/lit/ - Literature

I have about four Peter Singer books on the to-read list; I'm more interested in his ideas on giving and human bioethics than the animal rights stuff, but I'm sure the latter would complement an understanding of the former.

Great public thinker.

>>1621533
Indeed. But reading his bioethics also engages you in animal ethics.

I've never read it, but if I understand the three sentence summary I just read of it, I think the main problem is assessing if each animal should be given equal value in terms of a utility system. If not, what should we do? We can try to evaluate what animals are most sentient (if you do in fact believe sentience is a thing of degrees, and we're not even sure of that yet), but we do not have the ability to quantitatively asses that yet.

If we then revert back to giving all animals equal value we have the issue of insects (and others) that are inadvertently killed all the time in ways that are necessary for us to continue living (for example, when we harvest vegetables insects are killed by the machinery). It's a very tough topic.

For the record, I recently became a vegetarian, do I do sympathize to an extent with what Singer believes.

>>1621541
I understand. But some killing of animals are, according to both logic and Singer, unavoidable.

>>1621545
What's REALLY avoidable? I mean, we surely could avoid killing even more animals if we (our gov.) pumped all our money into it but then we would suffer. Where's the balance point?

And beyond that there are the typical problems with utilitarian ethics that come up...

>>1621556
"We would suffer"

How so?

>>1621560
Because we would be diverting money from social programs into money for researching the prevention on (in my example) killing insects and other small animals during crop harvesting...

>>1621565
That second money was meant to be programs...brains kinda fried right now.

Vegan here (wat wat)

Am I the only person who finds animal rights texts totally exhausting? It's like, I have my beliefs, people disagree with me for reasons I think aren't very strong, and that's it. Knowing every detail of the horror that is the life of farm animals doesn't really help me in my day-to-day or in winning arguments, and all this "where do we draw the line for sentience" shit just wears me out all the same.

>>1621568
Don't you think you oughta know or examine WHY you have the beliefs you do, though? If you find the actual discussion surrounding animal ethics so exhausting, then why do you think it's important enough that you need to live a vegan lifestyle?

>>1621568
OP here, vegan myself. I understand your problem. In daily, de discussion wears out fast because people draw a "WE DON'T KNOW"-card. The problem is, we can still count on the parameters we DO know: does an animal recognize itself? Can it feel pain? Can it mourn the loss of another member of the species? The answer is yes.
But then again, shouldn't it be enough of an argument explaining the horrors of factory farming?

>>1621568
>wears me out

I guess you're just not cut out for a very philosophical life! Just like most people.

But really, it wears me out as well. It's very difficult, and although sometimes it just becomes a "fuckit" situation, in the back of many peoples minds (and mine as well) it is ultimately important and worth contemplating (Im talking mainly about the sentience issue).

At the end of the day, you have to just remember that if you can't come to some grand realization about the nature of this matter, or any matter, well...you're only human and there's only so much you can know and understand.

>>1621541
As a vegetarian (not a vegan), I've always drawn the line between loss of animal life that is inherent and necessary to a particular process and loss that is incidental. Sure, insects die during the harvesting of crops, and so do some rodents, but it's not like we're trying to kill them. I feel obligated not to intentionally kill and consume animals/animal products (I'm talking like gelatin and things of that sort), but I feel no particular obligation to protect animals from accidental death.

>>1621582
There are problems with that attitude though. Surely you would agree that if there were two equally viable technologies and one had fewer collateral deaths that that one would be preferable? If you agree with this then there must be some preference, and if there is some how far must we go to acknowledge it in our actions?

>>1621577
>Don't you think you oughta know or examine WHY you have the beliefs you do, though?
Yeah, I know why I think what I think.
>If you find the actual discussion surrounding animal ethics so exhausting, then why do you think it's important enough that you need to live a vegan lifestyle?
Because it seems obvious to me. It's like if you lived in a world where not everyone believed in gravity, for example. You wouldn't want to talk about it. You'd just want people to fuck off and quit pretending there was no gravity.

>>1621580
>At the end of the day, you have to just remember that if you can't come to some grand realization about the nature of this matter, or any matter, well...you're only human and there's only so much you can know and understand.
The fuck are you talking about?

>>1621581
>OP here, vegan myself. I understand your problem. In daily, de discussion wears out fast because people draw a "WE DON'T KNOW"-card. The problem is, we can still count on the parameters we DO know: does an animal recognize itself? Can it feel pain? Can it mourn the loss of another member of the species? The answer is yes. But then again, shouldn't it be enough of an argument explaining the horrors of factory farming?
I get exhausted because it seems like most people who eat meat don't think about it, or think about it in a very superficial way. When I do talk to people, I have to go over the same paths I always do to get them up to speed.

>bleh
The real reason I get bummed with arguing for animal rights is because not once in my life has me proving objectively led to someone being vegan. The only way that happens (its happened a few times) is by leading by example and not being a dick. It's sorta cool, because it means you have a lot of motivation to not be a dick, and that makes everyone happier.

>>1621587
You make a good point; in the event that we hypothetically already have some so-called "cruelty-free" alternative to some process that has a non-negligible incidental cost to animal life, an obligation is created to switch to the alternative, as willfully ignoring said alternative becomes its own brand of intentional cruelty. As far as researching and exploring alternatives in order to lessen burden to animal populations, it certainly isn't critical, but some means ought to be taken, and to avoid questions of which animals' lives have more value, I feel like priority ought to just be given to whatever poses the greatest threat to all animals.

>>1621596
>>1621596
I'm talking about understanding what is ethically most responsible in relation to sentience and diet. Do you really not understand that or are you being difficult (or not bothering to read)?

>>1621604
I see, I see. But this still needs to be fleshed out. HOW MUCH money needs to be spent identifying the worst inflicter of suffering? What about situations of invasive species or animals with incredibly inflated populations? Should they be killed?

>>1621596
I was kind of frustrated with your apparent apathy until the very last part of your post. I see what you mean about the futility of trying to argue with people set in their ways of meat-eating.
I think the real reason all the intellectual and philosophical arguments about veganism and vegetarianism exist is for people like me. When I became interested in becoming a vegetarian, pretty much purely out of a gut sympathy for the rest of the animal kingdom, I wanted to make sure what I was doing was logically grounded and that my sympathies were well founded. I found the body of discussion on vegetarianism to be incredibly helpful. Since then, I've thought less about the logic behind it, and have honestly decided that even if somebody could definitively prove that animals were subordinate to humans, *I* would continue to practice vegetarianism, just because that kinship I happen to feel with all animals would still be there.

>>1621617
As far as your first question goes, I feel like that's just a case by case thing, whatever kills more animals per year per whatever deserves the most fiscal attention, maybe if there is a projected spike in animal harm, special consideration can be extended, so on and such forth.
Regarding the concern about invasive species and the like, I personally think that's none of our business. If there really are too many of a certain species, nature will correct that on its own. No need for us to interfere. And if it affects our way of life? Tough cookies. We can't condone killing to preserve our convenience.

>>1621628
But we have already thrown off the balance. It's too late. Do you understand what an INVASIVE species is? 'Nature' may correct itself by wiping out entire ecosystems; destroying diversity, causing suffering among the native animal populations, and causing human suffering through various ecological issues.

>>1621620
I get this post.

>>1621608
> Do you really not understand that or are you being difficult (or not bothering to read)?
Bit of both

>I'm talking about understanding what is ethically most responsible in relation to sentience and diet.
Oh, in that case just be vegan. I think I help relative to sentience. So, I value dogs above insects. But then it gets complicated, because I value smart humans equally to dumb ones. It's really just following my heart.