Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

But is it "friendship"... Because we have no clue what it is like to be a bat (Nagel), we don't really know if friendship with captive and enslaved creatures exists from their point of view.

Human abuse is not applicable in the situation described by Sy Borg.

No? Then look at it this way. These creatures live their lives, then they die, as all living things do. If their lives are lived in captivity, this is surely a major influence on how those lives progress? In other words, it doesn't matter who captured them, and we can't know the extent to which it is "abuse", but a life lived in slavery must be qualitatively different from one that is not, no?

I assume you are referring to pets, not giving treats to birds.

Yeah, technically speaking humans steal babies from parents and give them to families, unless they are deemed faulty, in which case they are killed. And yeah, that sucks. But compare dog and cat treatment in the west to in the east. As Value said, the relationships grow into deep friendship, oftentimes deeper than friendships with other simians.

I think that, with age, one suffers from horror fatigue. When you are young, each horror discovered somewhat breaks your worldview. When you are young, each new horror just adds confirmation to what we already know - life is an ouroboros that grows by consuming itself. The model is, in many ways, unspeakably cruel, but I like to think progress is being made. Alas, I think that non-human animals are going to be a phase, and (unadulterated) humans won't be too far behind.

Ultimately, the journey to maturity involves the gradual taming of chaos to manageable levels. Given how chaotic the biosphere is, I'm thinking it has much maturing to go. We may be in a fairly early phase of much larger phenomena. With so much uncertainly, all we can do is try to make this journey as reasonable as possible for oneself and others, be they human or otherwise.

[Pattern-chaser]

I assume you are referring to pets, not giving treats to birds.

Yes, to any and all creatures that are 'domesticated', or otherwise enslaved. I've been following your discussion, and finding the same general agreement that we all seem to share on this topic. I just wonder about the anthropomorphic assumption of "friendship", in the context of Hegel, but also when considering how we hide our morally-unpleasant acts from ourselves and each other, perhaps just to minimise the guilt? Or maybe there is no guilt, and I'm kidding myself?

Is there guilt?

[I don't mean guilt over eating living creatures to survive. I mean guilt over our unnecessary treatment/use/abuse of other life.]

[value]

I was making a case for spirituality and the idea that animals are willing to give up the basic interests mentioned by Sy Borg for love (meaningful experience).

Also, in my view the friendship between an animal and human isn't superficial. When one would dream about an animal, the animal's spirit can be touched by that.

An example:

As for relevance for the topic. It is spirituality, the source of Being as it were, that might be vital for prosperity of nature as a whole.

When spirituality is fundamentally neglected in eugenics and GMO, that has diverse implications of which some are evidently fatal on the long term in my opinion. One of the assertions that can be made based on this reasoning is that eugenics will promote weakness in time, for diverse reasons, with the anti-biotic resistant bacteria situation (an artificial dam that cannot stand the test of time while bacteria continue to fight to become stronger than that dam) being one example of how that assertion would apply to GMO.

[Sy Borg]

I assume you are referring to pets, not giving treats to birds.

Yes, to any and all creatures that are 'domesticated', or otherwise enslaved. I've been following your discussion, and finding the same general agreement that we all seem to share on this topic. I just wonder about the anthropomorphic assumption of "friendship", in the context of Hegel, but also when considering how we hide our morally-unpleasant acts from ourselves and each other, perhaps just to minimise the guilt? Or maybe there is no guilt, and I'm kidding myself?

Is there guilt?

[I don't mean guilt over eating living creatures to survive. I mean guilt over our unnecessary treatment/use/abuse of other life.]

There is no guilt. None. Life is inherently harsh. In order to live, we have no choice but to kill and exploit other living entities. Further, we are talking about humans here ... humans who kill other humans, have wiped most animals off the face of the Earth and filled their faces with animals flesh with glee at every opportunity. Not that humans are inherently bad. Any species with our empowerment would be similarly dominant, and we have much evidence that other empowered predatory species like chimps, dolphins and orcas can also be cruel.

In context, a little canine eugenics is hardly going to be an issue for most people. Despite some decisions made for aesthetics over health, not all the results of canine eugenics all bad. When I was young there were many vicious dogs around and you had to be careful. Now all the local dogs are beautiful, sweet and trustworthy, with very few exceptions.

It seems rather a shame that there's no ethical way of doing the same with humans, although it could be said that totalitarian regimes like those in today's Asia are engaged in a form of eugenics by purging their populations of undesirable qualities (to a dictator) of courage, compassion and creativity. In the west, we have populations of increasingly civilised dogs and increasingly rabid humans.

[Pattern-chaser]

I assume you are referring to pets, not giving treats to birds.

Yes, to any and all creatures that are 'domesticated', or otherwise enslaved. I've been following your discussion, and finding the same general agreement that we all seem to share on this topic. I just wonder about the anthropomorphic assumption of "friendship", in the context of Hegel, but also when considering how we hide our morally-unpleasant acts from ourselves and each other, perhaps just to minimise the guilt? Or maybe there is no guilt, and I'm kidding myself?

Is there guilt?

[I don't mean guilt over eating living creatures to survive. I mean guilt over our unnecessary treatment/use/abuse of other life.]

There is no guilt. None. Life is inherently harsh. In order to live, we have no choice but to kill and exploit other living entities.

I agree that we have no choice but to kill and eat other living things in order to survive. But to "exploit" them? I do not assert that this is right or wrong — not in this post, anyway — but I am asking whether we have "no choice" but to "exploit"? I think we do have that choice...?

[Sy Borg]

I assume you are referring to pets, not giving treats to birds.

Yes, to any and all creatures that are 'domesticated', or otherwise enslaved. I've been following your discussion, and finding the same general agreement that we all seem to share on this topic. I just wonder about the anthropomorphic assumption of "friendship", in the context of Hegel, but also when considering how we hide our morally-unpleasant acts from ourselves and each other, perhaps just to minimise the guilt? Or maybe there is no guilt, and I'm kidding myself?

Is there guilt?

[I don't mean guilt over eating living creatures to survive. I mean guilt over our unnecessary treatment/use/abuse of other life.]

There is no guilt. None. Life is inherently harsh. In order to live, we have no choice but to kill and exploit other living entities.

I agree that we have no choice but to kill and eat other living things in order to survive. But to "exploit" them? I do not assert that this is right or wrong — not in this post, anyway 😉 — but I am asking whether we have "no choice" but to "exploit"? I think we do have that choice...? 🤔

Remember, I'm not just talking about humans but the animal kingdom. Exploitation in nature is common to the point of being rife. If an animal does not kill, then it must exploit. Maybe it's just a matter of out-competing other herbivores or maybe it's a matter of parasitism or kleptoparasitism. There are a number of ways animals (and people) can make a living without necessarily killing.

[Pattern-chaser]

I assume you are referring to pets, not giving treats to birds.

Yes, to any and all creatures that are 'domesticated', or otherwise enslaved. I've been following your discussion, and finding the same general agreement that we all seem to share on this topic. I just wonder about the anthropomorphic assumption of "friendship", in the context of Hegel, but also when considering how we hide our morally-unpleasant acts from ourselves and each other, perhaps just to minimise the guilt? Or maybe there is no guilt, and I'm kidding myself?

Is there guilt?

[I don't mean guilt over eating living creatures to survive. I mean guilt over our unnecessary treatment/use/abuse of other life.]

There is no guilt. None. Life is inherently harsh. In order to live, we have no choice but to kill and exploit other living entities.

I agree that we have no choice but to kill and eat other living things in order to survive. But to "exploit" them? I do not assert that this is right or wrong — not in this post, anyway — but I am asking whether we have "no choice" but to "exploit"? I think we do have that choice...?

Remember, I'm not just talking about humans but the animal kingdom.

Yes, just as I'm not just talking about humans but all living things — animals, plants, insects, fungi, bacteria...

Exploitation in nature is common to the point of being rife. If an animal does not kill, then it must exploit. Maybe it's just a matter of out-competing other herbivores or maybe it's a matter of parasitism or kleptoparasitism. There are a number of ways animals (and people) can make a living without necessarily killing.

All animals consume other living things for sustenance. There are no ways at all, that I know of, to avoid this (except starvation). Personally, I do not make a moral distinction between killing and eating a cow or a lettuce. Both are or were alive, and were killed to sustain another animal. Right or wrong? I would say neither, just a 'fact of life'.


Maybe we're just using "exploit" to carry slightly different meanings?

[Robert66]

Just re-winding to something SyBorg wrote: 'It's not realistic for farmers to be loving towards food animal'.

I can think of no better word than "loving" to describe the way my late father cared for all the food animals he raised, which was many. Loving the animals in your care, the animals helping you to make a living and support your family, seems very realistic if you ask me.

As a boy, I wondered why Dad did not own a sheep dog. I thought he meant for me to do the dog's duties, running far and wide to get those sheep together and heading the right way. Eventually I realised that he meant no such thing, that in fact the flock, or herd of cattle, would come to where you wanted them without fuss. If I was calm and gentle with them, the animals would come, and I just had to open the gate.

One day they would come, but this time to their slaughter. For that they were loved.

They did not ask for such lives. For that we loved them more.

We ordered their lives, and we felt obliged to make those lives as good as possible.

[Sy Borg]

Just re-winding to something SyBorg wrote: 'It's not realistic for farmers to be loving towards food animal'.

I can think of no better word than "loving" to describe the way my late father cared for all the food animals he raised, which was many. Loving the animals in your care, the animals helping you to make a living and support your family, seems very realistic if you ask me.

As a boy, I wondered why Dad did not own a sheep dog. I thought he meant for me to do the dog's duties, running far and wide to get those sheep together and heading the right way. Eventually I realised that he meant no such thing, that in fact the flock, or herd of cattle, would come to where you wanted them without fuss. If I was calm and gentle with them, the animals would come, and I just had to open the gate.

One day they would come, but this time to their slaughter. For that they were loved.

They did not ask for such lives. For that we loved them more.

We ordered their lives, and we felt obliged to make those lives as good as possible.

How much love one can give to food animals depends on how one copes emotionally with killing those that one loves. Personally, when I love something, I can't kill it. It would break me.

So, I question whether it was "love" that your father showed for his animals. He cared well for his stock, but is that so different to vendors maintaining their prize stock in top condition? No doubt your father was kind-hearted - but love that does not prevent one from killing is not the kind of love I was referring to. In fact, I don't call that "love" at all. To me what your father was doing was more about care, sympathy and common decency - but there had to be emotional distance for him to make a living.

[Robert66]

How much love one can give to food animals depends on how one copes emotionally with killing those that one loves. Personally, when I love something, I can't kill it. It would break me.

So, I question whether it was "love" that your father showed for his animals. He cared well for his stock, but is that so different to vendors maintaining their prize stock in top condition? No doubt your father was kind-hearted - but love that does not prevent one from killing is not the kind of love I was referring to. In fact, I don't call that "love" at all. To me what your father was doing was more about care, sympathy and common decency - but there had to be emotional distance for him to make a living.

No. I insist that what I have written is true and correct. My Father and I did not actually slaughter the animals, but we accepted that was their intended fate. It did not lessen our love.

I reject the application of the term "emotional distancing" here. It is meant in a derogatory way I believe (not just by you, Sy). It is symptomatic of a desire to force a moral penalty on the workers doing the necessary evil work that keeps the hypocritical human show on the road. Why should my Dad have had to emotionally distance himself from the work he was doing. I will say yes there was plenty of complicated emotion involved I was there. None of it was about distancing

The farmers like my Dad who raise what becomes the convenient protein source for the urban dwelling humans, are under no obligation to wrestle with morality as they do their work.

[Sy Borg]

How much love one can give to food animals depends on how one copes emotionally with killing those that one loves. Personally, when I love something, I can't kill it. It would break me.

So, I question whether it was "love" that your father showed for his animals. He cared well for his stock, but is that so different to vendors maintaining their prize stock in top condition? No doubt your father was kind-hearted - but love that does not prevent one from killing is not the kind of love I was referring to. In fact, I don't call that "love" at all. To me what your father was doing was more about care, sympathy and common decency - but there had to be emotional distance for him to make a living.

No. I insist that what I have written is true and correct. My Father and I did not actually slaughter the animals, but we accepted that was their intended fate. It did not lessen our love.

I reject the application of the term "emotional distancing" here. It is meant in a derogatory way I believe (not just by you, Sy). It is symptomatic of a desire to force a moral penalty on the workers doing the necessary evil work that keeps the hypocritical human show on the road. Why should my Dad have had to emotionally distance himself from the work he was doing. I will say yes there was plenty of complicated emotion involved I was there. None of it was about distancing

The farmers like my Dad who raise what becomes the convenient protein source for the urban dwelling humans, are under no obligation to wrestle with morality as they do their work.

It's a different kind of love to that which I relate to. I could not imagine killing or eating the meat of animals I love. That's kind of what love is - not wanting to do any harm at all to those who are loved and to strongly defend the loved ones from harm.

Still, good on your father for providing the best possible lives to the food animals under his care.

[Robert66]

It's a different kind of love to that which I relate to.

Yes a different love.

I could not imagine killing or eating the meat of animals I love.

So you don't love the animals that you do eat? Or should the words "emotional distancing" apply to you, rather than the farmer.

That's kind of what love is - not wanting to do any harm at all to those who are loved and to strongly defend the loved ones from harm.

When you add the final clause to your description eg "not wanting to do any harm at all to those who are loved and to strongly defend the loved ones from harm, while eating the flesh of unloved animals", it becomes a weird kind of love for an animal lover to engage in.

I prefer my Dad's kind of love, which includes strongly defending his animals from harm, not wanting to do them any harm, yet accepting the real reason they exist, and loving them even more for their sacrifice.

[Sculptor1]

I would draw a distinction between wild and domesticated animals, in the sense that one is a commodity that it would be perfectly acceptable to go extinct if, say laboratory grown meat were to take off, which, morally would be a good thing. While the other is a normal animal without the need for humans.

Lab meat would be a disgrace..
We already know that meat raised in barns and sheds is of significantly poor quality, and that grassfed, and wild meat is better for a number of reasosn.
ANimal fat ans protein is not just one thing.
Barn raised corn fed beef is high in inflammatory omega 6s,
whilst wild and grass fed meat has a better lipid profile.
Same for pork which, when raised right is high in Oleic acid (omega 9)the oil found in olive oil which makes it so healthy.

[Sy Borg]

It's a different kind of love to that which I relate to.

Yes a different love.

I could not imagine killing or eating the meat of animals I love.

So you don't love the animals that you do eat? Or should the words "emotional distancing" apply to you, rather than the farmer.

I don't know them. I only meet them as cadavers, or part thereof. I do spare a thought for the life form they might have been. If we are going to kill, the least we can do is show a little respect for the fallen.

That's kind of what love is - not wanting to do any harm at all to those who are loved and to strongly defend the loved ones from harm.

When you add the final clause to your description eg "not wanting to do any harm at all to those who are loved and to strongly defend the loved ones from harm, while eating the flesh of unloved animals", it becomes a weird kind of love for an animal lover to engage in.

I prefer my Dad's kind of love, which includes strongly defending his animals from harm, not wanting to do them any harm, yet accepting the real reason they exist, and loving them even more for their sacrifice.

You prefer your father's approach to mine? I'm shocked :) Go Dad!

The world has millions of animal lovers who eat other animals. Let's examine your father's approach the way you examined mine. He strongly defends his animals from harm, not wanting to do them any harm - and then he goes and slaughters them. What a great friend (not). See? Anything can be made to look incoherent or unethical with the right ordering of words. I like your father's approach but it's easy to mangle words to minimise his character and emphasise his imperfections, just as you did with me.

[LuckyR]

I would draw a distinction between wild and domesticated animals, in the sense that one is a commodity that it would be perfectly acceptable to go extinct if, say laboratory grown meat were to take off, which, morally would be a good thing. While the other is a normal animal without the need for humans.

Lab meat would be a disgrace..
We already know that meat raised in barns and sheds is of significantly poor quality, and that grassfed, and wild meat is better for a number of reasosn.
ANimal fat ans protein is not just one thing.
Barn raised corn fed beef is high in inflammatory omega 6s,
whilst wild and grass fed meat has a better lipid profile.
Same for pork which, when raised right is high in Oleic acid (omega 9)the oil found in olive oil which makes it so healthy.

Mildly interesting, yet irrelevant. The point being domesticated animals exist because of humans, and would not exist without human demand. Them going extinct because of a lack of demand is perfectly logical. Wild animals don't need humans to exist.