In response to the Alligator article "College Republicans hold 'PETA Barbecue'" that ran on Wednesday, it was surprising to read that members of the student group claimed that "loving animals does not exclude you from eating meat." I surely hope they don't love the dogs they share their homes with the same way they "love" the pigs and chickens they served on the Plaza of the Americas.
Most people on both sides of the political aisle are horrified to discover that animals raised and killed for food are treated in ways that could warrant felony cruelty-to-animals charges if cats or dogs were the victims. Chickens often have their beaks cut off without any painkillers, and cows and pigs are skinned and dismembered, often while still conscious. This kind of abuse is standard in an industry that refuses to make even the most basic changes in the way that animals are treated.
At PETA, we do not believe that cruelty to animals is a partisan issue, but if the College Republicans feel strongly that torturing animals for our meals is acceptable, we would be happy to have that discussion. If the College Republicans are willing, we would gladly participate in an on-campus debate, at a time of their choosing, to allow UF students to hear both sides.
lorraine_o
"Lets look at this from a simply utillitarian standpoint."
That statement seems to be invoking that theory and using that model as a basis of how moral actions should be carried out.
Thanks for the clarification about the bleeding. Quite a simple concept indeed, though I still had an unawareness of it which is precisely why I remained uncertain.
Just because omnivore implies meat consumption doesn't mean meat SHOULD be consumed by a moral agent. Let's look at a personality description analysis. Suppose someone were labeled as judger (based from the Myers-Brigg Personality Test). A judger has a high need for structure, needs to plan everything out, and is prone to make cognitive shortcuts. Using a little imagination, we can create hypothetical situations where judgers will run into problems. For instance, they tend to think their world will shatter if everything does not go according to plan (I live with two, holy cow). But we might say, "a judger implies a need for structure." And we might say, "well, that's just the make up of the DNA." Ok, so?? Maybe they should work on being a little more like a perceiver (someone without a high need for structure.)
I need more reason to believe why it's ok to eat animals rather than merely knowing some biological fact that states humans naturally will consume meat.
CarlyWilson
Funny you should mention a love for animals, seeing as the UF College Republican Chairman actually has pet chickens and a pet pig, but alas, no pet dog.
RainDogGator
You can't base your argument on the incorrect application to a theory when your "opponent" never claimed to be invoking that theory.
Also, a dead animal doesn't bleed out (at least not as quickly and thoroughly) because the heart is not beating. Pretty simple.
If the definition of "omnivoure" includes eating meat, then the statement that one is an omnivore does indeed imply meat consumption.
The PETA folks caught killing dogs claimed to so because the dogs were better off dead than as captives to humans. The dogs were healthy when killed.
Most people have no trouble applying different levels of affection to different types of animals. We think squirels are cute, but rats are vermin. So yes, you can love your pets and still eat other animals.
lorraine_o
Stonewall50 has incorrectly applied the utilitarian normative theory. Utilitarianism states that you should do those actions which will maximize happiness in the world. Do you think that killing animals maximizes happiness, Mr. or Mrs. Stonewall50? And your reasoning concerning "bleeding out" doesn't make sense unless I am unaware of some physiological fact. Why wouldn't a dead animal bleed out? And aren't there alternative methods to "bleed out" an animal? In fact, Mr. or Mrs. Stonewall, are you aware that there is a utilitarian philosopher by the name of Peter Singer who strongly advocates for vegetarianism because he believes it maximizes happiness in the world? So if you're going to use a utilitarian theory to guide your moral actions, then you need to recognize the its implications.
Furthermore, you are using a naturalistic fallacy when you say, "we are omnivores, therefore, we should eat meat." Just because something is some biological or psychological fact doesn't follow that it SHOULD be the case. Someone could use that reasoning and say, "Well, I was born to lie so I SHOULD lie." Or, "I am born to have a dominant personality therefore I should have one and control people." It is true that we need sufficient B-12 that is mostly found in animals; however, we can get it from milk,eggs, other dairy products, and even through vitamins. For vegans, it is more problematic but for vegetarians it's not a problem at all.
And why did they euthanize the dogs? It may have been that the dogs were going to die anyway and undergoing enormous amounts of pain. Sometimes, there's really no difference between killing and letting die. In fact, if we will maintain the utilitarian model, then it would be better that they were euthanized to decrease their pain! Utilitarians are all for decreasing pain and maximizing happiness. (But personally, I am not quite fond of utilitarianism anyway because it has problems.)
And the fact that not every slaughter house kills animals the same way doesn't necessarily weaken PETAs stance for the ethical treatment of animals. Their goal is for all animals to be treated ethically, not to ignore a few here or there. If your claim is true that not all slaughterhouses kill unethically and PETA claims that they do, then they should check the facts.
With all this said, you're argument is not very convincing
lorraine_o
Stonewall50 has correctly applied that utilitarian normative theory. Utilitarians states that you should do those actions which will maximize happiness in the world. Do you think that killing animals maximizes happiness, Mr. or Mrs. Stonewall50? And your reasoning concerning "bleeding out" doesn't make sense unless I am unaware of some physiological fact. Why wouldn't a dead animal bleed out? And aren't there alternative methods to bleed an animal out if an animal is to be killed and eaten for your happiness. In fact, Mr. Stonewall, are you aware that there is a utilitarian philosopher by the name of Peter Singer who strongly advocates for vegetarianism because he believes it maximizes happiness in the world? So if you're going to use a utilitarian method to guide your moral actions, then you need to recognize the implications of that method.
Furthermore, you are using a naturalistic fallacy when you say, "we are omnivores, therefore, we should eat meat." Just because something is the case, doesn't follow that it SHOULD be the case. Someone could use that reasoning and say, "Well, I was born to lie so I SHOULD lie." Or, "I am born to have a dominant personality therefore I should have one and control people." It is true that we need sufficient B-12 that is mostly found in animals; however, we can get it from milk,eggs, other dairy products, and even through vitamins. For vegans, it is more problematic but for vegetarians it's not a problem at all.
And why did they euthanize the dogs? It may have been that the dogs were going to die anyway and undergoing enormous amounts of pain. Sometimes, there's really no difference between killing and letting die. In fact, if we will maintain the utilitarian model, then it would be better that they were euthanized to decrease their pain! Utilitarians are all for decreasing pain and maximizing happiness. (But personally, I am not quite fond of utilitarianism anyway because it has problems.)
And the fact that not every slaughter house kills animals the same way doesn't necessarily weaken PETAs stance for the ethical treatment of animals. Their goal is for all animals to treated ethically, not to ignore a few here or there. If your claim is true that not all slaughterhouses kill unethically and PETA claims that they do, they should check the facts.
With all this said, you're argument is not very convincing.
stonewall50
I think its interesting that PETA can purport everything they say as, "industry wide" practices and then flat out lie about "still concious" animals. Lets look at this from a simply utillitarian standpoint. Why would you try to clean(meaning get the meat you need) off of a still concious animal? WRONG. JUST wrong. You do NOT do that because the animal is still kicking. They animal is UNCONCIOUS but still alive so that it will bleed out. Do you feel the knife digging into your chest when you are in surgery? Hm...way to go PETA. Now lets look at those inhumane ILLEGAL practices that exist at "EVERY" slaughter house. Sorry that is a blatant lie because PETA does not do enough research to know what EVERY Slaughter house does, and the ones they DID do research on were exceptions. So lets put the spotlight on PETA. Is it me or have they been busted euthanising dogs? Seems to me like that goes AGAINST what PETA is supposed to stand for? You cannot be militantly PRO animal rights and then turn around and kill them. It does'nt work that way. We humans are meat-eaters. Omnivores. That means our diet SHOULD consist of some meat. The whole we CAN eat live on a vegan diet means nothing when our biology says that we have been DESIGNED to live on a MEAT and veggie diet.
PrettyNicola
While I myself am merely a lessmeat-atarian, I was surprised to see a a chapter of a political group, whose members must surely follow a diversity of dietary habits, blantantly thumbing their noses at PETA. Kudos to Ryan for offering a noble challenge.