Philosophical Vegan Forum

Viking Redbeard wrote: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.

It's a hard problem. You may remember that in other threads (possibly in this one too), I hypothesized that the only practical stable means of doing so would be to remove the profit motive of the farmers, by making all animal use non-profit. This helps relieve the economic pressures to cut corners.

Viking Redbeard wrote: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 The reason is because the rights of the owner in almost every case superseded the rights of his property, which it had to if the institution of slavery was to continue to exist.

This is because the only way slavery is profitable over just hiring people for low wages is to cut so many corners that you make them more miserable than any free man would be willing to be.
It's an issue of slavery being forced to compete with the labor of wage workers. Of course the institution would collapse if free men are cheaper (which is easy to achieve without minimum wage laws, unions, etc.).

The same is not true for non-human animals, who have inherent biological differences.

Machines are slowly changing this, of course, but without those a dog will always be superior to a human at sniffing for drugs or bombs, no matter how much money you spend on the dog since it's something humans just can't do.

Non-human animal use maintains a certain biological monopoly which human slavery could never claim.

Viking Redbeard wrote: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.

Well, lawmakers don't usually own farms. The only animals most of those in power own are dogs and cats -- and those animals are the ones we as a society have chosen to regard almost as family members.

This is only an issue today with the animal agriculture lobby. Remove the profit motive, and you destroy most of that.
It could also be destroyed legislatively without removing the profit motive, through restrictions on lobbying and campaign financing.
There are many options here. Liberation doesn't seem like a realistic one.

Viking Redbeard wrote: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.

So, there are two ways to correct that. Raise the price of meat, increasing the resources available to be dedicated to the slaughter and reducing demand, or enforce the laws be taking some political power away from these companies and making it so expensive to ignore the law that companies comply or go bankrupt.

Viking Redbeard wrote: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.

Which is why I think the institution would probably have to be non-profit in order to most reliably solve these issues.
Legislation could fix it too, but enforcement at the current demand would be very expensive.

Viking Redbeard wrote: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.

What would you consider 'significant'?
They have in labs, where they are more easily enforced (larger budget and more oversight for the animals, since they are in experimental conditions).
garrethdsouza might pop in to give you some specific examples on that front.

Viking Redbeard wrote: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.

That may be, but the difference between "this is wrong because animals have inviolable moral rights to not be used because use is always wrong because I said so based on inconsistent reasoning, appeals to emotion, and supernatural authority" and "this is usually wrong because it usually results in suffering, so we should ban it since we don't have a good way to implement oversight to improve these conditions, until such oversight can prove itself to be viable in practice" means everything. It's the difference between being dogmatic and being reasonable. The former makes veganism look like some kind of cult, and it supports the carnists' claims that vegans are irrational.

What would you consider 'significant'?

Well, for me, 'significant' legislation would prevent the killing of them, prevent causing them to suffer physically or mentally in any way that isn't for their own good (e.g. performing surgery), and would ensure that they can take part in their natural behaviours in a natural-ish environment most of the time. That's a very basic description, and needs to be detailed to the Nth degree, but violate any of these three criteria and I will probably object.

"this is usually wrong because it usually results in suffering, so we should ban it since we don't have a good way to implement oversight to improve these conditions, until such oversight can prove itself to be viable in practice"

I'd agree with this, and I'm on board completely with your closing comments.


Francione has taken some flack in this thread, so here is an interesting conversation between him and Professor Robert Garner from Leicester University. They both take a deontological approach, but the later is essentially pro-welfare. Some of the views expressed may come as a surprise, for example, Francione's assertion that "Rights aren't absolute, and in many cases where rights conflict there needs to be a balancing of interests" (6.20). Garner's position I found to be rather ad hoc and a bit wooly. Francione seems more consistent. They talk about most of the topics brought up in this thread, so I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks.

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/com ... W_BCM4xGT8

Viking Redbeard wrote: Well, for me, 'significant' legislation would prevent the killing of them, prevent causing them to suffer physically or mentally in any way that isn't for their own good (e.g. performing surgery), and would ensure that they can take part in their natural behaviours in a natural-ish environment most of the time. That's a very basic description, and needs to be detailed to the Nth degree, but violate any of these three criteria and I will probably object.

I would call that ideal legislation (although I don't think 'natural behaviors' are important, so much as reasonable analogues of those -- I don't think we need to require zoos to give lions small animals to hunt, but some kind of toy and play experience that resembles hunting).
I think I would call anything that takes a verifiable step toward that significant. E.g. in the sense of "statistically significant".

You seem to be setting a very high bar for "significant". Of course I can't show you that legislation (nobody can), since it doesn't exist yet. But through small steps, we are getting closer, and any step that does that I would call significant.

Viking Redbeard wrote: Some of the views expressed may come as a surprise, for example, Francione's assertion that "Rights aren't absolute, and in many cases where rights conflict there needs to be a balancing of interests" (6.20). Garner's position I found to be rather ad hoc and a bit wooly. Francione seems more consistent. They talk about most of the topics brought up in this thread, so I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks.

Thanks for the link, I don't think I've ever seen a discussion where Francione came off as the more reasonable party. I'll check it out.

Is there a transcript of this? I just got the Mp3.

It's like listening to a Christian and a Muslim argue about theistic metaphysics, they're both so incredibly wrong in their premises, Francione is just nitpicking, like a Muslim criticizing the trinity.

Francione wrote:Let me state it clearly: I would not kill a mouse to find a cure for cancer, I wouldn't do it.

I don't see any softening of his position, I think he clarified the notion that "rights aren't absolute" a little with regard to the limits and bounds of rights as compared to freedom of speech -- that is, as more of a technicality (the right is freedom of communicating an idea, not causing chaos with a deliberate lie). He seems to be of the view that most apparent conflicts aren't real, but just based on a misunderstanding of rights. However, he did mention that there may be real conflicts and there should be a way to balance in those cases, but he did not explain how interests would be balanced, or give any example on that point (which is a serious point of inconsistency in his system).
Francione may seem more consistent if you miss that point, but he also comes off as much less reasonable overall. Garner actually addresses that point of conflicting interest, which Francione criticizes without presenting a viable alternative.

Sorry, I don't know of a transcript.

I have to say, when I joined this forum I was certainly leaning towards deontology, but your arguments have been persuasive, and I feel I've learned something valuable. I'd be interested to see how a hardcore atheist deontologist would reply to what you've said, but, I agree, the whole concept does resemble a poorly built house of cards.

I can't see myself budging from the three regulation criteria I mentioned above, though. Currently, the only organisation that comes close to meeting them would be this one: http://www.ahimsamilk.org and a handful of others. However, even here I see painful ear tags, I see the bulls being put to work doing heavy labour in the fields and almost certainly sustaining injuries in the process, and who knows what goes on when members of the public aren't around? What's more, compared to standard dairy farms, they're producing more animals who are living longer, producing more methane, and using more land and water, so the business model is problematic from an environmental point of view.

By the way, I've noticed that when Matt Dillahunty talks about human slavery he does sound an awful lot like a deontologist, although he'd probably flip his lid if anyone were to mention it. Have you noticed this?

(I may not be able to reply for a while since I'm off to Hawaii today )

Viking Redbeard wrote: I can't see myself budging from the three regulation criteria I mentioned above, though.

I'm not saying that we should stop short of ideal. But any step which is clearly moving toward that, I think, is good to see, and could be considered "significant" (significant doesn't mean perfect).

Viking Redbeard wrote: Currently, the only organisation that comes close to meeting them would be this one: http://www.ahimsamilk.org and a handful of others. However, even here I see painful ear tags, I see the bulls being put to work doing heavy labour in the fields and almost certainly sustaining injuries in the process, and who knows what goes on when members of the public aren't around? What's more, compared to standard dairy farms, they're producing more animals who are living longer, producing more methane, and using more land and water, so the business model is problematic from an environmental point of view.

People pierce their ears. Hard to understand why they do, but it's a thing. Do they use local anesthetics?
Tagging of some kind is necessary to track the animals. Wild animals are also tagged for their own good, for scientific studies, etc.
In terms of work, that may be, but it's much easier for a bull to pull a plow than for a human to, and you'd have to compare chance of injury against other idle activity, or even fighting (which is a serious danger for bulls in the wild).

The environmental issue of efficiency is harder to overcome. You'd need to couple the whole endeavor with carbon capture to compensate.

Viking Redbeard wrote: By the way, I've noticed that when Matt Dillahunty talks about human slavery he does sound an awful lot like a deontologist, although he'd probably flip his lid if anyone were to mention it. Have you noticed this?

I'm not sure, do you have some links to what you mean?
I wouldn't expect him to be very consistent in his views on ethics.

Viking Redbeard wrote: (I may not be able to reply for a while since I'm off to Hawaii today )

Visa run?

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Viking Redbeard wrote: By the way, I've noticed that when Matt Dillahunty talks about human slavery he does sound an awful lot like a deontologist, although he'd probably flip his lid if anyone were to mention it. Have you noticed this?

I'm not sure, do you have some links to what you mean?
I wouldn't expect him to be very consistent in his views on ethics.

Does Matt Dillahunty ever criticize the morality (or lack thereof) of theists (or anyone), or present his own stance on ethics? I only know about the clips of him that TVA criticized, and so based off of what little I know about him he has a very poor understanding of morality. If he does have any understanding of morality then he should easily realize how poor his reasoning was in those clips that the VA criticized. Unfortunately rather than own up to his mistakes, carefully analyze TVA's criticism, and then clarify his stance; he arrogantly assumed that the VA was slandering him.

Interesting thread. It doesn't surprise me anymore to see criticism of Francione. I'm a fan of his work and approach--in part because it worked on me--but I also think it is very healthy for the movement to critique its own arguments and approaches. I don't even mind the strength of the rejection of deontology as irrational. Moral theory is a specialty area within philosophy and although I am interested in it, I don't claim to be well read or to have a strong gasp of the ins and outs. I've only recently been introduced to virtue ethics, which has added a whole new dimension to the conversation.

I really enjoyed the Francione-Garner book and although I took issue with much of what Garner said, he made some very good points, particularly about the strong group identity offered by Francione's abolitionist approach. Although I have fallen out of love with Francione, in part because his online persona at least is very unpleasant, I remain comfortable talking about the negative right not to be property. That observation, which I first encountered in Francione's work, continues to strike me as accurate, meaningful, and persuasive.

I lost all of the admiration for Dillahunty after I encountered his anti-veganism. It's so clear to anyone who is not under his spell that his arguments are bad. He has wriggled free of theism but he has not shaken off the flaws in his own thinking that kept him mired in theism all those years. If he could step outside of himself, he would recognize the same dogma in himself that he regularly encounters in others.

Are there any books/other resources on the topic regarding the sorts of ethics/morality being addressed here?

For the lelz
http://captiongenerator.com/59321/Aboli ... tist-Angst