Vegetarian Discussion: Subject Of "Logic Of The Larder"

Subject Of "Logic Of The Larder"
Posts: 18

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-07-10 12:58:13 EST
The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals with
experiential welfare. The first sentence of Salt's essay makes this
clear and undeniable:

It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it
is better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all.

We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them. We do not
eat species. The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it is about
the welfare of individual animals.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Firehose
2010-07-10 14:11:34 EST
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
> existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals with
> experiential welfare. The first sentence of Salt's essay makes this
> clear and undeniable:
>
> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it
> is better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at
> all.
>
> We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them. We do not
> eat species. The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it is about
> the welfare of individual animals.


It is better for the species to survive.

--
Firehose should not be replied to but experienced.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-07-10 14:55:42 EST
On 7/10/2010 11:11 AM, firehose wrote:
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
>> existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals with
>> experiential welfare. The first sentence of Salt's essay makes this
>> clear and undeniable:
>>
>> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it
>> is better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at
>> all.
>>
>> We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them. We do not
>> eat species. The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it is about
>> the welfare of individual animals.
>
>
> It is better for the species to survive.

Not what LoL is about, of course.

--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-07-10 15:24:10 EST
On 7/10/2010 11:11 AM, freefall bullshitted:
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
>> existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals with
>> experiential welfare. The first sentence of Salt's essay makes this
>> clear and undeniable:
>>
>> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it
>> is better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at
>> all.
>>
>> We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them. We do not
>> eat species. The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it is about
>> the welfare of individual animals.
>
>
> It is better for the species to survive.

The species doesn't care. It doesn't have an experiential welfare.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Firehose
2010-07-10 15:37:03 EST
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> On 7/10/2010 11:11 AM, firehose wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
>>> existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals with
>>> experiential welfare. The first sentence of Salt's essay makes this
>>> clear and undeniable:
>>>
>>> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that
>>> it is better for them to live and to be butchered than not to
>>> live at all.
>>>
>>> We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them. We do not
>>> eat species. The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it is
>>> about the welfare of individual animals.
>>
>> It is better for the species to survive.
>
> Not what LoL is about, of course.


LoL is easier to comprehend
when interpreted as the way human species
interact with farm animal species.

--
Firehose should not be replied to but experienced.

Firehose
2010-07-10 15:38:07 EST
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> On 7/10/2010 11:11 AM, freefall bullshitted:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
>>> existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals with
>>> experiential welfare. The first sentence of Salt's essay makes this
>>> clear and undeniable:
>>>
>>> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that
>>> it is better for them to live and to be butchered than not to
>>> live at all.
>>>
>>> We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them. We do not
>>> eat species. The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it is
>>> about the welfare of individual animals.
>>
>> It is better for the species to survive.
>
> The species doesn't care. It doesn't have an experiential welfare.


It's members do.

--
Firehose should not be replied to but experienced.

Firehose
2010-07-10 15:41:12 EST
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> On 7/10/2010 12:37 PM, firehose wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>> On 7/10/2010 11:11 AM, firehose wrote:
>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
>>>>> existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals with
>>>>> experiential welfare. The first sentence of Salt's essay makes this
>>>>> clear and undeniable:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals,
>>>>> that it is better for them to live and to be butchered than
>>>>> not to live at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them. We do
>>>>> not eat species. The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it
>>>>> is about the welfare of individual animals.
>>>>
>>>> It is better for the species to survive.
>>>
>>> Not what LoL is about, of course.
>>
>> LoL is easier to comprehend
>> when interpreted as the way human species interact with farm animal
>> species.
>
> No. It is not about species in any way.


You are trying too hard not to make it comprehensible.

--
Firehose should not be replied to but experienced.

Firehose
2010-07-10 15:43:03 EST
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> On 7/10/2010 12:38 PM, firehose wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>> On 7/10/2010 11:11 AM, freefall bullshitted:
>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
>>>>> existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals with
>>>>> experiential welfare. The first sentence of Salt's essay makes this
>>>>> clear and undeniable:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals,
>>>>> that it is better for them to live and to be butchered than
>>>>> not to live at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them. We do
>>>>> not eat species. The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it
>>>>> is about the welfare of individual animals.
>>>>
>>>> It is better for the species to survive.
>>>
>>> The species doesn't care. It doesn't have an experiential welfare.
>>
>> It's members do.
>
> The species doesn't. You are trying to equivocate. I stopped you, of
> course.


Language does not work that way.
You need to study how words are used,
instead of trying to dictate the proper way
according to your limited scope of relevance.

--
Firehose should not be replied to but experienced.

Mr.Smartypants
2010-07-10 21:14:07 EST
On Jul 10, 5:45 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 7/10/2010 12:41 PM, firehose wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
> >> On 7/10/2010 12:37 PM, firehose wrote:
> >>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
> >>>> On 7/10/2010 11:11 AM, firehose wrote:
> >>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
> >>>>>> The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
> >>>>>> existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals with
> >>>>>> experiential welfare.  The first sentence of Salt's essay makes this
> >>>>>> clear and undeniable:
>
> >>>>>>        It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals,
> >>>>>>        that it is better for them to live and to be butchered than
> >>>>>>        not to live at all.
>
> >>>>>> We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them.  We do
> >>>>>> not eat species.  The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it
> >>>>>> is about the welfare of individual animals.
>
> >>>>> It is better for the species to survive.
>
> >>>> Not what LoL is about, of course.
>
> >>> LoL is easier to comprehend
> >>> when interpreted as the way human species interact with farm animal
> >>> species.
>
> >> No.  It is not about species in any way.
>
> > ["zen game" bullshit snipped]
>
> Read the essay.  The position the essay attacks - the Logic of the
> Larder - is about the welfare of individual animals being improved as a
> result of coming into existence.  It is not about species - not in any way.
>
> --


Is LoL the *only* thing you've ever read, Goober?



Firehose
2010-07-11 16:29:01 EST
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> On 7/10/2010 12:41 PM, firehose wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/10/2010 12:37 PM, firehose wrote:
>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>> On 7/10/2010 11:11 AM, firehose wrote:
>>>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The invalid idea behind the Logic of the Larder - that coming into
>>>>>>> existence is a benefit to animals - is about individual animals
>>>>>>> with experiential welfare. The first sentence of Salt's essay
>>>>>>> makes this clear and undeniable:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of
>>>>>>> animals, that it is better for them to live and to be
>>>>>>> butchered than not to live at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We breed and then butcher individual animals, to eat them. We do
>>>>>>> not eat species. The LoL is not about the welfare of species - it
>>>>>>> is about the welfare of individual animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is better for the species to survive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not what LoL is about, of course.
>>>>
>>>> LoL is easier to comprehend
>>>> when interpreted as the way human species interact with farm animal
>>>> species.
>>>
>>> No. It is not about species in any way.
>>
>>
>> You are trying too hard not to make it comprehensible.
>
> That would be you. You do not comprehend the LoL. This is obvious.


Still clueless?

[quote]
A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and best-known
justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
Killing an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
but for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it,
where its existence for even a short while is of positive value,
and where, for every animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal
is brought into being who would not have otherwise existed and
who will enjoy its existence as much as the one that was killed
(Sapontzis 177; see Nozick 38). The horrific and absurd implications
of applying this "logic" to human beings have been well noted;
however, for the reasons discussed above, animals stand on fundamentally
different footing insofar as they do not have a sense of their own
continuing existence and cannot formulate long-term plans.
Evelyn Pluhar offers an analogy to capture this view (a view which
she herself rejects):

When we kill and replace a merely conscious being by another such being,
we are simply removing one disjointed, incoherent film from the projector
and replacing it by another jumbled creation. . . . By contrast,
when we kill a self-conscious being and replace that being with another,
we are not just changing films: we are destroying the last reel of
one coherent film in order to bring on an entirely different cinematic
sequence. It is as if we lopped off the ending of Gone with the Wind
in order to show the first half of Tarzan of the Apes, going on
to interrupt the latter film with two-thirds of Jurassic Park and
so on (200).

It is even possible to argue, as Ruth Cigman has, that individual animals
do not experience a desire to go on living, even though they may
instinctively "clin[g] on to life" (57). As Edward Johnson explains,
"[a]ccording to a common view, animals lack the concept of death,
and so cannot mind death, any more than they mind not having a ticket
to the opera" (128).

Certain forms of utilitarianism are consciously constructed so as to dodge
the problem of new life "making up for" loss of present life.
These so-called "prior existence" varieties of utilitarianism take
into account only lives currently in being when calculating utility;
the creation of a new life does nothing to offset harm to an existing
individual (Sapontzis 188). But while these forms of utilitarianism work
fairly well when we are talking about human beings (if one ignores
our obligations to future generations), they quickly become nonsensical
in other contexts. For example, zoologists and biologists who are
struggling to maintain a particular species of animal may care a great deal
more about the "unborn" of that species than about the particularized lives
currently in being. The species cannot survive unless it can successfully
reproduce, and resources often must be channeled away from existing
individual animals (especially those past reproductive age) to maximize
the chances of sustaining the species as a whole (Lacy). Conflict may
remain as to whether and when to "cull" animals to achieve these goals,
but no one would suggest that the interests of future generations of animals
are simply irrelevant.

[/quote]
http://cla.calpoly.edu/bts/issue_03/03fennell.htm

She says, "no one would suggest
that the interests of future generations of animals
are simply irrelevant".
But you are trying to do just that here.
Go figure.

--
Firehose should be filtered out as well those who talk to him regularly
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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