, in their attempts to
prevent people from understanding that life is of positive value
to many livestock animals:

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not
a benefit." - Goo

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo

>Indeed many of the human interventions are beneficial to them in some
>way.
>Help with delivering the lamb, sheering of the coats in summer,
>dipping to
>get rid of parasites, provision of shelter and food supplements if
>needed...

No doubt. Those are all things wild animals suffer from
but domestic ones do not if properly raised. Also since the
majority of wildlife is killed before reaching adulthood and
much of it when very young, overall lifespan even for broiler
chickens at about 8 weeks is likely to be considerably longer
than the average lifespan of their wild ancestors the jungle fowl.

Rudy Canoza
2008-03-04 10:39:11 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the stupid cracker goober
- lied and presented no challenge:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Rudy R. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Buxqi wrote:
>>> In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
>>> and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
>>> are
>>> capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
>>> refrain from
>>> killing.
>> This doesn't withstand scrutiny. Rights-holding humans
>> hold those rights even against humans who are merely
>> moral patients, not just against moral agents. Moral
>> patient humans don't get a free pass to violate the
>> rights of others. The consequences to a moral patient
>> human for violating another human's rights are
>> different than the consequences to a moral agent, but
>> that doesn't change the fact that people hold their
>> rights against all humans, not just moral agents.
>>
>> It is only morally wrong for a moral agent to violate
>> the rights of a rights holder. Animals don't and
>> cannot hold rights, and so no violation of rights can
>> occur.
>>
>> "aras" can't seem to come to grips with the fact they
>> are engaging in speciesism when they say only humans
>> must refrain from predation on other animals. We don't
>> stand idly by and allow moral patient humans to prey
>> upon other humans,
>
> Even when they are the property of the state?

Moral patient humans are never the "property" of the
state, Fuckwit.


Buxqi
2008-03-04 15:15:32 EST
On Mar 4, 2:46 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:27:36 -0800 (PST), Buxqi <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
> >and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
> >are
> >capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
> >refrain from
> >killing. Howevere we are also capable of apprecating the bigger
> >picture -
> >the necessity of keeping the overall population stable. Shouldn't we
> >factor
> >this into our moral calculations?
>
>     Eliminationists don't really care about the animals involved.
> That's made clear by the fact that they want to eliminate all
> domestic animals, not provide them with decent lives of positive
> value. So as far as "animal rights" are concerned, it's easy to see
> that "ar" would not provide rights or anything else for domestic
> animals.

Naturally one can not provide rights for something that no
longer exists. Big deal!

> From there we see that advocates of the misnomer "ar",
> ie eliminationists, *can not* be concerned about rights or anything
> else for domestic animals, but they can only be interested in what
> makes them feel better themselves.

AR advocates are concerned about animals that are currently
domesticated. Some see domestication as an evil in itself.
Others keep animals as pets.

> So what about wildlife?
> Eliminationists contribute to the deaths of wildlife in the same
> ways that most people do by their use of roads and buildings,
> wood and paper products, products which have been mined,
> their own diets, use of communication systems and electricity...

Sure. Its impossible to do very much at all without causing at
least some animal suffering along the way but this seems to
me like a poor excuse for willfully ignoring the interests of
animals you can effect directly.

> >Put another way it seems that most AR activists generally applaud
> >plans to reintroduce natural predators.
>
>     Yes and again that's without having consideration for the
> animals themselves. Nonhuman predators live with their prey
> year round, and hunt both day and night, killing in more horrible
> ways than humans. Humans have seasons and don't hunt at
> night, being that much easier on the prey animals. Humans also
> don't usually kill pregnant mothers and the very young, which
> are some of the best prey for nonhuman predators. So eliminations
> in regards to wildlife population "management" want to impose
> controlling agents which are far less humane to the prey animals
> than human hunters are. Where's the gain for the extra pain?
> Do nonhuman predators make better calculations and decisions
> about the number of prey animals to be taken, in order to maintain
> the best population size for particular areas? No. In fact the idea
> never crosses their mind so in that respect, too, they are the
> worse choice. How about their own population size? What's to
> control that?

Well I guess ecosystems can still function without predation but
it seems in the overall interests of a given population to have their
population fluctuations smoothed out by predation rather than
periodic episodes of disease and starvation.

> Oh, after they kill off a high enough percentage
> of their preys' populations they will begin to starve and decline,
> and humans of course will again have to begin killing them
> off themselves when the wolves become a threat to humans
> (remember there would be no domestic animals for them to
> prey on in human populated areas). Again we see incredible
> inconsideration toward the animals themselves unless the
> wolves rights would continue to be observed even if they
> are killing humans, and people would simply have to accept
> the idea that if wolves want to  kill them or their children,
> it's okay.
>
> >If these are so desirable why object
> >to humans taking on that role?
>
>     I've asked them if they think it would better to instead of
> slaughtering them in the ways we do now, chase them to
> terrified exhaustion as wolves do and then strangle them
> with wolf like jaws, while other such tools begin to tear them
> apart while they're still alive and conscious, like wolves do.
>     Also as a pro-reintroduction promotion people could take
> teams of trained wolves to schools around the country, and
> have them demonstrate how wolves kill and eat fawns, lambs
> calves, chickens, etc... for delighted assemblies of students
> and faculty.

Exactly! I fail to see why natural predators should be considered
to perform their role better than humans can.
>
> >Most of the meat we eat does not come from wild populations but we can
> >compare the domesticated animal populations to wild animal
> >populations.
> >It is hard to see a reason we should appreciate the life of a sheep
> >less than
> >the life of a deer and the former has the freedom of the latter for
> >the most part.
>
>     Some domestic animals have decent lives of positive value
> and some don't. Eliminationists are insanely opposed to taking
> the fact that billions of livestock do have lives of positive value
> into consideration.

Many in the AR movement consider domestication fundamentally
immoral irrespective of the quality of life of the domesticatee.

>Then there are opposite situations in which
> animals have lives of negative value as well and eliminationists
> *do* want us to consider them,  but not those of positive value
> which would suggest that some alternatives could be ethically
> equal or superior to their elimination objective.

I would ask not only that the lives were of positive value but
that they were equal or better than the lives of wild animals...

> Some eliminationists
> like Goo even go so far as to insist that regardless of conditions
> life could never be a benefit to anything, in their attempts to
> prevent people from understanding that life is of positive value
> to many livestock animals:
>
> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> . . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Goo
>
> "Being born is not a benefit in any way.  It can't be." - Goo
>
> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
> to humans . . .  "getting to experience life" is not
> a benefit." - Goo
>
> "coming into existence didn't make me better off than
> I was before." - Goo
>
> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
> might provide:  they STILL might not be as good as the
> "pre-existence" state was" - Goo
>
> >Indeed many of the human interventions are beneficial to them in some
> >way.
> >Help with delivering the lamb, sheering of the coats in summer,
> >dipping to
> >get rid of parasites, provision of shelter and food supplements if
> >needed...
>
>     No doubt. Those are all things wild animals suffer from
> but domestic ones do not if properly raised. Also since the
> majority of wildlife is killed before reaching adulthood and
> much of it when very young, overall lifespan even for broiler
> chickens at about 8 weeks is likely to be considerably longer
> than the average lifespan of their wild ancestors the jungle fowl.

Possible. Not sure what the mortality rate for wildfowl is.
The treatment of the majority of broiler chickens is still
disgraceful though, IMHO.


Rudy Canoza
2008-03-04 15:26:08 EST
Buxqi wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2:46 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:27:36 -0800 (PST), Buxqi <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
>>> and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
>>> are
>>> capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
>>> refrain from
>>> killing. Howevere we are also capable of apprecating the bigger
>>> picture -
>>> the necessity of keeping the overall population stable. Shouldn't we
>>> factor
>>> this into our moral calculations?
>> Eliminationists don't really care about the animals involved.
>> That's made clear by the fact that they want to eliminate all
>> domestic animals, not provide them with decent lives of positive
>> value. So as far as "animal rights" are concerned, it's easy to see
>> that "ar" would not provide rights or anything else for domestic
>> animals.
>
> Naturally one can not provide rights for something that no
> longer exists. Big deal!
>
>> From there we see that advocates of the misnomer "ar",
>> ie eliminationists, *can not* be concerned about rights or anything
>> else for domestic animals, but they can only be interested in what
>> makes them feel better themselves.
>
> AR advocates are concerned about animals that are currently
> domesticated.

They aren't concerned in the least about domestic
animals that actually exist. They want to prevent any
more such animals from existing.


> Some see domestication as an evil in itself.
> Others keep animals as pets.
>
>> So what about wildlife?
>> Eliminationists contribute to the deaths of wildlife in the same
>> ways that most people do by their use of roads and buildings,
>> wood and paper products, products which have been mined,
>> their own diets, use of communication systems and electricity...
>
> Sure. Its impossible to do very much at all without causing at
> least some animal suffering along the way but this seems to
> me like a poor excuse for willfully ignoring the interests of
> animals you can effect directly.
>
>>> Put another way it seems that most AR activists generally applaud
>>> plans to reintroduce natural predators.

Right. The natural predators should be there.


>> Yes and again that's without having consideration for the
>> animals themselves.

No such consideration is due.


>> [snip GooFuckwit's absurd anti-predator rant]
>> Do nonhuman predators make better calculations and decisions
>> about the number of prey animals to be taken, in order to maintain
>> the best population size for particular areas? No. In fact the idea
>> never crosses their mind so in that respect, too, they are the
>> worse choice. How about their own population size? What's to
>> control that?
>
> Well I guess ecosystems can still function without predation but
> it seems in the overall interests of a given population to have their
> population fluctuations smoothed out by predation rather than
> periodic episodes of disease and starvation.

GooFuckwit - used to be known as David Harrison - has
an insane anti-predator agenda. He thinks it's
"better" if wild prey animals - deer, elk, etc. - are
killed by humans rather than by non-human predators.
He pretends to be concerned about their welfare,
pretending to think it's "awful" if they suffer death
from wolves and cougars and so on, but he really
doesn't care about that at all.


>
>> Oh, after they kill off a high enough percentage
>> of their preys' populations they will begin to starve and decline,

False. That can happen some in extreme cases, but
mostly they stop reproducing when food isn't plentiful.

There is much more starvation for deer in particular
among prey species when predators are absent. The deer
population explodes faster than deer reproduction can drop.


>>
>>> If these are so desirable why object
>>> to humans taking on that role?
>> I've asked them if they think it would better to instead of
>> slaughtering them in the ways we do now, chase them to
>> terrified exhaustion as wolves do and then strangle them
>> with wolf like jaws, while other such tools begin to tear them
>> apart while they're still alive and conscious, like wolves do.
>> Also as a pro-reintroduction promotion people could take
>> teams of trained wolves to schools around the country, and
>> have them demonstrate how wolves kill and eat fawns, lambs
>> calves, chickens, etc... for delighted assemblies of students
>> and faculty.
>
> Exactly! I fail to see why natural predators should be considered
> to perform their role better than humans can.

It isn't a case of doing it "better", although they
probably do. It's the fact that ecosystems tend to be
in better balance if the natural predators are there.


>>> Most of the meat we eat does not come from wild populations but we can
>>> compare the domesticated animal populations to wild animal
>>> populations.
>>> It is hard to see a reason we should appreciate the life of a sheep
>>> less than
>>> the life of a deer and the former has the freedom of the latter for
>>> the most part.
>> Some domestic animals have decent lives of positive value
>> and some don't. Eliminationists are insanely opposed to taking
>> the fact that billions of livestock do have lives of positive value
>> into consideration.
>
> Many in the AR movement consider domestication fundamentally
> immoral irrespective of the quality of life of the domesticatee.
>
>> Then there are opposite situations in which
>> animals have lives of negative value as well and eliminationists
>> *do* want us to consider them, but not those of positive value
>> which would suggest that some alternatives could be ethically
>> equal or superior to their elimination objective.
>
> I would ask not only that the lives were of positive value but
> that they were equal or better than the lives of wild animals...

"lives of positive value" is GooFuckwit code-speak for
"it is good for the animals themselves to cause
livestock animals to exist". It's bullshit.
GooFuckwit believes "aras" are doing something "bad" to
non-existent animals by pursuing an agenda in which
domestic livestock breeds would cease to exist. He's
wrong.


>> Some eliminationists

No such thing.


>>
>>> Indeed many of the human interventions are beneficial to them in some
>>> way.
>>> Help with delivering the lamb, sheering of the coats in summer,
>>> dipping to
>>> get rid of parasites, provision of shelter and food supplements if
>>> needed...
>> No doubt. Those are all things wild animals suffer from
>> but domestic ones do not if properly raised. Also since the
>> majority of wildlife is killed before reaching adulthood and
>> much of it when very young, overall lifespan even for broiler
>> chickens at about 8 weeks is likely to be considerably longer
>> than the average lifespan of their wild ancestors the jungle fowl.
>
> Possible. Not sure what the mortality rate for wildfowl is.
> The treatment of the majority of broiler chickens is still
> disgraceful though, IMHO.
>

D*@.
2008-03-05 11:20:10 EST
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:15:32 -0800 (PST), Buxqi <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 4, 2:46 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:27:36 -0800 (PST), Buxqi <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
>> >and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
>> >are
>> >capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
>> >refrain from
>> >killing. Howevere we are also capable of apprecating the bigger
>> >picture -
>> >the necessity of keeping the overall population stable. Shouldn't we
>> >factor
>> >this into our moral calculations?
>>
>>     Eliminationists don't really care about the animals involved.
>> That's made clear by the fact that they want to eliminate all
>> domestic animals, not provide them with decent lives of positive
>> value. So as far as "animal rights" are concerned, it's easy to see
>> that "ar" would not provide rights or anything else for domestic
>> animals.
>
>Naturally one can not provide rights for something that no
>longer exists. Big deal!

The big deal is that they bring in millions of dollars using
a misnomer that suggests something entirely different from
what they are trying to accomplish.

>> From there we see that advocates of the misnomer "ar",
>> ie eliminationists, *can not* be concerned about rights or anything
>> else for domestic animals, but they can only be interested in what
>> makes them feel better themselves.
>
>AR advocates are concerned about animals that are currently
>domesticated.

They exploit *animal welfare* issues. In fact I feel sure
that they bring in more money by exploiting animal welfare
issues, than they do by asking people to help them eliminate
domestic animals. As yet I'm not aware of them ever asking
for money specifically to support their real elimination objective,
are you?

>Some see domestication as an evil in itself.
>Others keep animals as pets.

They kill unwanted pets:
_________________________________________________________
>From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
meaning they would kill unwanted livestock if they could ever
get raising them for human use to become illegal.

>> So what about wildlife?
>> Eliminationists contribute to the deaths of wildlife in the same
>> ways that most people do by their use of roads and buildings,
>> wood and paper products, products which have been mined,
>> their own diets, use of communication systems and electricity...
>
>Sure. Its impossible to do very much at all without causing at
>least some animal suffering along the way but this seems to
>me like a poor excuse for willfully ignoring the interests of
>animals you can effect directly.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

>> >Put another way it seems that most AR activists generally applaud
>> >plans to reintroduce natural predators.
>>
>>     Yes and again that's without having consideration for the
>> animals themselves. Nonhuman predators live with their prey
>> year round, and hunt both day and night, killing in more horrible
>> ways than humans. Humans have seasons and don't hunt at
>> night, being that much easier on the prey animals. Humans also
>> don't usually kill pregnant mothers and the very young, which
>> are some of the best prey for nonhuman predators. So eliminations
>> in regards to wildlife population "management" want to impose
>> controlling agents which are far less humane to the prey animals
>> than human hunters are. Where's the gain for the extra pain?
>> Do nonhuman predators make better calculations and decisions
>> about the number of prey animals to be taken, in order to maintain
>> the best population size for particular areas? No. In fact the idea
>> never crosses their mind so in that respect, too, they are the
>> worse choice. How about their own population size? What's to
>> control that?
>
>Well I guess ecosystems can still function without predation but
>it seems in the overall interests of a given population to have their
>population fluctuations smoothed out by predation rather than
>periodic episodes of disease and starvation.

The question is whether or not human predation is more
humane for the animals involved, than just leaving it to
nonhuman predators.

>> Oh, after they kill off a high enough percentage
>> of their preys' populations they will begin to starve and decline,
>> and humans of course will again have to begin killing them
>> off themselves when the wolves become a threat to humans
>> (remember there would be no domestic animals for them to
>> prey on in human populated areas). Again we see incredible
>> inconsideration toward the animals themselves unless the
>> wolves rights would continue to be observed even if they
>> are killing humans, and people would simply have to accept
>> the idea that if wolves want to  kill them or their children,
>> it's okay.
>>
>> >If these are so desirable why object
>> >to humans taking on that role?
>>
>>     I've asked them if they think it would better to instead of
>> slaughtering them in the ways we do now, chase them to
>> terrified exhaustion as wolves do and then strangle them
>> with wolf like jaws, while other such tools begin to tear them
>> apart while they're still alive and conscious, like wolves do.
>>     Also as a pro-reintroduction promotion people could take
>> teams of trained wolves to schools around the country, and
>> have them demonstrate how wolves kill and eat fawns, lambs
>> calves, chickens, etc... for delighted assemblies of students
>> and faculty.
>
>Exactly! I fail to see why natural predators should be considered
>to perform their role better than humans can.

We agree on something.

>> >Most of the meat we eat does not come from wild populations but we can
>> >compare the domesticated animal populations to wild animal
>> >populations.
>> >It is hard to see a reason we should appreciate the life of a sheep
>> >less than
>> >the life of a deer and the former has the freedom of the latter for
>> >the most part.
>>
>>     Some domestic animals have decent lives of positive value
>> and some don't. Eliminationists are insanely opposed to taking
>> the fact that billions of livestock do have lives of positive value
>> into consideration.
>
>Many in the AR movement consider domestication fundamentally
>immoral irrespective of the quality of life of the domesticatee.

Yes, but as yet I have no reason to agree with that idea.

>>Then there are opposite situations in which
>> animals have lives of negative value as well and eliminationists
>> *do* want us to consider them,  but not those of positive value
>> which would suggest that some alternatives could be ethically
>> equal or superior to their elimination objective.
>
>I would ask not only that the lives were of positive value but
>that they were equal or better than the lives of wild animals...

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. Humans have
a lot more ability to provide decent lives for domestic animals
than they do for wild ones.

>> Some eliminationists
>> like Goo even go so far as to insist that regardless of conditions
>> life could never be a benefit to anything, in their attempts to
>> prevent people from understanding that life is of positive value
>> to many livestock animals:
>>
>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>
>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>> . . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo
>>
>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>> their deaths" - Goo
>>
>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way.  It can't be." - Goo
>>
>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>> to humans . . .  "getting to experience life" is not
>> a benefit." - Goo
>>
>> "coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>> I was before." - Goo
>>
>> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
>> might provide:  they STILL might not be as good as the
>> "pre-existence" state was" - Goo
>>
>> >Indeed many of the human interventions are beneficial to them in some
>> >way.
>> >Help with delivering the lamb, sheering of the coats in summer,
>> >dipping to
>> >get rid of parasites, provision of shelter and food supplements if
>> >needed...
>>
>>     No doubt. Those are all things wild animals suffer from
>> but domestic ones do not if properly raised. Also since the
>> majority of wildlife is killed before reaching adulthood and
>> much of it when very young, overall lifespan even for broiler
>> chickens at about 8 weeks is likely to be considerably longer
>> than the average lifespan of their wild ancestors the jungle fowl.
>
>Possible. Not sure what the mortality rate for wildfowl is.

Most of the wild ducks in our area hatch off about 4-8
chicks. Of those 4-8 chicks, most of them don't live long
enough to feather out. Most years I don't see even one
pair manage to raise a single offspring to adulthood, and
this is in an area with a lot less predators than wild jungle
fowl have to contend with.

>The treatment of the majority of broiler chickens is still
>disgraceful though, IMHO.

How so?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron