I was discussing animal rights with my Theory of Knowledge (basically, philosophy) teacher, and he really pushed me to start supporting my beliefs more concretely. He asked how I choose to defend the concept of animal rights. I explained (similar to Pascale's wager, which has flaws that don't pertain to this argument) that, if the possibility exists that animals are conscious, then it is more important to remove the threat of hurting conscious animals than it is to please oneself.

He suggested that I use a "moral" or "virtuous" form of support, similar to Aristotle, but I have a fundamental problem with that, as all of my OTHER ideals are based on rationalism, utalitarianism, and Kant's ideas - for example, it is inconsistent to breach a moral code unless you would be willing to be the "victim" of such breachings.

But sense animals can't reason (at least not ethically), this doesn't apply to them. Here are my questions: please try to help me!! :)

1. Why is it wrong to cause pain to another being for our own pleasure?
2. Who defines the purpose of pain, life, and pleasure?
3. Are animals rational (note: I don't mean simply conscious)?

Please tell me if you have other questions! Also, I am not looking for a "religious" or "moral" answer, I want a logical answer please!!

But sense animals can't reason (at least not ethically), this doesn't apply to them. Here are my questions: please try to help me!! :)

1. Why is it wrong to cause pain to another being for our own pleasure?
2. Who defines the purpose of pain, life, and pleasure?
3. Are animals rational (note: I don't mean simply conscious)?

Please tell me if you have other questions! Also, I am not looking for a "religious" or "moral" answer, I want a logical answer please!!

This might be difficult. I don't know that much about philosophical traditions, although I do philosophize a lot- that is, I think (some have said I obsess) about issues of right and wrong. But I thought logic could only tell you whether your conclusions followed from your premises, or starting point. I don't know if logic alone can tell much about whether a certain premise has value- for example, whether it is a "good thing" to spare an animal's life, or avoid inflicting pain on an animal.

Anyway...

For number 2, I would say that the purpose of pain, life, and pleasure is defined by the one living that life. I would say that an animal can define those on some level of its being, even though it would not have the intellect or language capacity to express them. Maybe this would be nothing more than a desire to experience the pleasure of a good meal, a place to live, satisfying the urge to mate, or companionship.

About number 3: I would argue that at least some animals are rational because they solve problems, and can anticipate something happening. When I had to give my two cats a bad-tasting antibiotic, I remember one day Harriet saw me giving it to Crystal- and she started making that licking/gagging motion she did when I gave it to her, even though I hadn't given her dose yet.

And how do we define "pain"? Is it simply a neurological effect meant to help us avoid harm? I was recently reading (can't remember where!) about a study on "pain" and how different species experience it, or how their bodies help them to avoid harm... everyone from humans to plants. Actually I think it might have been on that lunatic Vegetus.org site... If you want to check that.

Anyway, I think you could easily negate "pain" altogether, by defining it as: mechanisms that alert an individual body to the possibility of harm.

And it's much easier to defend why it is bad to harm another individual. It brings them closer to death. I'm sure one of those Established Philosophers have argued why death is a bad thing. I'm just in no position to help - I've studied ancient philosophy, and actually, recently finished a paper on how Socrates embraces death. (Try to avoid that point, eh?)

Socrates is an idiot so we don't need to consider him much. :)

Is pain anything more than an indication to avoid a situation? Still, even if that's all it is, why is it bad to use an "emotion" against its intended pupose (someone else's pain for our pleasure)?

And Tom, if we assume that animals can decide what they want, but can't express it, how do we determine it for them? And you were right about what logic is, but it CAN be used to define right and wrong, at least from a utalitarianist point of view. Look up Kant. He is my lover. :)

I have to say I don't see the need for a logical reason for being vegan. I don't think you can find logical reasons for moral ideals, especially in regard to animals. I'ts a bit easier with humans, because you can claim you're being pragmatic - if you hurt someone, they might hurt you back, or someone else might hurt you because they want to get revenge on you for hurting someone else. But obviously, that isn't going to help in the issue of harming animals. I think you can only defend it on personal moral or esthetic reasons - it is more pleasing to you to avoid harming animals, for you, it makes the world a more enjoyable place, or you enjoy your life more when you avoid harming animals. Or, you love animals so you don't want to harm them if you can help it. That's the only argument that really makes sense to me, an esthetic one.

You can always just define veganism differently.

I've always looked at it thus: A commercial boycott of the misuse of our fellow earthlings.

Socrates is an idiot so we don't need to consider him much. :)

:cry: :cry: :cry:

Ludi, your point is well-taken, but it just doesnt make sense for me to base EVERY ONE of my moral beliefs on logic except animal rights, which is one of my most important! Also I want a general *rule* that can be applied to everyone - a reason why everyone else should be vegan too.

and Pasta>Cruelty, Im sorry I hurt your feelings...haha Socrates PISSES. ME. OFF.!!!

I defend my vegetarianism as much as I defend my hair color or shoe size. It's a part of who I am and more or less chose me instead of me choosing it. I don't want to hang with folks who put me in a position where I feel defensive about pieces of who I am and what makes me tick. That's just not cool.

I defend my vegetarianism as much as I defend my hair color or shoe size. It's a part of who I am and more or less chose me instead of me choosing it. I don't want to hang with folks who put me in a position where I feel defensive about pieces of who I am and what makes me tick. That's just not cool.
me too.

Veganism is a moral choice for me. To ask me to defend it logically is to miss the point. I'm not saying you are missing the point, and I know this does not help you in your philosophy class, but your teacher should know that not everyone is vegan for reasons of logic.

Hmmm.... wonder what that ultimate logician and vegetarian, Spock, has to say about this?

Hmmm.... wonder what that ultimate logician and vegetarian, Spock, has to say about this?

???spock???

"???spock???"

Benjamin Spock....

And for ultimate logician I'd have to vote Hume myself. :P

Anyway, I, too, take a utilitarian viewpoint about how I direct my actions. Basically, as demonstrated by Hume, you effectively have to assume something if you want to life in this universe, because otherwise you know nothing and can prove nothing logically, etc, etc. So, I assume that the universe is accurately depicted by what I know/sense, and then my moral system is guided by the sole principal of minimizing suffering over all beings, integrated over all time.

Key points to note is that many beings (aka bacteria/plants) are incapable of suffering and therefore not relevant to the calculation.

Second, this means you can also logically value humans more than many animals, because if one human suffers/is killed, it causes suffering to that person's family, etc, which is impossible for many animals that don't have familial structures.

Also, since I have much greater knowledge and certainty about my own state of suffering and the states of my immediate family and friends, it is only logical to value them higher, because you have greater certainty that you can reduce their suffering if you find out about it.



Anyway, that's mostly irrelevant to the point at hand, which is how this can explain veganism. It can do so trivially; you suffer very little for giving up meat/milk/etc, while many animals gain greatly. End of calculation.


Edit: the hard part though, is finding a justification for the minimize suffering rule. This is non-trivial, as, just as Hume shows, there is no real logical justification for any position you take. Ultimately everything we know/think other than logical truths are "proved" through empiricism, which is logically fallacious. And to be honest, I'm not sure how you can really respond to that, other than to say that everyone who doesn't get thrown in jail for being a serial killer has to have morals, and I choose this rule to be my morals, because it's the simplest and most universally applicable rule I could think up. It seems elegant to me.

I was thinking of Mister Spock, the Vulcan. While I like Dr Spock, I would not consider him the ultimate logician.

Google and then read Milan Engel Jr's essay, The Immorality of Eating Meat.

It is straightforward, logical, and thorough, and it doesn't rely on the reader's acceptance of any particular set of philosophical ideas. It is, essentially a defense (well, more a manifesto, really) of veganism and it is a hard one to argue with.

There are quite a number of philosophers, from Seneca to Singer, who postulate vegetaranism/veganism and animal right from a philosophical/logical point of view rather than a moral/religious one.

Anyway, re: Socrates - he wasn't an idiot, don't take him literally. If you read between the lines, you start to discover how witty and eccentric he really was. His logic is fallacious and he contradicts himself repeatedly. Plato shows us that much. But Plato also loves him dearly - there's a reason for that. Think harder. :)

1. You could invoke some traditional moral theory to answer that.

But for me I guess it's wrong because the other being has a preference against it and because I should strive towards the sort of impartiality where the other being's preferences don't count for less than mine. And generally, I reject the use of others as mere tools for satisfying my desires (or more noble goals like that of the Utilitarian balance).

In advancing AR, I don't think one needs to answer that question in any fundamental way, however. Rather, I would take some moral status of humans as a given and extend that to non-humans.

Is pain anything more than an indication to avoid a situation?Yes, a conscious mental state, because I don't think it makes any sense to say "I suffered pain, but I didn't feel it or experience it in any way".

Also, since I have much greater knowledge and certainty about my own state of suffering and the states of my immediate family and friends, it is only logical to value them higher, because you have greater certainty that you can reduce their suffering if you find out about it.However, I don't think that saves utilitarianism from the common accusation that it fails to respect special obligations to family members, because in many situations the smaller probability of benefiting distant individuals is compensated by the amount of help you could give by doing so.

And to be honest, I'm not sure how you can really respond to that,Well, there have been some meta-theoretical considerations to argue in favor of Utilitarianism: it is rather straightforward in formulation (which is also its downfall, though), and its manner of reducing moral knowledge to empirical knowledge could be seen as a benefit.

and Pasta>Cruelty, Im sorry I hurt your feelings...haha Socrates PISSES. ME. OFF.!!!
It's okay. I wasn't really crying of course, I just couldn't think of a better smiley. Socrates is my favorite philosopher, though- I don't think he was an idiot.

However, I don't think that saves utilitarianism from the common accusation that it fails to respect special obligations to family members, because in many situations the smaller probability of benefiting distant individuals is compensated by the amount of help you could give by doing so.

I've found that it usually does, for a variety of reasons. The chief reason I suppose is that it's usually impossible to tell if any monetary donation actually "gets through" to the people you're trying to help, while if you stay local then you have a greater oversight on how you can help people.

The other important consideration is that, since I consider the future as important as the present, it also validates things like college, etc, because when you have a larger income/etc you can help more later. I.e. people in power have more influence to do good, so it's worth the investment.

I would like to read the essay on the Immorality of Eating Meat so if someone could provide me a direct link, that would be extraordinarily helpful!

This essay is interesting: http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/1999/Paper3.html

As I was falling asleep last night, I realized that, regardless of the moral justification of inflicting pain, factory farming is inherently immoral from a utilitarian viewpoint because of 1. pollution and 2. resource allocation, both of which are important in ensuring the survival of humans.

I also realized that I have been saying "utalitarianism" in presentations, debates, and classroom and personal discussions, and I don't think I could POSSIBLY feel any more embarrassed than I am now. :dunce:

I would like to read the essay on the Immorality of Eating Meat so if someone could provide me a direct link, that would be extraordinarily helpful!

This essay is interesting: http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/1999/Paper3.html

As I was falling asleep last night, I realized that, regardless of the moral justification of inflicting pain, factory farming is inherently immoral from a utilitarian viewpoint because of 1. pollution and 2. resource allocation, both of which are important in ensuring the survival of humans.

I also realized that I have been saying "utalitarianism" in presentations, debates, and classroom and personal discussions, and I don't think I could POSSIBLY feel any more embarrassed than I am now. :dunce:


Aw, don't feel bad. I once said "unprofessionable." Yes, really. :o

1. Why is it wrong to cause pain to another being for our own pleasure?
2. Who defines the purpose of pain, life, and pleasure?
3. Are animals rational (note: I don't mean simply conscious)?

First logic: To cause pain merely for pleasure is wrong unless the entity the pain has been inflicted on has consented. Unconsentual pain is wrong when not necessary for survival.

The brain/& nervous system define pain & pleasure. The purpose is almost always survival. In humans perceptions of what is pain & pleasure can be blurred by nurture or lack of it. As for what the purpose of life is -- that is the unanswered question.

Are animals rational? W/in their ecosystem they are rational. But should a beings ability to be rational motivate compassionate treatment or lack thereof?


Now, illogic: Sad but true we live in a world dominated by illogic and lacking compassion. And I think, on a large scale, promoting the vegan lifestyle would be more effective if the attempt to promote it is not done by appealing to the intellect & compassion of others. If people really responded to intellectual arguments:
Dominoes would not be able to promote a new steak pizza by saying steak is "man-fuel"
People would not buy big gas-guzzling, air polluting SUVs -- but people still buy them because they see them as a status symbol.
We live in a world where it's proven to us over and over again via those stupid reality shows that people will debase themselves & betray people in the worst ways for fame & money.
We live in a world where people still physically assault and even kill people because they're different.
We live in a world where if a doctor had proof that eating either cockroaches or human flesh on a regular basis (or a combination thereof) would really cause someone to lose 5 pounds a week, people would find a way to do it.
We live in a world where Paris Hilton is a major celebrity -- why? I don't know.
We live in a world where millions of people who would never even think of reading cannonized literature pick up a classic novel because "Oprah said so".
We live in a world where people clap and cheer because Emeril Lagasse throws garlic into a pot or says "pork fat rules".
Lastly we live in a world where most people are selfish and even though they feel bad about the environment, animals, sweatshops, the war... they don't want to deviate from what they consider comfortable. It's someone elses job to care, to protest, to change the world.

----So anyway w/that long winded list, I think the promotion of veganism probably has to shed it's instict of wanting to educate, preach and appeal to intellect & compassion and start appealing to people's desire to be cool, macho, glamorous, sexy. Have a cooking show that every bit as charismatic and appealing as Emeril Live. And start putting some sexy or macho ads in mainstream magazines. Vogue, People, etc. etc. I mean, when I read that PETA (I think it was PETA) put a sexy ad of Pam Anderson wearing lettuce leaves in Vegetarian Times, I thought that was a complete waste of money. It's like someone going to a Democratic convention and holding a sign that says "F**k Bush!" Preaching to the choir! :)

Why wouldn't it be wrong to cause another pain for our own pleasure. That just seems selfish. Logically no pain at all would be best. IMO the purpose of pain is to let me know something is wrong. So it would be wrong for me to cause pain in others. Are humans rational? or do we rationalize to make ourselves right? I think animals are as unique as humans (just really another animal). I know the dogs in my life play with each other (tug of war, chasing etc) and are very upset when one rips up anothers toy and they look out for each other concerning food and outside time. If I think about it all as "we are earthlings" then human/animal etc. really doesn't change anything.

Miwako, I like where you started out but you jumped to the conclusion of naturalism...thus, why is something "good" because it's "natural"? If this argument were true, rape would be "good". So pain insures survival, and the need to survive is natural, so pain is good in the context of survival. But just because animals strive for survival because of natural selection, who's to say that that instinct is preferred or better than the instinct to rape (to spread one's seed)?

Also, I agree with you that appeal to "coolness" or "sexiness" is the way to reach the masses, but that's not really what I'm concerned with right now...that is something I do already! But I just want to have a rational basis for my arguments so that, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, nobody can say that I don't know what I'm talking about.

db2695, your point is well-taken, but selfishness is not "logically" bad unless you can give me a series of (true) arguments that results in the (valid) conclusion that selfishness (or pain, for that matter) is bad. What you're talking about sounds like utilitarianism, which is basically the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number". That is pretty much how I live, too, but how do you justify it? Well, that's another question for another day...

I agree that, emotionally, there is NO reason people should be torturing and murdering animals. Logically, there are tons of reasons why individual people SHOULDN'T. But I have yet to find a really good reason why people SHOULD become vegetarians collectively. If somebody says, "I want to be healthy," or, "I don't like causing other feeling beings to suffer," there is plenty to work with. But if somebody says, "I just don't care," there has to be a REASON vegetarianism is preferable, even if you don't care about animals, other people, the environment, or your health (and there are plenty of people like that.) That's why I started this thread.