Originally posted by: thirtythree
I'm not a biologist so please explain, how does something feel pain when it isn't conscious? If I was brain dead, for example, and my arm was cut, would I feel pain? I assume my living cells might still release some sort of chemical or try to send some sort of signal, but I for one wouldn't care about it. Is it my cells that care or... ? Since you're not a plant overlord either, how do you know what plants can and can't feel? You can maybe cast doubt on my perception that they can't feel pain, but you'd have a harder time convincing me or most scientists that animals can't feel pain. I may not have perfect knowledge of the experiences of animals and plants, but I can still act on what I know and what appears to be the lesser of the two evils. Absolute knowledge is hard to come by, as you seem to know.
Sure we're animals biologically, but not in practice. We don't typically hunt our prey down and rip its throat out. We drink milk that comes from other species. We don't (at least ideally) rape females. Why argue that humans should eat animals because animals do but ignore these other things that animals do or don't do? If you simply mean that humans can't biologically fulfill their dietary needs from non-animal sources, that's a mistaken notion. Sorry to hear about your vegan friends, but they can easily learn about nutrition if they feel so inclined, and there are plenty of unhealthy omnis too. I'm curious, how can you tell that someone you meet is deficient in iron and meat-related vitamins?
To clarify, are you saying that it doesn't matter that animals feel pain, that it's okay to cause them pain if we have a good reason to, or that it depends on what morals we happen to adopt? Something else?
It would give us another option, but perhaps a less efficient option. Even if we found it was more efficient or part of an efficient combination, what does that have to do with what Americans should consume? Perhaps that would even indicate that we should cut down on meat so we can ship what we don't need to Africa.
Ethics are subjective, I get it. What about ethics (I hope) you think everyone should comply with, e.g., not killing people randomly? Are those determined by the majority or what? Would it be ethical or not to kill someone if the majority of the population agreed it was fine? If not, what is the basis for such universal principles? If you don't think there is one, there's probably no way I can convince you that there's any reason to do anything for ethical reasons.
Ugh, stop breaking these posts up. It's annoying
If you were brain dead, you would feel nothing. Your body may still have certain responses, yes. However, would it be ethical to purposely cut you and perhaps harvest you for food, even if you didn't feel pain? Does that make sense to you? Your analogy doesn't quite transfer from a human not feeling pain due to injury compared to a plant that may potentially feel injury in a different type of way. If you were functioning normally, you would actually feel the pain. Who is to say the plants, who are functioning perfectly alright, don't feel some sort of pain? You are hypothetically assuming that the diseased state of a human is synonymous to a healthy state of a plant. Now, answer me, what if it's not? Also, the lesser of two evils? What if plants felt more extreme pain than that of animals, yet they had no mechanism to respond outwardly (such as vocalizing and making sharp movements)? The amount of "pain" felt by an organism doesn't make it any lesser. Is killing an animal with damaged nerves more ethical than killing a healthy animal with nerves in perfect working order? I highly doubt it. You should not define your ethics on the amount of pain felt by the organism. This isn't the lesser of two evils, but the subjectivity of what you choose to believe.
We are animals in practice more than we are not. We eat, we sleep, we defecate, we breathe, we pump blood, we give birth, etc. Society is the only difference between the animal-animals and the human-animals. We may not hunt them down and tear their throat out because we have tools. We can farm them, we can shoot them, etc. These are the same rules of the trade. Milk is milk. Have you ever seen the dog suckling the pig babies? These things do happen sometimes outside of humans. Who said animals rape females? Some do (just as some humans may), but many animals have complicated mating dances/calls and put on a performance until they are allowed to approach the female. What do you think courting or dating is? It is the same ritual. I'm saying that humans must artificially supplement these needs from outside sources when they don't eat meat. I'm sorry? "How can you tell that someone you meet is deficient in iron and meat-related vitamins?" Well, there's anemia, there's jaundice, and there are the following symptoms listed
here to name a few.
How would it be less efficient? I wasn't talking about what Americans should consume. I was talking about how meat could benefit people in general. And realistically, your situation would be impossible. America is a land of consumers, and they love their meat. The only solution would be to farm MORE meat to send over to Africa especially if we can genetically engineer some cows with kangaroo bacteria in their stomachs so they emit less methane, which would reduce qualms of global warming
Yes, I agree that killing people randomly is wrong. I do not, however, equate animals with humans in the aspect of death. Technically, they are determined by the majority. Whether it be by a jury or a mob, the majority decides who lives and who dies in certain situations. I may not agree with it, but it is what happens. Also, you are saying that humans are not animals, yet you're comparing killing animals to killing humans? Where is the sense in that? Species kill different species for food. That is the way of the natural world. You cannot say we aren't a part of the natural world in the aspect of food source. We may be when it comes to having cultural, society, knowledge, etc, but not when it comes to the most basic of functions. This is where I will refer to
Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Most animals maintain the lowest of this hierarchy, as do humans; yet humans maintain the higher levels only. This is how they are different. We are all the same when it comes to the lower necessities for life.
Facebook
Twitter