Double standards, morality & treatment of Animals
Why do people have double standards when it comes to animals?
Let us look at human beings for example, legally speaking the charges for assault are always less than those for murder, yet how come when someone assaults an animal it's viewed as being worse than killing it?
Eh how is me breaking a ducks leg worse than me eating a cow?
Yet if I broke a humans leg it would be less worse than murdering a human?
People try to justify killing an animal saying its okay if you eat it BUT you don't need to eat the animal anymore than I need to break a ducks leg.(in order to survive) both people are doing it simply cause they want to rather than cause they need to.
I think another bias alot of humans have especially westerners is that it's "wrong" to eat certain types of animals, but what's wrong with eating dolphins, tigers and leopards?
The only argument I'd make against killing an animal is if population numbers are low but if it's a non endangered species like a dolphin or dog there's nothing Morally wrong there's just a strong cultural bias by people who've been brought up to see it as wrong but a cows life is not worth any less than a dolphins.
Conclusions :1.If it's okay to kill one animal it should be okay to torture it (unless you want to reverse our moral laws on how we treat assault vs murder)
2.If it's okay to eat one animal it should be okay to eat all of them.
I'm not advocating either of these I'm just saying don't be a hypocrite on the fence. Don't enjoy your beef while mocking me for my dolphin sandwich
Ps I don't actually eat dolphins or abuse animals. But thats by the by.
Let us look at human beings for example, legally speaking the charges for assault are always less than those for murder, yet how come when someone assaults an animal it's viewed as being worse than killing it?
Eh how is me breaking a ducks leg worse than me eating a cow?
Yet if I broke a humans leg it would be less worse than murdering a human?
People try to justify killing an animal saying its okay if you eat it BUT you don't need to eat the animal anymore than I need to break a ducks leg.(in order to survive) both people are doing it simply cause they want to rather than cause they need to.
I think another bias alot of humans have especially westerners is that it's "wrong" to eat certain types of animals, but what's wrong with eating dolphins, tigers and leopards?
The only argument I'd make against killing an animal is if population numbers are low but if it's a non endangered species like a dolphin or dog there's nothing Morally wrong there's just a strong cultural bias by people who've been brought up to see it as wrong but a cows life is not worth any less than a dolphins.
Conclusions :1.If it's okay to kill one animal it should be okay to torture it (unless you want to reverse our moral laws on how we treat assault vs murder)
2.If it's okay to eat one animal it should be okay to eat all of them.
I'm not advocating either of these I'm just saying don't be a hypocrite on the fence. Don't enjoy your beef while mocking me for my dolphin sandwich
Ps I don't actually eat dolphins or abuse animals. But thats by the by.
Comments (21)
Personally, a lot of the motivation to be moral is the recognition of how society functions best when I'm looking out for both my best interests and the best interests of others.
I kind of view animal cruelty as a subset of this as being basically that rather than talking about how well society functions, talking about the kind of society we want to live in. I don't really want to see my neighbour setting his cat on fire but I'm happy for him to eat as much steak as he pleases.
Finally, animals entirely outside of our society like dolphins, tigers and whatnot fall under a similar category where due to a variety of factors such as kawainess, sentience and interpretative value. By interpretative value, I mean, for instance, you can call a tiger majestic, beautiful, strong and that kind of image makes us look bad when we're killing them and it makes more people love the animal who get angry about those animals being killed.
I think the Western cultures view animals and nature in this way more than others probably because we've been past the point of actually needing to kill most animals in our culture for a longer time. As opposed to China for example which faced starvation multiple times in the 20th century or Africa where poaching has been a way out of extreme poverty.
I don't think these are double standards, it's simply not true that our culture values all life and is opposed to any type of harm.
In principle, it's no different.whether you breed, raise, slaughter and eat a cow or a dog. However, in our culture when you do that to a cow I can't know whether you're being actively amoral or simply ignorant (I suspect most people would fall somewhat into the latter category). But, if you do that to a dog, then, due to the cultural double standard, I know it's not ignorance but that you're instead making a much more intentional choice than a typical cow-eating layperson, even if the act itself is not worse per se.
In addition to judging you by your actions, I can also judge you by your intent. Flaunt your beef-eating and I think you're probably callous and probably ignorant; flaunt your dog-eating and I think you're definitely callous and not ignorant.
What about the interests of the animals? As well as applying logic to the moral standards we set for ourselves? Could you really say society is functioning better if it's not functioning logically? Is that not a faulty assumption?
Quoting Judaka
You don't want to see it but that's only because your used to it even if it's not morally right. What about the moral repercussions that has? Like if you lived in a society where women don't have rights but since that's what your comfortable seeing you end up not supporting equality?
Are you 100% sure it's in the best interests of livestock to not be eaten? That would mean not being born in the first place right? Depends on their living conditions I'd say.
Also, what logic are you talking about, yours? I laid out my logic and it's consistent with raising and killing livestock ethically.
I can see how doing what's best for me and you helps me but doing what's best for a cow is just me being a nice guy. The logic of kindness and the logic of being self-serving is different. Your confusion about this may stem from a misunderstanding that morality is simply about being kind, caring, charitable or whatever?
No, it's a matter of what kind of society we want to live in, you're focusing on the actual killing itself but I'm not. People see killing a cat or breaking a duck's leg as a cruel, sadistic, near-psychotic thing to do whereas killing a cow is seen in a totally different light. It's the same as dogs, the West sees killing dogs as horrible whereas other cultures don't see it that way.
Your focus on the end result (death of the animal) is unhelpful to actually understanding the motivations at play.
Think about men who don't support women's rights because that's not the society they grew up in and not the society they want to live in.
It's wrong for you to judge a meat eater as being morally clean while an animal abuser as wrong they're either both right or both wrong. If you were vegan it would be understandable.
It doesn't matter if you feel more comfortable with it or not that's just appeal to emotion.
You assume much, I'm a nihilist/moral relativist and I think morality just comes down to human sensibilities and culture. Morality only exists because it exists in our nature, if evolution went down a different path, morality could simply not exist at all.
What I do believe in is pragmatism and that when people work together and do what is best for themselves and others that this is best for all. Compared to when people only do what is best for themselves and no one is well served.
I also believe that we need to work within our sensibilities and not in a dream world. If seeing a cat being set on fire terrifies children and makes people cry but then they also salivate greedily at the sight of a juicy steak then that's going to be part of even an entirely pragmatic approach to things. To characterise this reality as "an appeal to emotion" is simply disingenuous.
I'd better declare a lack of interest here; I am vegetarian. Having said that, I see nothing wrong with eating dead animals; if humans don't eat them then vultures or worms or bacteria will. Killing animals to eat is what I would compare to torturing them. And killing I suggest is less immoral at least. The same can be said to apply to humans; there is a UN convention forbidding torture, but not war or execution.
But also the psychology of animals is different; animals do not identify with their future death, but live in the moment. The gazelle fears the claws and bite of the lion, but has no notion, and thus no fear of death. It is the innocence of the un-fallen, as the bible has it. A stress free death is no hardship, and no immorality to an animal.
The truth is that if the whole world went off meat, animals raised to be livestock absolutely cannot be released into the wild because it would destroy ecosystems. Those populations would get massively reduced and that's it. It's simply a lie to say that veganism/vegetarianism saves lives, it would stop livestock from being produced and killed as commodities, which can still be a valid moral position.
It's not a "double standard", but a broader hierarchical standard, in which we assign values to the different levels based on some communally-acceptable moral standard. The most comprehensive rule in this case is "thou shalt not kill". But, even the Holy Bible goes on to make lots of exceptions. So, apart from divine revelation, how do we evaluate the various subjects & objects of our moral obligations?
Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden were merely upright animals with hands, until they learned to make a distinction between Good & Evil. Of course, most animals instinctively know what's good or bad for the them personally. It's when we extend that discernment to other animals that the necessity for objective Moral Rules arises. Unfortunately, most animals are Moral Subjects, not Moral Agents. They are simply not mentally equipped to make such decisions for others, or to accept responsibility for their own transgressions. For example, if dogs are Moral Agents, can we require them convert to vegetarians? (is dry dog-food that's mostly cereal OK?)
However, some of the "higher" animals, such as dogs and dolphins, do seem to have the ability to extend their own sphere of interest to others of their own pack or pod. And since they sometimes, but not always ("dog bites man"), include humans in their moral circle, we feel obliged to return the favor. So, it's usually the ones that don't treat us morally that we have traditionally placed in the category of Food or Fauna. Asians don't always classify dogs as non-food*1. Yet Westerners "love" dogs that roll in their own excrement, but not pigs that taste good when cleaned-up and cooked. Is there a logical reason for that distinction? (no, pigs are not the only food animals that carry parasites)
Ironically, some humans are so morally neurotic that they make egregiously arbitrary categories of "thou shalt not eat". The exclusion of pigs as food is understandable, since they seem to be almost as smart as dogs, even though they don't seem to be quite as lovable to humans. But why exclude shrimp & lobster from the menu? Along with insects, they appear to be completely alien from humanity, so why not kill & eat them? Perhaps because some queasy eaters find them so alien that they are disgusting. Not because they are moral subjects.
In his 1994 book, The Moral Animal, Robert Wright concludes that humans have been gradually expanding their Moral Circle over the millennia from including only kin, to multi-family tribes, and eventually (in theory, if not practice) to all of mankind. In his 1981 book, The Expanding Circle, Peter Singer decided that limiting our moral concern to humans is arbitrary, so he includes most animals (but not living plants) within the definition of our moral kindred. But, it's obvious that we are far from that idealistic egalitarian ethic. Yes, our food hierarchies are somewhat arbitrary, traditional, and customary. And customs change when situations change. Perhaps when scientists learn how make food from petroleum (long-dead plants), we will be able to live like angels without the necessity for killing & eating living things. :cool:
Moral Agents : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.
Moral Circle Expansion : https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/4/18285986/robot-animal-nature-expanding-moral-circle-peter-singer
Logical Extreme Fallacy : "Thou shalt not kill", if generalized to all possible situations would mean that omnivorous humans are automatically sinners in the eyes of the Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
*1 Technically for Jews, dogs are "unclean" animals because they eat other animals. And presumably they were too valuable for herding sheep to sacrifice for food or sacrifices.
I could be wrong about all this, maybe your dog actually has a rich mental life doing math equations in its head, but somehow I don’t think so, and neither do you.
Physical pain, on the other hand, is probably the same for humans and animals. It just hurts and no degree of understanding is required to feel it.
Quoting Gitonga
I agree that if it’s ok to eat some animals, it’s ok to eat all of them, but if one insists on making a distinction between different animals’ mental capacity it should be more acceptable to eat dogs than pigs since pigs are considered to be more intelligent than dogs.
Yes you are, it is all a made-up story in your head.
How interesting. That means you think differently. You must think that animals have a rich mental life. Maybe cows form secret societies, have a well-developed language and discuss philosophy while just pretending to be solely occupied with their green pastures. Maybe. I can’t argue against that since I have no evidence, but somehow I don’t think so. You don’t have any evidence of their inner life either, but I would be really interested to know what you think about it. What do you think cows think about?
Since you already took the trouble to tell me that I’m imagining things (which would have been insulting if I hadn’t already admitted it), I would rather hope you could manage more than that one-liner.
I like one liners.
Why? What are you trying to achieve? Do you want to understand the relationship between humans and other animals or do you just want to arrive at some trite conclusion or perhaps a banal justification for your previously held views?
If you are wanting to understand the relationship between humans and animals, you would do well to realise that cows are your cousins, albeit distant ones.