Other forms of helping animals

[miniboes]

I think what Volenta is trying to say is that once you are vegan these are great things to do, even though they're hypocritical if you're not vegan (correct me if I'm wrong). It's not trying to cleanse your karma or something, it's just doing a good deed, given that you are already vegan.

[Volenta]

In what way to you believe the situations are different?

Because it's a business setup to make people feel better, and in the process hurting animals for no other reason than that. They are explicitly catching fish to let them free again—it's an unending circle.

Taking care of abandoned animals isn't a karma issue in it's foundation. Even if people would do it to make them feel better, it isn't as circular as the karma-thing, because the empty case won't be filled with another animal that they catch in the wild to fill it up.

In many cases it can be worse than useless even just in fact. People are very bad at weighing pros and cons against each other. But worse yet, I'm concerned with the sense of moral superiority it gives people, from which position they excuse any number of other actions they might otherwise be compelled to feel responsible for.

Possibly yes, but this shouldn't be necessarily the case. It can be done in a totally ethical manner.

Moral superiority isn't by definition a problem, it's mostly the communication about this superiority that people should watch out for. But why shouldn't this also be the case with veganism? Making ethical choices in general might lead to a feeling of moral superiority. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't engage in making ethical decisions.

Now there's a straw man.

No, it isn't. It's just an useful analogy. I asked you whether you thought about this situation in the same way. I didn't accuse you of believing it, like you did.

I think what Volenta is trying to say is that once you are vegan these are great things to do, even though they're hypocritical if you're not vegan (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think it's also a good thing to do when you're not vegan, even though the moral impact doesn't scale up to going vegan. As long as you're not making an excuse out of it for not going vegan of course.

It's not trying to cleanse your karma or something, it's just doing a good deed, given that you are already vegan.

That's right, karma is completely something different and irrational.

[brimstoneSalad]

Because it's a business setup to make people feel better, and in the process hurting animals for no other reason than that. They are explicitly catching fish to let them free again—it's an unending circle.

Animal shelters are businesses too.

They take in animals off the street who may or may not have been well enough or better off without being caught, feed them other animals that have been tortured and killed to keep them alive for a bit.
For the ones that they'll kill, they may have just extended their suffering a bit, since they aren't adoptable, or killed them early when they might have been fine on their own.
For the younger ones that are adoptable, they're basically just putting them back on the market, a percentage of which will become strays again and reproduce because they don't usually have the resources to pay for spaying and they need to sell them off so young that it's too early for those procedures anyway. They may or may not extract a superficial but unreliable promise from the ones doing the adopting to spay, but that is of limited use.

Then when they are adopted, they're cooped up in a small house, and fed other animals perpetuating and increasing the suffering of farmed animals under pretext of animal welfare for the pet, which is -- be honest -- usually only kept for personal enjoyment and amusement.

Taking care of abandoned animals isn't a karma issue in it's foundation. Even if people would do it to make them feel better, it isn't as circular as the karma-thing, because the empty case won't be filled with another animal that they catch in the wild to fill it up.

But they are.
Just not quite as transparently.

The more pressing circular issue is feeding animals animals as a mockery of kindness.

Possibly yes, but this shouldn't be necessarily the case. It can be done in a totally ethical manner.

But it isn't usually. Usually is what I'm concerned with. You can't define an action by its rare exceptions.

Moral superiority isn't by definition a problem, it's mostly the communication about this superiority that people should watch out for.

I don't care about that. I'm talking about the consequences. They do something superficially that appears good, and they gain points with which they can excuse evil actions.

If somebody is actually doing good, that would be fine, but people are TERRIBLE at evaluating the real effects of their good actions and weighing them against the bad.

Just as terrible as dieters are when they eat a stick of celery and decide that makes them entitled to eat a chocolate cake because it balances out in their mind. And this is even HARDER because there are no clear numbers you can look up and weight against each other as in calorie counting.

People can't be trusted to count calories properly, which is trivial. They certainly can't be trusted to weight their good and bad actions against each other on the grounds of moral utility.

Just as the existence of celery and its advocacy as a diet food makes people fat because they overcompensate, advocating this kind of action as a good one by which people can help animals makes them morally lazy and more wicked than they might otherwise have been if they took responsibility.
.

No, it isn't. It's just an useful analogy. I asked you whether you thought about this situation in the same way. I didn't accuse you of believing it, like you did.

There are several orders of magnitude of difference in that situation which makes it non-applicable. Consider also the difference in opportunity cost. The child is not going to be euthanized. The child will grow up and join society (for better for worse, based largely on upbringing). Whether or not is is a moral action to adopt a child depends largely on your own moral value and how you raise that child to become what kind of person. Producing a slightly better human being than would have otherwise resulted has lasting consequences for he next 60 or so years. A child can pay it forwards into society, while adopting a cat is (sorry) a dead end proposition.

I think what Volenta is trying to say is that once you are vegan these are great things to do, even though they're hypocritical if you're not vegan (correct me if I'm wrong).

If you're vegan, there's not so much of a problem with it. I don't know if it's really good or bad; it depends on what you feed the cat, probably. But given the resource expenditure, I don't think it should be considered much of a charity. It's more of a personal thing (because you like cats and want them around, for example). I don't think we can really claim any great moral kudos for doing it.

I think it's also a good thing to do when you're not vegan, even though the moral impact doesn't scale up to going vegan. As long as you're not making an excuse out of it for not going vegan of course.

In that case, not only is it not on the same positive scale, it's probably a moral negative. And the latter point is a huge issue; most people do use perceived charities like these as excuses for not doing more elsewhere.

It's not trying to cleanse your karma or something, it's just doing a good deed, given that you are already vegan.

That's right, karma is completely something different and irrational.

I disagree. While they're not necessarily doing it for the afterlife, or to buy favors from Buddha as some do it, they are buying an unnamed moral currency with which they buy the right to feel good about themselves (which means just as much) and consider themselves good people.

Karma by another name. And just as irrational, seeing as they don't actually compute it rationally (eating a piece of celery means they can eat a chocolate cake -- just as bad as any of these Buddhist buying and selling merit on the marketplace).

[miniboes]

Karma by another name. And just as irrational, seeing as they don't actually compute it rationally (eating a piece of celery means they can eat a chocolate cake -- just as bad as any of these Buddhist buying and selling merit on the marketplace).

I am a bit confused about your position. Would you suggest that people should not eat the celery anymore because there is a possibility of them eating a chocolate cake after? Should the good deed not occur because a bad deed might follow?

Would your position change if we were talking about caring for herbivores only?

Congratulations on 1000 posts btw

[Volenta]

Animal shelters are businesses too.

Being a business isn't the problem, the problem was a business that can only exist because they let animals suffer on purpose.

They take in animals off the street who may or may not have been well enough or better off without being caught, feed them other animals that have been tortured and killed to keep them alive for a bit.
For the ones that they'll kill, they may have just extended their suffering a bit, since they aren't adoptable, or killed them early when they might have been fine on their own.

Sure, there are ethical concerns. But the point I tried to make is that it isn't a circular activity. When you take an animal out of a shelter, you don't release it to let it be taken from the streets again. The number of animals that need someone that cares for them is a limited and finite number (as long as they get sterilized, and maybe that's your main point), in contrast to the fish of the karma-example where the released fish are caught again.

For the younger ones that are adoptable, they're basically just putting them back on the market, a percentage of which will become strays again and reproduce because they don't usually have the resources to pay for spaying and they need to sell them off so young that it's too early for those procedures anyway. They may or may not extract a superficial but unreliable promise from the ones doing the adopting to spay, but that is of limited use.

Well okay, but seems like solvable (and important) problems. There are organizations that are sterilizing street dogs already for example. But notice that this is mostly a problem in the developing world. And there probably are differences between the USA and Europe as well.

It's not something intentional to make more money or something (and if it were, adopt one from another organization). By not adopting an animal you aren't reducing the number the animals that need a new home, it will only increase. And if this organizations didn't exist at all, do you really think animals would be better off?

Then when they are adopted, they're cooped up in a small house, and fed other animals perpetuating and increasing the suffering of farmed animals under pretext of animal welfare for the pet, which is -- be honest -- usually only kept for personal enjoyment and amusement.

I would agree with you that many animal owners aren't ethical and feeding animals non-vegan food is a major ethical concern, but this topic was essentially about what the forum members, vegans that generally know how to evaluate these ethical questions, commit themselves to. I don't get it why you are opposing this because it's most of the time done unethically, instead of advocating the ways that can be done in an ethical manner.

The more pressing circular issue is feeding animals animals as a mockery of kindness.

I'll grant you that one, but I think we are using 'circular' is a different way.

But it isn't usually. Usually is what I'm concerned with. You can't define an action by its rare exceptions.

I don't try to define the action by its exceptions. All I try to argue is that it can be done ethically, and that it's meaningful when done in this way.

I don't care about that. I'm talking about the consequences.

Arrogance of moral superiority also has it's consequences.

They do something superficially that appears good, and they gain points with which they can excuse evil actions.

Isn't it then just the consequences of their actions that are evil, not really their sense of moral superiority?

Just as terrible as dieters are when they eat a stick of celery and decide that makes them entitled to eat a chocolate cake because it balances out in their mind. And this is even HARDER because there are no clear numbers you can look up and weight against each other as in calorie counting.

People can't be trusted to count calories properly, which is trivial. They certainly can't be trusted to weight their good and bad actions against each other on the grounds of moral utility.

Just as the existence of celery and its advocacy as a diet food makes people fat because they overcompensate, advocating this kind of action as a good one by which people can help animals makes them morally lazy and more wicked than they might otherwise have been if they took responsibility.

Again, what I don't get is why you dismiss the action of eating a stick of celery because it could lead to eating a chocolate cake, when you could also advocate that people should eat a stick of celery when they are able to leave the chocolate cake alone.

The child is not going to be euthanized.

Both the animal and the child suffer until they get adopted. Whether the suffering continues or the animal/child gets euthanized when the animal/child isn't adopted isn't really that relevant; the consequences are both bad. Unless of course you think euthanasia is better then adopting the animal.

The child will grow up and join society (for better for worse, based largely on upbringing). Whether or not is is a moral action to adopt a child depends largely on your own moral value and how you raise that child to become what kind of person. Producing a slightly better human being than would have otherwise resulted has lasting consequences for he next 60 or so years. A child can pay it forwards into society, while adopting a cat is (sorry) a dead end proposition.

Well, fair enough. But surely you can't base yourself on future utility alone. Animals also have intrinsic moral value by themselves. I could also make the case easier if you want, by replacing the orphan with a mentally ill orphan that's not going to be useful for society in the future.

And don't forget that it's pretty likely that the child is also eating meat. So if you're treating the most common scenario as the most important one, you should also be consistent here.

In that case, not only is it not on the same positive scale, it's probably a moral negative. And the latter point is a huge issue; most people do use perceived charities like these as excuses for not doing more elsewhere.

It depends on whether you feed the animals vegan food or not, the diet of the pet owner is a different question.

[brimstoneSalad]

Thanks, I didn't notice.

I am a bit confused about your position. Would you suggest that people should not eat the celery anymore because there is a possibility of them eating a chocolate cake after? Should the good deed not occur because a bad deed might follow?

To an extent, yes, but not quite like that. We just shouldn't be making a big deal of what a great diet food celery is (even if it might be in the right context) because people are more likely to misuse that information that use it appropriately.

Instead, dieters should focus on not eating bad foods, and just eating good foods, rather than trying to play a numbers game that they are extremely bad at.

When we talk about ways to help animals, the only one that really even registers on the same scale is helping farmed animals- most importantly by not eating them and perpetuating the system.

Anything else mentioned along-side that can confuse people and give them the impression that there are other viable options for helping animals instead, when there really aren't. Those are drops in an ocean -- veganism is the ocean.

If you're already vegan, then "what else can we do?" may be a great question. But presenting those options to omnivores can make them feel like they're doing good when in actual fact they're still causing about as much harm (maybe even more) than they ever were.

Would your position change if we were talking about caring for herbivores only?

I think it would still give people the wrong idea. That's my biggest concern.

Voting may be good if you live in a country where that's a viable mechanism for change, although I'm skeptical without a larger vegetarian block (we should vote anyway because of other social issues that we can affect, though).

I don't think those things should be listed together.

You might as well add "posting pictures of cats on facebook" as a great way to help animals if we're completely indifferent to magnitude and actual effect.

Giving people fake extra options is probably worse than just telling them the one way they can really make a difference, and risking that they might not do anything.

[miniboes]

I agree, all these things are worthless compared to the fork. It does feel very intuitive to discourage good deeds for this reason though. The moral licensing does not seem very significant to me either.

[brimstoneSalad]

Being a business isn't the problem, the problem was a business that can only exist because they let animals suffer on purpose.

I don't think they're doing it on purpose. I'm sure they think they're doing good in the world. They probably imagine catching and releasing the fish as a more or less harmless act, and likely rationalize that if a fish dies it was probably sick and would have died anyway. Then they get to feel good about themselves for making people happy and giving people merit.

Delusional, perhaps. But I don't think that's the point.

Sure, there are ethical concerns. But the point I tried to make is that it isn't a circular activity.

I don't think that's relevant to my point (although I see both very similarly), which it that it makes people feel really good when at best they're doing something neutral and at worst they're causing more suffering.

By not adopting an animal you aren't reducing the number the animals that need a new home, it will only increase. And if this organizations didn't exist at all, do you really think animals would be better off?

I'm not necessarily saying that, it may or may not be so (I favor the catch and release method), I just don't think it's doing much that can be called definitely good- and yet a massively disproportional amount of resources go into it.

http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/ ... donations/



Can you even see the shelters on the left side? You may have to squint.

I would agree with you that many animal owners aren't ethical and feeding animals non-vegan food is a major ethical concern, but this topic was essentially about what the forum members, vegans that generally know how to evaluate these ethical questions, commit themselves to. I don't get it why you are opposing this because it's most of the time done unethically, instead of advocating the ways that can be done in an ethical manner.

But if you're trying to help animals, this is the LAST thing you should do.

Yes, adopting from a shelter is better than a breeder. Breeders are pretty terrible, and there's one fewer animal killed in the prior case.
But is adopting at all really an effective use of resources? No.

If you're not feeding them vegan, it's a net moral wrong, but even so... eh. It's more or less a toss-up.

If you want a pet -- great -- go adopt an animal and enjoy the company. But this is done for your sake, for companionship (there's nothing wrong with this). This is no act of great charity.

If you want to help animals, take the average of $30,000 you will spend on a dog over his or her lifetime, and instead devote that money to outreach and activism for farmed animals and vegetarianism/veganism, and save tens of thousands of animals instead of one.

We're not talking about a tenth of the good, or a hundredth of the good here, or even a thousandth of the good. The magnitude of one so dwarfs the other as to make it absurd to suggest it as one of among several options. There's only one real option.

Veganism, and vegan outreach.

I don't try to define the action by its exceptions. All I try to argue is that it can be done ethically, and that it's meaningful when done in this way.

I'm most concerned with how it's usually done. But even if you did perfectly, you're saving a couple animals with the resources that could otherwise save thousands.

Listing that as an option is just kidding oneself. The only good reason to adopt an animals is because you want companionship. And that's fine -- it's not wrong to do things that make you happy. I just don't want people fooling themselves into thinking they're doing some great good for the world in doing so.

Arrogance of moral superiority also has it's consequences.
Isn't it then just the consequences of their actions that are evil, not really their sense of moral superiority?

The consequences are why it's wrong. When the consequences are overwhelmingly likely, the thing in itself is wrong.

Consequences don't have to be guaranteed to be bad for something to be wrong. You can shoot blindly into a crowd and by dumb luck never hit anybody. It's unlikely though, and even if you get lucky, it was still wrong to do it due to the probability of causing harm.

Again, what I don't get is why you dismiss the action of eating a stick of celery because it could lead to eating a chocolate cake, when you could also advocate that people should eat a stick of celery when they are able to leave the chocolate cake alone.

Please see my reply to miniboes above. The issue is the most likely interpretation (or misinterpretation) people will have.

Unless of course you think euthanasia is better then adopting the animal.

It is more cost effective, if you assume the animal's life on the street is so terrible it is better to die. But as I have said before, I favor catch and release. Sterilization programs make a lot of sense if there's a stray issue.

Animals also have intrinsic moral value by themselves. I could also make the case easier if you want, by replacing the orphan with a mentally ill orphan that's not going to be useful for society in the future.

As one rescued life, sure. And every life has meaning. But you can't do good blind of the costs; that just leads to being ineffective, and letting more suffering go unanswered.

It depends on whether you feed the animals vegan food or not, the diet of the pet owner is a different question.

Not if they decide it's unnecessary to go vegan because they're already doing their parts in other ways.

[brimstoneSalad]

It does feel very intuitive to discourage good deeds for this reason though.

You mean doesn't?

I would say it's a little counter-intuitive to discourage dieters from eating celery as a a source of negative calories, because it doesn't seem like it would do harm, but the fact of human incompetence and cognitive bias is that they will give much too much credit to having eaten a stick of celery, and vastly overcompensate in terms of chocolate cake.

[miniboes]

It does feel very intuitive to discourage good deeds for this reason though.

You mean doesn't?

I would say it's a little counter-intuitive to discourage dieters from eating celery as a a source of negative calories, because it doesn't seem like it would do harm, but the fact of human incompetence and cognitive bias is that they will give much too much credit to having eaten a stick of celery, and vastly overcompensate in terms of chocolate cake.

So what if you explicitly tell them "take the celery, it's great, but stay away from the chocolate cake"? I am sticking to the metaphor because it's easier terms.