Why Do You Eat Animals?

[Kanade]

I would like to ask you Steve, what is your logical moral criteria for a sentient being to be more valuable than another? Where is the logical reasoning behind the idea that morally only humans should be considered within the scope of moral value? Why even draw such an arbitrary line in the first place?

[Humane Hominid]

There are some animals that are not sentient, like sponges, and some that we are not sure about, like some worms - but that's where we have the doubt, not in things such as pigs - that are fully sentient.

And what's more, if we include sponges and worms on a spectrum of moral worth based on consciousness, then pigs and humans would rank nearly equal, since they have nearly identical cognitive capacities when compared to sponges.

This is the part that truly reveals whether someone's use of a consciousness spectrum as a reason for eating animals is an actual reason, or just a lazy excuse to avoid accountability. If someone tells me, "well, I'll eat sponges or oysters, but not pigs and cows, because I think we should evaluate the moral worth of animals based on their degree of consciousness," well then, I can respect that position without agreeing with it. Such a person clearly takes consciousness seriously, and uses an evidence-based approach.

But, someone who says they eat cows or pigs or deer because of "different consciousness" either doesn't understand consciousness from an evolutionary, evidence-based framework; or is (more likely) just using consciousness as a lazy excuse to engage in a behavior for which they hope to avoid accountability.

[Humane Hominid]

I don't know what 'fake' meat is or what would be an example of a fake meat product that you speak of. Perhaps you could direct me to one so that I could see an ingredient list for myself. I do know a lot of other fake foods tend to have substances which your body treats as harmful chemicals and over work your liver. Either way I'm not very big on highly manufactured processed foods and would rather eat raw plant products.

Try Beyond Meat. It's not "fake," it's just meat made from plant sources. That is, it draws its amino acids, lipids, trace carbs, etc., from plant sources and uses them to build a piece of meat that fools almost everyone in blind taste tests. I've fed it to my carnist friends through surreptitious methods, and they could not tell the difference. At all. It's even fooled the food writer for the NYT.

It "fools" people because it's not fake meat. It's real meat, made from plants. The company takes the approach of looking at what meat is, instead of what it comes from, then works outward from there. They use a proprietary process, but their ingredients are viewable on every package.

[PrincessPeach]

And what's more, if we include sponges and worms on a spectrum of moral worth based on consciousness, then pigs and humans would rank nearly equal, since they have nearly identical cognitive capacities when compared to sponges.

This is the part that truly reveals whether someone's use of a consciousness spectrum as a reason for eating animals is an actual reason, or just a lazy excuse to avoid accountability. If someone tells me, "well, I'll eat sponges or oysters, but not pigs and cows, because I think we should evaluate the moral worth of animals based on their degree of consciousness," well then, I can respect that position without agreeing with it. Such a person clearly takes consciousness seriously, and uses an evidence-based approach.

But, someone who says they eat cows or pigs or deer because of "different consciousness" either doesn't understand consciousness from an evolutionary, evidence-based framework; or is (more likely) just using consciousness as a lazy excuse to engage in a behavior for which they hope to avoid accountability.

Let's include aborted fetuses there is an estimated 3500 abortions a day(IN USA), that is a lot of good nutrients we are just throwing away!
These creatures still have a central nervous system, even though they may have no brain or no pain receptors and scientificly speaking anything with a central nervous system is sentient, it just means that creature is stupid, not less sentient either you have a central nervous system or you do not, we don't go around eating human vegetables because they are not sentient at the moment ..

[brimstoneSalad]

These creatures still have a central nervous system, even though they may have no brain or no pain receptors and scientificly speaking anything with a central nervous system is sentient,

That's not what sentience means.

A nervous system is irrelevant, beyond being a prerequisite to transmit sensory information.

That's like saying if there are roads, there are by definition Trucks driving on it.
Sentience is about the generation of pain, it's transmission, and finally its perception and understanding. If any of those are lacking, you don't have sentience.

There's a reason we don't eat people who are brain dead, and it has nothing to do with that. There's a taboo in our culture about eating dead humans- and there's some good reasoning behind it (prion diseases).

[Dudugs]

I would like to ask you Steve, what is your logical moral criteria for a sentient being to be more valuable than another? Where is the logical reasoning behind the idea that morally only humans should be considered within the scope of moral value? Why even draw such an arbitrary line in the first place?

The thing is, vegans don't have a morality line. You may think that's bad, but you can't hold animals to the same standard as a human. Why you may ask?
Well, I recommend reading "Future of the mind", by Michio Kaku. A human being is has a level 3 conscience. That means, that unlike any other animal, he can analyze the past, predict the future and create hypothetical scenarios with his brain. He do this all the time, even if we don't notice it. This of course means that humans are the only creature to be able to think rationally. Animals however, have level 2. Level 0 is the most basic and even a thermostat has it, since level 0 means that you can identify something, like light or heat and adapt. Plants are also level 0. Level 1, common on lizards and insects. Level 1 means to able to see and understand space. Level 2, common on mammals means that social interactions are now possible. This makes some people, vegans included, think that they are smarter than they are and atribute them human characteristics. Animals act with instinct. The purpose of instinct is to guarantee the survival and progression of an individual animal and the species overall. If that happens, the animal is happy. If that doesn't happen, the animal is sad. Looking from that perspective, is farming anyway worse than having wild animals? They have shelter, food and all the time in the world to reproduce. Yes, they may die a little earlier than an average wild animal, but they do live a better and more successful life. They don't have the kind of problems a human as and aplying them to animals is ignorant at best.

[thebestofenergy]

The thing is, vegans don't have a morality line.

What are you talking about? Ethical veganism is based on rationality, logic and morality. Do you often generalize?

Looking from that perspective, is farming anyway worse than having wild animals? They have shelter, food and all the time in the world to reproduce. Yes, they may die a little earlier than an average wild animal, but they do live a better and more successful life. They don't have the kind of problems a human as and aplying them to animals is ignorant at best.

Me and brimstone tried to explained this to you through lots of posts, but apparently you didn't get anything. How you didn't get anything, I don't know.
I'm going to try and explain it to you once more, and hopefully you won't ignore my arguments like you did in the past.

Farmed animals are fully sentient beings - and as it turns out, sentient beings have wants.
The best way to base your morality/logic on, is to base yourself on what other beings want.
If someone doesn't want you to steal his toy, and he strongly doesn't want you to do so, then it's morally wrong of course.
But what if someone doesn't you want you to steal his toy, but doesn't care that much either? Then it's still wrong, but less wrong than the scenario I gave you before.
Killing people is wrong because they strongly don't want to die; but at the same time, killing someone that wants to die is a different story - less wrong.
Basing myself on your logic - basing myself only on the capabilities of trying to rationalize and consider the past and the future to determine who's morally wrong/right to kill - then I have no moral obligation not to kill people that are sleeping. They are unconscious, they are not aware of what's happening, and they would never discover they died.
But the fact is that they have wants - they want to keep living.

Animals have wants aswell, and the strongest of their wants is, of course, not to die and to avoid suffering. Killing sentient beings that don't want to die is inherently wrong.

they may die a little earlier

They may die a little earlier? Most animals are killed when they're young.
Also, you're making a big strawman of the wild life. Animals in the wild life are not in a constant pressure, their lives are not miserable.
And why would it matter what animals do in the wild? If we stopped farming animals, they wouldn't be released in the wild by the billions.

Plants, on the other hand, are not sentient - they are biological machines. They don't have wants; so it's only logical to harm plants instead of sentient beings.

On top of this, farming animals causes enormous damage to the environment - this means that it's an unsustainable way for the future.

[Dudugs]

What are you talking about? Ethical veganism is based on rationality, logic and morality. Do you often generalize?

No, you don't have a morality line. To you, something that is bad for a human is equally bad for an animal. That isn't rational or logic.

Basing myself on your logic - basing myself only on the capabilities of trying to rationalize and consider the past and the future to determine who's morally wrong/right to kill - then I have no moral obligation not to kill people that are sleeping. They are unconscious, they are not aware of what's happening, and they would never discover they died.
But the fact is that they have wants - they want to keep living.

The difference is, if you ask someone who is awake if he wants to die, he won't say yes. That still stands and even if he doesn't answer when sleeping, you still know he doesn't want to die. Animals don't have the rational mind to make a choice, like a sleeping person. At animals want is happiness, for that dopamine to be triggered. To an animal, death will just be a quick surge of unhappiness, unlike a human being, that understands the concept of death and therefore become much sader than an animal, making it much worse. If you consider farming trough the eyes of an animal, it's gonna be much more happy, with a quick sudden sadness at the end. And if they could choose, they would most likely choose farming.

[thebestofenergy]

No, you don't have a morality line. To you, something that is bad for a human is equally bad for an animal. That isn't rational or logic.

Wrong. Obviously wrong. You're not good at making assumptions.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

The difference is, if you ask someone who is awake if he wants to die, he won't say yes.

Same for animals. They won't say it in words, but it's obvious that they don't want to die.

That still stands and even if he doesn't answer when sleeping, you still know he doesn't want to die. Animals don't have the rational mind to make a choice, like a sleeping person.

A sleeping person doesn't make a choice, it's sleeping. And yes, animals are capable of making choices.

To an animal, death will just be a quick surge of unhappiness,

Same for a human that is killed fast and painlessly, without announcement.

unlike a human being, that understands the concept of death and therefore become much sader than an animal, making it much worse.

If a person is sleeping or is killed without announcement, there's no sadness.

And if they could choose, they would most likely choose farming.

Sometimes, you read such stupid things on the internet that you want to smash your head against a wall.
They choose death over life? They choose suffering over happiness? They choose to have their babies stolen at bird instead of not? They choose to be killed at a young age instead of not? They choose being caged over being free?
I'm not going to answer; if you really think so, you're being dishonest with yourself and others - or you don't know anything about the matter.

And, once again of course, you ignored my other points - congratulations. That's probably because you can't answer them.

[Humane Hominid]

The difference is, if you ask someone who is awake if he wants to die, he won't say yes. That still stands and even if he doesn't answer when sleeping, you still know he doesn't want to die. Animals don't have the rational mind to make a choice, like a sleeping person. At animals want is happiness, for that dopamine to be triggered. To an animal, death will just be a quick surge of unhappiness, unlike a human being, that understands the concept of death and therefore become much sader than an animal, making it much worse. If you consider farming trough the eyes of an animal, it's gonna be much more happy, with a quick sudden sadness at the end. And if they could choose, they would most likely choose farming.

Prove it. What is your evidence for this bold, generalized claim?