@Yabby:

‘So it is left to its own devices, meaning that camels, horses, donkeys, goats, wild dogs and all the rest move in.’

There is already suffering amongst wild animals – why add to it with animal agriculture? I don’t think it is clear that less demand for animal products = less animals are bred and slaughtered for human use, therefore wild animal numbers will multiply.

‘The Govt solve the problem by sending up helicopters and shooting those animals. What is your vegan solution?’

A lot of this killing of wild animals is done to protect animals bred for their flesh, secretions, wool etc. So in a vegan world, this wouldn’t be required. However, whether shooting these animals is right or not doesn’t have much to do with whether or not we should be consuming animal products.

‘Animals don't care what happens to them once they are dead’

Nor do we, but we want to carry on living, as do other animals. In any slaughterhouse footage I’ve seen, the animals struggle to avoid slaughter – they want to carry on living.

‘The alternative is animals dying of starvation and disease, or being ripped apart alive by predators like wild dogs.’

Again, at sanctuaries like Edgar’s Mission, the animals are protected from starvation and disease, as well as from predators (through adequate fencing). So with the sheep you have right now, it is not a choice between slaughtering them or “letting them loose” in nature.

‘Well we are concerned about their slaughter. Not that they are slaughtered but how they are slaughtered.’

Yes but the point was that carrying on living is the most important interest someone has, so if we don't care about that, why are we concerned about less important interests?

‘If you are lucky you will be hit by a car...’

Yes, dying a slow painful death is no fun. However, if someone ran me over today, when I am still likely to have many years ahead of me, could they justify this as doing it for my own good? To save me from a slow painful death?

Ok, Mr Pendergrast, we can leave the cruelty of keeping pets as our personal playthings out of this conversation if you like,

>> It is impossible to cover all the issues related to animals (or even pets) within 800 words.<<

...and limit our discussion to those acts and activities that you, personally, would like us to consider. So let's have a look at your stance again.

>>I argue that most non-vegans are not in favour of animal cruelty, just that their consumption choices do not reflect this value<<

Fair enough. On the one hand, "they are not in favour of...", and on the other, "their choices do not reflect that value". Seems like a mismatch to me.

But hang on a minute. I can equally argue that most socialists are not in favour of capitalism, but accept a comfortable life in a capitalist society that does not reflect their values.

"...not in favour of...", but "their choices do not reflect that value".

That's the way we are, I'm afraid. We are human. We compromise.

Even you.

You choose to take a moral stance on this one issue, but I'm pretty sure it is an isolated cause, and doesn't hold up in other aspects of your life. For example...

Driving a car causes pollution. And pollution kills people.

So I would be correct in saying that most environmentalists are not in favour of polluting the atmosphere, but their consumption choices do not reflect this value. (Possibly because - conveniently, - the people who die from their pollution do so out of sight. Like the cattle in the abattoir.)

There it is again. "Not in favour of...", but "their choices do not reflect that value".

Do you drive a car, Mr Pendergrast? As well as being a socialist in a capitalist society? As well as keeping a pet?

Hmmm, principles only go so far, don't they.

@Wm Trevor

‘I have to admit, Nick, that I started to tune out about a week ago when you wrote, "…but when we are talking about a cow we are talking about someone not something…" believing you were overplaying the sentience argument – and being slightly unfair to plants just because they have different sense perception.’

I don’t think such a stance is ‘unfair to plants’ – plants do not have a central nervous system and therefore cannot feel pain or experience suffering. So I think the differences between our obligations to plants versus our obligations to other animals are fundamental.

‘But I give you full credit for remaining engaged with commentary to your article.’

Thanks, I’m certainly happy to discuss these issues with anyone who wants to engage with them.

‘The conclusion I've come to is one of ethical equivalence – as it is natural for bacteria and microbes of all forms to inhabit my cells, my body and to eat me, so it is natural for me to eat bacteria and microbes in cells and bodies, however they are prepared or present themselves.’

As me (as well as now CatMack) have argued, all kinds of things have been justified as “natural” – wealth inequality, racism, monarchy, sexism etc. I think our lifestyles are anything but natural (vegan or non-vegan), but I think the most important question is which choice does the least harm.

Cheers,
Nick

*less animals are bred and slaughtered for human use, therefore wild animal numbers will multiply.*

Well yes it is clear, Nick. Look at what happens when stations are
abandoned. Exactly that. A large chunk of Australia is unsuitable
for cropping.

*A lot of this killing of wild animals is done to protect animals bred for their flesh, secretions, wool etc. So in a vegan world, this wouldn’t be required*

Well wrong again Nick, which shows your city lifestyle, you clearly
don't really know what happens in the country. Those wild animals,
as their numbers start to increase, move in on crops, so are shot
for exactly that reason.

* In any slaughterhouse footage I’ve seen, the animals struggle to avoid slaughter – they want to carry on living.*

Not so, I've seen enough of it in real life. They follow each other
one by one, its a stun gun, bang and that's it. No struggle to avoid
slaughter, so they don't know what is about to happen.

*Nor do we, but we want to carry on living, as do other animals*

Well yes, all animals including us, have a will to live. But we will
all die, due to circumstances beyond our control. If you risk living,
you risk dying. That's life, suck it up.The only exceptions are those
who choose to kill themselves first.

*Yes but the point was that carrying on living is the most important interest someone has*

Well so you claim Nick, but in your next breath you claim that someone
is better off never being born at all, if they can't live out life
to a ripe old age. I would dispute that. If those animals were not
farmed, they would never have had a life at all.

*However, if someone ran me over today, when I am still likely to have many years ahead of me, could they justify this as doing it for my own good?*

If your other choice was starving to death, then yes they could.

We don't have social welfare and medicare for animals

>>Actually I argue that most non-vegans are not in favor of animal cruelty, just that their consumption choices do not reflect this value.<<

Wouldn't that mean they're just paying lip service to the idea of not being in favor of animal cruelty and they're not really opposed to it? To be opposed to animal cruelty - really opposed not just saying that for appearances sake - you would argue that people have to be vegan wouldn't you Nick?

>>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?<<

Raising the issue of animal cruelty in the production of meat is important. However, why isn't the solution focused on reducing this problem, rather than just "giving up" and going vegan which inevitably leads to cute little field mice being crushed to death with no hope of a humane death?

As a man with such strong views on animal rights I don't see how you can defend the position that it's fine to kill animals for food as long as you don't eat them.

>>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?’<<

Because I don't want to starve to death. No animal products and no plant products that directly or indirectly lead to the killing of other animals equals famine on an epic scale.

>>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.<<

Did you check out the link? Here is another good one:

TBC

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/humes-guillotine.html

I'm not sure if you've fully understood the is-ought problem: it doesn't matter what animal we use or even if we use a different example to eating animals: the problem is in the form of the argument not its subject. Here it is again with cows as the subject:

1. Tony has been eating steak.
2. Farming cows for meat causes them great suffering.
3. Cows are sentient
4. (One ought to not cause suffering to sentient beings)
5. Therefore, Tony ought to stop eating steak.

Hume says we can't get from premises to the conclusion because there is no logical justification for premise 4 - how could you logically demonstrate that things ought to be one way or another? Its 'accuracy' cannot be determined by means of logic. Oughts aren't rationally based: they are based on feelings.

>>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.<<

Well it kind of is when you think about it: in most cases omnivores are knowingly and willingly participating in the killing of cows so they can eat them - you would argue that this causes the cows unnecessary suffering. Pericles is right: there's a mismatch there. See my above comment about paying lip service. I still call bullsh!t.

As for this idea of letting all the poor animals run free: don't you know what happens when you deprive farm animals of the guidance of humans? The pigs band together and install a communist dictatorship causing great suffering to the other animals.

Cheers,

Tony