Overwhelming Evil

[LuckyR]

Sure he argues, though not very well. Killing domesticated animals (who were specifically raised to be killed) in no way is equivalent to killing citizens in a genocide.

Lets erase some of the wall separating the compartments in your head, shall we?

Animals raised to be killed is not genocide. Cool.
Genetic engineering lets us clone the animals we prefer. Tastier. Healthier. Faster growing etc. etc.
There's no moral dilemma cloning domesticated animals who are specifically raised to be killed.

We can also clone humans. If not for eating, certainly for labour.

You are a citizen and killing you is wrong - granted.

But does your genetically engineered clone raised specifically to be a slave enjoy the same rights as you do? And if not - why can't we breed human clones for food?

Huh? Cloning humans? You're seeking to clarify my thought process on the relative implications of killing domesticated animals (who were specifically created to be culled) vs killing human citizens by introducing an unrelated variable that does not even have a quorum of moral support for even existing? How is that clarifying?

Oh BTW, virtually none of domesticated animals eaten are created through cloning.

[Dubious]

You make good points. We can't be held completely responsible for the way nature made us. What you say about vegans is true but equally true is that the meat industry is responsible for many millions of animals being slaughtered each year, highly intelligent animals who feel the pain and the deprivation treated as nothing more than unfeeling brainless commodities while the human asshole, who may be without feeling or empathy for those lower in rank - though nature never made that distinction - gets credit simply for being human.

I don't think it's wise to love animals more than humans while nature hates us both equally.

While some humans take it upon themselves to climb upon the nature-loving moral high horse, they appear to forget that the fusion reactor which generates the energy all lifeforms on Earth are competing for has some pretty horrid plans for us all when it goes super nova.

So no, I don't feel bad for destroying planet Earth - nature's going to do it anyway. I feel bad for destroying our home.

Yes, but in the meantime we live in hope which is now more active than ever based on the mess WE created. What's due to happen a million years from now is of no concern; what happens in the next 50 or 100 years will be a matter of life or death for many rife with a major existential question: What has life become! As things get worse, god will be implored to fix the mess but why should it having received from him a perfectly good planet to live on in spite of its challenges.

[Dubious]

Sure he argues, though not very well. Killing domesticated animals (who were specifically raised to be killed) in no way is equivalent to killing citizens in a genocide.

Perhaps not in the way you put it, but it remains nevertheless a major moral deficit in how they are treated as if they were nothing more than just another commodity which feels nothing instead of the living, sentient creatures they are. I wouldn't object at all to mass murder those fuckers who treat them that way...not in the least!

Ah, now you're changing the subject. I agree wholeheartedly that treating domesticated animals who were created to be culled in factory farm conditions is immoral by my code. But not for their deaths, rather for their living conditions.

As to the appropriate penalties for those who act legally and ethically, but not morally... be careful what you ask for.

...on that I agree.

Since when has acting legally (not the same as ethically) ever preempted atrocious, disgusting abhorrent behaviour with corresponding redress?

The justice system proves itself more often than not a perversion of justice in collusion with corruption especially where power is involved.

[LuckyR]

Perhaps not in the way you put it, but it remains nevertheless a major moral deficit in how they are treated as if they were nothing more than just another commodity which feels nothing instead of the living, sentient creatures they are. I wouldn't object at all to mass murder those fuckers who treat them that way...not in the least!

Ah, now you're changing the subject. I agree wholeheartedly that treating domesticated animals who were created to be culled in factory farm conditions is immoral by my code. But not for their deaths, rather for their living conditions.

As to the appropriate penalties for those who act legally and ethically, but not morally... be careful what you ask for.

...on that I agree.

Since when has acting legally (not the same as ethically) ever preempted atrocious, disgusting abhorrent behaviour with corresponding redress?

The justice system proves itself more often than not a perversion of justice in collusion with corruption especially where power is involved.

A common opinion in Philosophy Forums, though less so in Real Life. As to the definitions of legal vs ethical as pertains to factory farming, the practice is obviously legal, though it also does not violate the community ethical standard. As to morality, it both violates and is consistent with various individual's moral codes.

[Dubious]

Ah, now you're changing the subject. I agree wholeheartedly that treating domesticated animals who were created to be culled in factory farm conditions is immoral by my code. But not for their deaths, rather for their living conditions.

As to the appropriate penalties for those who act legally and ethically, but not morally... be careful what you ask for.

...on that I agree.

Since when has acting legally (not the same as ethically) ever preempted atrocious, disgusting abhorrent behaviour with corresponding redress?

The justice system proves itself more often than not a perversion of justice in collusion with corruption especially where power is involved.

A common opinion in Philosophy Forums, though less so in Real Life. As to the definitions of legal vs ethical as pertains to factory farming, the practice is obviously legal, though it also does not violate the community ethical standard. As to morality, it both violates and is consistent with various individual's moral codes.

Nice distinctions!

[Skepdick]

Sure he argues, though not very well. Killing domesticated animals (who were specifically raised to be killed) in no way is equivalent to killing citizens in a genocide.

Lets erase some of the wall separating the compartments in your head, shall we?

Animals raised to be killed is not genocide. Cool.
Genetic engineering lets us clone the animals we prefer. Tastier. Healthier. Faster growing etc. etc.
There's no moral dilemma cloning domesticated animals who are specifically raised to be killed.

We can also clone humans. If not for eating, certainly for labour.

You are a citizen and killing you is wrong - granted.

But does your genetically engineered clone raised specifically to be a slave enjoy the same rights as you do? And if not - why can't we breed human clones for food?

Huh? Cloning humans? You're seeking to clarify my thought process on the relative implications of killing domesticated animals (who were specifically created to be culled) vs killing human citizens by introducing an unrelated variable that does not even have a quorum of moral support for even existing? How is that clarifying?

Oh BTW, virtually none of domesticated animals eaten are created through cloning.

The arbitrary lines in the sand aren't clear to you?

Separating humans from animals (even though humans are animals) is special pleading. A necessary evil, of course otherwise humans simply can't explain why we think ourselves special.

If killing animals (who are specifically raised to be killed) is morally tolerable, then why wouldn't killing human animals (who are specifically raised to be killed) be morally tolerable?

[attofishpi]

If killing animals (who are specifically raised to be killed) is morally tolerable, then why wouldn't killing human animals (who are specifically raised to be killed) be morally tolerable?

Skeppy, that is ridiculous. It's one thing to kill a sentient sheep with limited reasoning capacity about the nature of its life, quite another to kill a human that does.

I know where your argument is going to head.

There was a great film about this - cloned for human parts they were - (if anyone know the name let me know - I can't think what actors were in it, they pop out of an underground bunker and do a runner)

[Skepdick]

If killing animals (who are specifically raised to be killed) is morally tolerable, then why wouldn't killing human animals (who are specifically raised to be killed) be morally tolerable?

Skeppy, that is ridiculous. It's one thing to kill a sentient sheep with limited reasoning capacity about the nature of its life, quite another to kill a human that does.

I know where your argument is going to head.

There was a great film about this - cloned for human parts they were - (if anyone know the name let me know - I can't think what actors were in it, they pop out of an underground bunker and do a runner)

Why is it "ridiculous"?

Killing animals is killing animals. If the animal being bred for purpose justifies the act then why does sentience make a difference?

It smells of chauvinism in favour of your own kind.

Not to mention that your argument fails by induction. Will it be OK for the evolved distant ancestors of homo sapiens to eventually kill homo sapiens?

[attofishpi]

If killing animals (who are specifically raised to be killed) is morally tolerable, then why wouldn't killing human animals (who are specifically raised to be killed) be morally tolerable?

Skeppy, that is ridiculous. It's one thing to kill a sentient sheep with limited reasoning capacity about the nature of its life, quite another to kill a human that does.

I know where your argument is going to head.

There was a great film about this - cloned for human parts they were - (if anyone know the name let me know - I can't think what actors were in it, they pop out of an underground bunker and do a runner)

Why is it "ridiculous"?

Killing animals is killing animals. If the animal being bred for purpose justifies the act then why does sentience make a difference?

It smells of chauvinism in favour of your own kind.

Y R U avoiding what I stated, it was regardless of the sentience, it was the reasoning capacity of the animal OR human, its intelligence to comprehend its state of affairs. The sheep is rather simple (I was on a farm not too long ago and the wife of the farmer stated they're dumber than you think!) - it ain't contemplating that its in the field to be turned into food, it's just enjoying the fresh air and the grass.

It's that 'ethics' thing.

[Skepdick]

Y R U avoiding what I stated, it was regardless of the sentience, it was the reasoning capacity of the animal OR human, its intelligence to comprehend its state of affairs. The sheep is rather simple (I was on a farm not too long ago and the wife of the farmer stated they're dumber than you think!) - it ain't contemplating that its in the field to be turned into food, it's just enjoying the fresh air and the grass.

It's that 'ethics' thing.

I am sure you can manufacture a justification that you believe warrants your conclusion...

That's what humans excel at.

[attofishpi]

Y R U avoiding what I stated, it was regardless of the sentience, it was the reasoning capacity of the animal OR human, its intelligence to comprehend its state of affairs. The sheep is rather simple (I was on a farm not too long ago and the wife of the farmer stated they're dumber than you think!) - it ain't contemplating that its in the field to be turned into food, it's just enjoying the fresh air and the grass.

It's that 'ethics' thing.

I am sure you can manufacture a justification that you believe warrants your conclusion...

That's what humans excel at.

Well, I just did...glad you understand.