Philosophical Vegan Forum

"If the butcher suddenly were to become a consequentialist"
Well what if he suddenly were to become a deontological vegan? How is that really less likely considering that he's a butcher.

I am not necessarily a deontologist and I'm not necessarily against consequentialism, you are the ones who categorized me as such.

Quotes from a Francione book:

"We say that we can prefer animal interests over human interests but only when necessary to do so, but it is always necessary to decide against animals in order to protect human property rights in animals."

"There is really no choice to be made between the human and the animal interest because the choice has already been predetermined by the property status of the animal."

"Although we may tolerate varying degrees and types of human exploitation, we draw a line."

These are not controversial or irrational statements. Someone tell me again how did we come to the conclusion Francione is deontological?

zeello wrote:"If the butcher suddenly were to become a consequentialist"
Well what if he suddenly were to become a deontological vegan? How is that really less likely considering that he's a butcher.

These questions are confusing? Are you trying to ask why a consequentialist butcher would be more likely to become vegan than a deontological butcher? If so, please let me know and I will gladly explain.

zeello wrote:"I am not necessarily a deontologist and I'm not necessarily against consequentialism, you are the ones who categorized me as such.

What do you mean by "not necessarily". This is also confusing. How do you categorize yourself with regards to morality?

zeello wrote:"If the butcher suddenly were to become a consequentialist"
Well what if he suddenly were to become a deontological vegan? How is that really less likely considering that he's a butcher.

Faith based positions, like deontology, are based on whim and emotion. Of course that's less likely, because he'd have to choose to hold a position on faith that he doesn't want to hold. That's not how faith typically works. Typically, faith just reinforces whatever belief a person was predisposed to and wanted to hold.
This is why faith is not a tool for critical thinking.

Consequentialism is based on reason. All reasonable people can be reasoned into reasonable positions they were originally averse to based on their preferences.

Completely different. The only position we could reasonably expect the butcher to switch to from his deontological support of killing, is a consequential objection to it.

Francione wrote:We say that we can prefer animal interests over human interests but only when necessary to do so, but it is always necessary to decide against animals in order to protect human property rights in animals.

Human property rights are not absolute. Property can be taken away by due process of law. People can and do lose their pets and other animals when they mistreat them by law.
Francione is being ignorant or deceptive.

Francione wrote:There is really no choice to be made between the human and the animal interest because the choice has already been predetermined by the property status of the animal.

This is not what the law says. Is Francione ignorant of law, or is he a liar? Again, property rights are not absolute, and they also come with responsibilities.

The same is also true of children, who belong to the parents, guardians, or state until being emancipated (notice it's the same word we use for slavery?) but for whom the ownership of also involves responsibility (which is the same case as with pets), and to which there are limits of that ownership.

The only fundamental legal differences between human children, and non-humans are:

1. Non-human animals are not considered to have an interest in life itself (human slaves were in modern history, so that's not inherent to the notion of property at all. And humans, before birth, are treated the same way through legal abortion in the civilized world).
2. Non-human animals (like slaves, or the severely retarded) are owned in perpetuity and don't grow up to join society in general. In the case of non-humans, as with the severely retarded, this is a biological/developmental difference.

There are clearly exceptions for other cases of human property which prove this "property" notion false.
Other matters are issues of degrees.

Francione has no argument here; he's wrong on so many levels.

Francione wrote:Although we may tolerate varying degrees and types of human exploitation, we draw a line.

Different people draw different arbitrary lines; this is mainly because people are not consistent, and often because they are influenced by deontology.
Francione, as a deontologist, would not be expected to be logically consistent either.

This is just an indication of the degree of Francione's irrationality that he can't understand consequentialism.

Let's look at what kinds of arbitrary lines we draw for humans:

-Killing hundreds of innocents in war, resultant famine, and by collateral damage? No problem.
-Torturing one probably guilty person for information? Unacceptable!

This whole concept of line-drawing in itself irrational.

The same is true, for most people, of animals. Lines are drawn at different points, arbitrarily.
For example, most people draw the arbitrary line that fighting animals for entertainment is unacceptable - particularly, dog fighting, cock fighting, etc. which are broadly illegal in many places.
We're almost to that point with cosmetic testing too.

He's not really making any clear point here, because his entire premise is irrational, but his implication (that there are no "lines" drawn for non-human animal treatment) is also blatantly false given any basic knowledge of law.

zeello wrote:These are not controversial or irrational statements.

They're not JUST controversial and irrational, they're also empirically false. At the very best, Francione is incredibly ignorant of law, but more likely he's just a liar.

Is he ignorant of the law, or a liar? Well, interestingly, he's a "legal scholar" and professor of law, so I'll let you draw your own conclusions on which is more probable.

zeello wrote:Someone tell me again how did we come to the conclusion Francione is deontological?

Because he obviously is one (based on his claimed beliefs and preaching), and he admits it and claims to be a deontologist, and he is viciously critical of consequentialism.

This isn't just a case of looking like a duck and quacking like a duck.

Oh no, I'm pretty behind now.
Alright...

zeello wrote: According to your system, it's okay to exploit the animal if the moral benefits outweigh the moral harm.
However, the oppressor is the sole judge of the moral benefits and the moral harm. So you can begin to see the problem here. At best, he will be hopelessly biased in his assessment of how much he is harming the animal and how much moral good he is getting in exchange. It is the same with every moral issue. The victims must be the ability to resist abuse or else they are hopelessly at the mercy of the oppressor's "morality".

Ok, not at best, because many people are rational. But I do see your point. All systems can be used to justify harm, I suppose.
But Jebus makes a good counter-point there.

zeello wrote: Companies have buried animals alive in large numbers in order to contain diseases. So it should be easy to imagine the same thing being done to a mistreated or sick animal just so the inspector doesn't see it.

That doesn’t sound very efficient for them to do often, and they did it when it was basically necessary.
And besides, what about all the animals who would be treated much more humanely?

zeello wrote: Murder is fought not only by making a law against it, but by giving the victims leverage. Animals have no leverage so it is useless to suppose that they won't be abused. The fact they have no rights effectively means they are begging to be abused. And if you make it legally allowable to buy and sell animals for the express purpose of production/exploitation, then you are practically begging for them to be abused, regardless of whether that was your intention.

What do you mean by leverage?
What do you mean no rights? These laws would give them rights, the right not to be excessively abused.

zeello wrote: Something is inherently evil if it results in abuse 99.9 percent of the time.

Brimstone addressed this one, so I guess I shouldn't bother.

zeello wrote: To commit an act that often results in evil, you must at least understand the danger of it, and be constantly aware of the fact that if you do something that is evil 99% of the time it is done, then it is overwhelmingly likely that you are part of that 99 percent.

It’s not like the 99% is set in stone and actions are altered to adhere to it. You have as much choice to do something good whether or not the likeliness of a good outcome is 99%, or 56%, or 21%, or any other percentage.

zeello wrote: (and even if you were the 1% who were moral, you are still in solidarity with the 99 percent by doing it at all)

zeello wrote:I believe this is looking at morality from a practical standpoint rather than a theoretical. Is it really deontology?
You can exploit an animal and not abuse it, but that does not automatically mean you should permit yourself to. An immoral person would certainly permit himself to, and he would 100 percent of the time, so why would you imitate him even 0.01 percent of the time?

These things are not all equal just because they both involve exploitation.

G. K. Chesterton wrote:If you let loose a law, it will do as a dog does. It will obey its own nature, not yours.

Ok, if you let it loose. That's just a problem with the government not being strict enough with their regulations.

"How do you categorize yourself"
I don't. I view the categorizations as labels meant to divide, antagonize, and generalize. I've explained my morality several times in this thread, so a label for me is no longer necessary since at best it would tell you what you already know about me, at worst it would bring connotations associated that label that don't apply to me.

"Human property rights are not absolute"
They are nonetheless detrimental to the well being of the property, since it pits the rights of the property against the rights of the property owners.

"This while concept of line-drawing is itself irrational"
Okay, so you proved that all morality is irrational. Good job!
Saying its OK or not OK to use animals under certain consequentialist circumstances, is still line drawing.

zeello wrote:"How do you categorize yourself"
I don't. I view the categorizations as labels meant to divide, antagonize, and generalize.

No, they're meant to communicate efficiently, and assist in understanding concepts. It's called using words.

zeello wrote:I've explained my morality several times in this thread, so a label for me is no longer necessary since at best it would tell you what you already know about me, at worst it would bring connotations associated that label that don't apply to me.

Then explain it again. If you're unwilling to accept a reasonable categorization for simplicity's sake (which really seems pretentious, particularly when you rant against the evils of labeling), you will have to get used to explaining yourself at length, constantly. You chose this difficulty, don't complain about being asked.

For example, I just accept the label of "vegan" because I'm not that pretentious, and I respect the usefulness of words rather than hold myself above lowly moral language. While I don't agree with all connotations that brings, it's just effective communication and I deal with it. Labels are a fact of language, deal with them, or stop using words.

From what you've said, you seem to be claiming to be agnostic to moral philosophy, which really just means you don't understand it if you are unable to categorize your beliefs; if you don't really believe in morality, you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss it. As much as I appreciate people having ongoing discussion here, you're just embarrassing yourself now.

zeello wrote:They are nonetheless detrimental to the well being of the property, since it pits the rights of the property against the rights of the property owners.

I debunk the claims, and then you move the goal posts. Francione is an intellectually dishonest idiot (and possibly even a liar) -- this has been clearly demonstrated (and in multiple threads).

You don't need to speak for him, he's dug his own hole deep enough. If he wants to, he knows he can come here to defend himself, but he's too stuck up, or afraid, to do so.

As to your attempt at making a point: That is an empirical claim, for which you have provided NO evidence. I understand that this is a faith based position for you, but it really has no place in rational discussion.
Either provide evidence, or leave it alone.

As far as reason goes, people could clearly still kill and torment animals without considering them legal property (just as they do to each other). It's apparently irrelevant to treatment. For all we know, lack of legal property rights just means something is a little easier to steal, because the theft is decriminalized; control still exists.
Taking away the status of non-human animals as property could just as likely be more harmful to them, because it would mean somebody could take your dog out of your yard and kill and eat him or her, and you'd have no recourse.
The legal notion of property is useful, not only for non-human animals, but also for human wards, land, and all kinds of things people rant about regarding the evils of property.

zeello wrote:"This while concept of line-drawing is itself irrational"
Okay, so you proved that all morality is irrational. Good job!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
"The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate."

You don't understand this subject well enough to attempt to engage in this discussion. Your response there is further proof of it.
You need to re-read everything. Just... start from the beginning.

zeello wrote:Saying its OK or not OK to use animals under certain consequentialist circumstances, is still line drawing.

Q.E.D. You do not understand consequentialism, at all. This, after several pages of you trying to argue against it.
That's just not at all how consequentialism works. Your head is so deep in deontology, that's all you can see.

The theistic equivalent of what you're trying to say, is like a Christian claiming that Charles Darwin was an Atheist prophet, and that we take his word as scripture, and therefore if Darwin became a Christian on his deathbed, that discredits atheism.
Such a dire misunderstanding of the whole subject comes from their projection of religious concepts of revelation and appeal to authority onto science (where they don't belong); likewise, you're projecting the same illogical concepts from deontology onto your misunderstanding of consequentialism.

When you understand why your claims make no sense, and don't even address the issue at all, you'll be better equipped to make a coherent point.
Until then, it has become apparent that this conversation is a waste of time, and as I said, only serving to embarrass you. I recommend that you bow out of this particular discussion for the time being, and focus on other conversations you're more equipped for. Maybe later, after you read some more and better familiarize yourself with the positions being discussed.
Hope to see you around the forum, but I think we're done here in this thread.

zeello wrote:"How do you categorize yourself"
I don't. I view the categorizations as labels meant to divide, antagonize, and generalize.

You've already categorized yourself as both a vegan and an atheist. Why is this any different?

You are comparing a person who owns a dog for companionship, to a company who owns farm animals for the express purpose of harvesting their meat and excrements, and as part of a gigantic, rigid business operation doomed to respond most slowly to the needs to the droves of animals under its care. How can property rights possibly protect those farm animals?

If someone kills your dog, you would be right to seek recourse. But what if the person who abused/killed the dog was you? All of a sudden the property law benefits the killer.

If someone abuses a wild animal or stray, they CAN get punished. You don't need property laws for that.
http://www.northjersey.com/towns/paters ... -1.1030239

Do you agree that I should get in trouble for killing a cat? How come? And why draw the line at killing? Why are you drawing lines? I thought drawing lines was bad, and deontological. Let's not write laws, since that forces us to draw lines, which is deontology. Let's not condemn circuses or hunting, since that would be drawing lines and we wouldn't want to be like Francione. After all maybe the circus workers really needed the money and maybe the hunters had a REALLY good time shooting those animals.

Francione is intellectually dishonest? It is intellectually dishonest methinks to try and separate the use and abuse of animals without at least understanding the way they are interwoven. I guess that has been my main position during the course of this thread, me being in this thread was never so much about defending deontology, and even less so about criticizing consequentialism. You guys label me deontologist, simply for disagreeing with you, but who's to say I'm not merely a consequentialist with a different opinion.

For my part I haven't yet been persuaded that a system that allows the ownership of human beings or animals can result in anything like a positive outcome for the victims of the system. I've seen many of the regulations that were used to try to ameliorate the sufferings of slaves in the American South, and none of them had any significant positive effect. The reason is because the rights of the owner in almost every case superseded the rights of his property, which it had to if the institution of slavery was to continue to exist. Protection regulations were actually pretty strong in some states, but they were routinely violated and rarely enforced since the ones holding all the power were the owners.

Similarly - as just one example - it is law in the US that cows be stunned before they are skinned and chopped up, but in practice mis-stunning occurs a lot of the time (as Gail Eisnitz's 'Slaughterhouse' makes plain). So we have the regulation in place, but when is it going to be enforced? Answer: it won't be for as long as large amounts of meat is in demand and the ones holding the power are the ones who own the cows. The law in question was created for two purposes: to protect the workers from harm, and also to make consumers feel okay about eating meat. It doesn't do much in the way of the former, but what's really important here is the latter. We're talking product and profit here, not the wellbeing of the animals or the workers. In other words, regulations can only improve the welfare of animals until profits are affected - and that's the point where the regulations in question are either shot down or routinely violated. If there's a case in modern history in which regulations have significantly improved the treatment of animals on farms or in labs (which is where 99% of owned animals exist) but eaten into profit or progress, I'd love to hear it.

This is why Francione calls such regulations 'tinkering at the edges of death'. He may very well be a deontologist, but I can't see the deontological dogmatism in his arguments against animal ownership (although his claim that he wouldn't sacrifice one rat to find a cure for cancer may fit this description). Hence, I consider myself to be a consquentialist, but when it comes to the practical application of laws against human and animal ownership, I see very little (if any) difference between the utilitarian and deontological approaches. Both ought to be against animal ownership - especially on farms and in labs. There, that's where I am so far.

zeello, like I said:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

You're completely misunderstanding the core premise behind consequentialism.

In consequentialism, an act is never wrong in itself, it's the consequences that make it wrong.
Consequentialism is pretty much the opposite of line drawing.
There are cases where it's assumed that humans are too incompetent to make case-by-case decisions and rules of thumb are used, but that's a different issue (and I think also one I have brought up several times in this thread).

zeello wrote:Do you agree that I should get in trouble for killing a cat?

1. What is right or wrong is different from what you should or should not get in trouble for. One is morality, one is law. Law is a different subject.

2. No. In terms of morality, killing a cat isn't wrong in itself. Neither is killing a human. The issue is the context and the consequences of the act.

zeello wrote:I thought drawing lines was bad, and deontological.

Where did I say "bad"? Drawing lines like that is irrational, and that is the basis of deontology, not of consequentialism.

zeello wrote:It is intellectually dishonest methinks to try and separate the use and abuse of animals without at least understanding the way they are interwoven.

Nobody here is doing that; at least, none of the consequentialists here.
It wouldn't be dishonest to consider separate those things that are obviously not the same, though, regardless of the presence or lack of knowledge regarding how they may in some circumstances be indirectly related.
It is very intellectually dishonest, however, to blindly equivocate them.

zeello wrote:You guys label me deontologist, simply for disagreeing with you, but who's to say I'm not merely a consequentialist with a different opinion.

This confusion on your part stems from your complete misunderstanding of the subject matter.
Again, you need to study up on consequentialism before you are equipped to have this conversation.

If you have questions you can ask that you think might help you understand consequentialism, please ask them. Otherwise, as I said, there's really nothing to discuss here because you don't know what you're talking about.