Catmack,

I think it's natural (in the evolutionary sense) that humans evolved to be plains-ranging hunters in pursuit of concentrated protein.

We had to undergo quite a bit of evolutionary refinement to be successful in our carnivorous pursuits, but it's what happened.

Perhaps our modern penchant for sticking chickens in cages for life (for example) is somewhat warped, but one can't deny that our evolution was driven by our meat-based protein diet and the strategies we devised to accomplish it.

@Tony Lavis:

‘Which doesn't seem to be winning over many converts does is it Nick?’

Actually, I hear of people making the change to veganism all the time. I never said anyone was evil or anyone needed to change – I argued that if we put into practise beliefs nearly everyone already holds (such as opposing unnecessary suffering to animals), then that means not consuming animal products. I certainly don’t consider myself a hippie, but I guess this is just name calling that does not contribute to the discussion at all. Of course I could have published this article on an animal rights website and had everyone agree with me, rather than here where most people will be opposed. However, just because many people are hesitant to make changes to their consumption choices, doesn’t mean an article like mine doesn’t get people thinking about our relationship with other animals, which I think is a positive thing.

‘What's wrong with just being vegan instead of trying to convert the unbelievers?’

So it is fine for someone to oppose something in their own lives, but they can’t promote this message to others? Again, I don’t see why this should apply to veganism and not other issues. Do you believe it is okay to oppose racism in people’s own lives, but people shouldn’t write articles opposing racism? If this was extended to all issues, a site like Online Opinion wouldn’t exist. The reason I don’t just live vegan but not promote it to others is that animals suffer and die for animal products. I can reduce this by not consuming animal products, but when others also make this choice, the demand is further reduced. So I encourage others, people are free to take it or leave it (just like any other idea promoted on this site).

Regarding the website you included, I couldn’t open it because I’m at uni and it was blocked:

‘Access to this web site www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net has been blocked because the web category Violence/Hate/Racism is not permitted.’

I’m not sure what’s with that, but will have a look at home.

>>There is nothing quite like the naturalistic fallacy!<<

There's the is-ought problem. It's quite like the naturalistic fallacy. Hume argues convincingly that what is cannot serve as a basis of what ought to be. One cannot derive the moral ought from the objective is.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/hume/guillotine/

Nick's argument runs afoul of the is-ought problem:

1. Tony has been eating oysters.
2. Farming and killing oysters causes them great suffering.
3. Oysters are sentient
4. (One ought to not cause suffering to sentient beings)
5. Therefore, Tony ought to stop eating oysters.

Even if the argument is factually true - which is questionable - it is invalid because we can't logically support premise 4. Hume argued that since morality can't be derived from reason our passions - our feelings - should be considered it's proper basis.

>>I argued that if we put into practise beliefs nearly everyone already holds (such as opposing unnecessary suffering to animals), then that means not consuming animal products.<<

The logical corollaries to this is that people who consume animal products don't oppose unnecessary suffering to animals. I call bullpoo.

>>Regarding the website you included, I couldn’t open it because I’m at uni and it was blocked:

‘Access to this web site www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net has been blocked because the web category Violence/Hate/Racism is not permitted.’<<

The Best Web Page in the Universe was built by a pirate - as in a proper pirate with a hat and a talking parrot not some pasty web geek - who hates a lot of things. If your uni's internet doesn't like hatred I'm not surprised it was blocked.

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks for providing an impeccable logic trail on this one, Tony Lavis. It would have saved me a lot of time if I had checked Hume first...

>>The logical corollaries to this is that people who consume animal products don't oppose unnecessary suffering to animals.<<

That is in fact a most concise summary of what Mr Pendergrast is asking us to accept. Which I should have have spotted immediately from his original piece, if only I had your smarts.

The vital missing information from the article is, as I now see it, as follows:

Were the observers to the puppy throat-slitting event vegans, or were they your bog-standard omnivores?

If they were vegans, their reaction of horror to the event unfolding before them was totally understandable.

If, on the other hand, they were not, then by Mr Pendergrast's own logic, they would not have been at all horrified by what they saw. By making a case that all meat-eaters are necessarily in favour of animal cruelty, an attitude that shines through his every contribution, he renders the reaction of those observers redundant.

Which kinda destroys the entire "puppy slaughter" angle.

Pity I can't get the minutes back that I wasted in conversation. But them's the breaks.

@Pericles:

‘You needed the example for its shock value.’

As we have both pointed out, me and others find this example shocking whether or not a child witnessed it.

‘you chose to ignore all the other crimes that pet-owners visit upon their captives.’

I didn’t ‘choose to ignore’ these other crimes – it just wasn’t the focus of the article. It is impossible to cover all the issues related to animals (or even pets) within 800 words.

‘Do you keep a pet, by the way?’

I have one dog. I saw him nearly get hit by several cars and took him to the local vet to see if his owner would claim him. No one did. He went to the pound and after 4 weeks, he would have been killed as no one wanted to adopt him. So I adopted him to save him from death at the pound. While I don’t see pet ownership as an ideal state of affairs and would never support pet shops or breeders, I believe the best thing we can do for animals in shelters is to adopt them – to save them from death in these shelters or living out their lives in the shelters.

Regarding your more recent comment: ‘By making a case that all meat-eaters are necessarily in favour of animal cruelty’

Actually I argue that most non-vegans are not in favour of animal cruelty, just that their consumption choices do not reflect this value. I think that most non-vegans would be very upset if they witnessed that puppy being slaughtered but I also think that most would be upset if they saw the slaughter of the other animals I wrote about in the article eg cows, pigs, sheep, chickens. It is not that I think that non-vegans ‘are necessarily in favour of animal cruelty’, it is that the cruelty inflicted on farm animals is done “out of sight, out of mind”, so people who would not like to inflict cruelty to these animals can contribute to it.

I’ll address your comment about the link from @Tony Lavis separately.

@Pericles: Regarding the link referred to by you and @Tony Lavis, I’m not at uni so I had a look. I have addressed this issue before:

‘Raising the issue of other animals being killed in the production of plant-based foods is important. However, why isn't the solution focussed on reducing this problem, rather than just "giving up" and eating animal-based foods which inevitably lead to other animals being killed?

Saying that sometimes other animals are killed in the production of plant-based foods so therefore we should eat animal-based foods which inevitably leads to the killing of other animals seems to be similar to saying that lots of people are killed in car accidents anyway, therefore it is acceptable to deliberately run over people in our car because we enjoy it.

Why not exclude the products that directly involve the killing (and domestication, exploitation, confinement etc) of other animals, and work to improve the production of plant-based foods that do not have to inherently lead to the killing of other animals?’

@Tony Lavis:
Again, I’m not sure why you’re using oysters if you’re so confident it is acceptable to slaughter the animals I referred to in the article.

If you don’t think it is accurate that ‘One ought to not cause suffering to sentient beings’, then I don’t see how you can oppose this puppy slaughter, cock fighting – or any actions towards animals.

‘The logical corollaries to this is that people who consume animal products don't oppose unnecessary suffering to animals. I call bullpoo.’

Firstly, this is not my argument. Secondly, if it was, surely you have a better response than ‘I call bullpoo’? I actually believe nearly everyone opposes unnecessary suffering to animals, I just think that most people’s consumption choices don’t reflect this. From a comment of mine above: ‘About 99% of people oppose unnecessary suffering to animals, yet about 99% of people unnecessarily consume animal products that cause suffering – so I think there is plenty of potential for a change in attitudes and actions.’ For more on this, see my response to @Pericles above.