There are also important environmental issues that come with the production of meat and other animal products.

As a meat eater, this is the main reason why I am interested in artificial meat production. The whole "living beings" argument isn't very convincing, but that's just my opinion.

>I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights

So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws? Are you okay with animals like dogs and cats being torture for human entertainment?

>So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws?

"I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights" is not necessarily the same as "I don't want animals to have rights". It can simply be "I don't care if animals have rights".

"I do not consider animal ... deserving of rights" is pretty much as close to "I don't want animals to have rights" as you can get.

Cruelty means e.g. causing pain. We can kill animals without causing them pain.

At a broad enough definition of pain, that is very hard. Many of our farm animals have strong family ties. In order to kill them you have to sever them ties. That hurts. If you see intellegent mammals being reunited after some time apart you will know they reeeeaaly love each other, much like we humans do.

> We can kill animals without causing them pain.

We can, but it seems like we often don't.

Animal cruelty laws also police an active precursor behavior that might easily turn into human cruelty, which is a justification that really has nothing to do with the animals themselves.

That is an ancillary "benefit". The main purpose of animal cruelty laws is the obvious one: it's inhumane to hurt/torture/kill animals (depending on your jurisdiction).

> I do not consider animal lives worth valuing

For the sake of discussion, do you have a pet? Or have loved ones that have a pet?

If you were to torture that pet would you feel anything? Would your loved ones object for any reason?

Well-being of animals is distinct from slaughtering them for food. The beef I buy comes from cows that roam in fields, usually in Ireland. They're not unhappy then, as I can attest having grown up in the countryside. And the fact there are so many of them means the total lifetime happiness (of the cows at least) probably outweighs their death, if it's done humanely.

My reply was to a very specific (and obviously troubling to me) statement: "I do not consider animal lives worth valuing".

I totally get that there's a difference between the scenario you're describing and factory farms. In fact, I've posited before that those animals would never have any life if there wasn't a demand to eat them at some point.

But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens to any animal". My question about pets wasn't meant to be tricky, it was trying to ascertain if the statement was an absolute or a general lack of care of where his food comes from.

> But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens to any animal"

What exactly is wrong with that statement, though? I personally do give fucks about certain kinds of animals, but I recognize that my choices as to what animals to care about is entirely subjective and is a result of my upbringing. I have no problem with a person who draws the line at "entirely no fucks given about any animal" (though that seems kinda sad to me).

Which... is also different from caring or not caring about malicious cruelty. And I think you could make a further distinction between being a proponent of cruelty (as in "I enjoy torturing animals in my backyard") and being indifferent to it (as in "I personally think it's gross to torture animals, but don't feel it's my or the law's place to force other people not to do it").

(Before I get labeled a monster, I personally think malicious animal cruelty is likely a sign of mental illness and am fine with legislating it away. Regarding animals used as food, I think ultimately we're finding that healthy, sustainable food production often aligns pretty well with increased animal welfare, but I consider that a bonus, not a hard necessity.)

What’s wrong with the statement is that it is ‘entirely subjective,’ like your own views – it is no less arbitrary to include only humans on your list of animals deserving of empathy. Such an ethical rule cannot accommodate the proposition that some kinds of harm to animals (eg. needlessly torturing mammals) are unacceptable and some kinds of harm to humans (eg. self-defence, euthanasia, abortion) are acceptable.

You'll find about ~5% (depending on source) of people have severe difficulties feeling empathy towards fellow humans, let alone animals.

And then there's the bit about future psychopaths practicing their craft as children by torturing animals. That wasn't intended in my initial reply though.

As a thought experiment, would people be okay with humans being grown for meat, given a happy life and then slaughtered humanely?

I think that some people (though probably very few) might be okay with that, but most people probably draw the line at cannibalism even if they don't respect human life.

Really, your question just illustrates the fact that this debate is entirely subjective and based on emotion.

As a further thought experiment, we're obviously already working on growing human organs for the purpose of organ transplants. Would people be ok with growing individual human organs for the purpose of food? I expect most people would think that would be gross and be against it, but ethically it seems in the clear.

Cannibals did exist in history. I'm not sure how common they were, but presumably such societies would be okay with it. I think it is safe to say today such a society would not be allowed to exist by others.

Sign me up for the Morlock team, and let me know when the Eloi roast is done.~

The argument against this has nothing to do with Eloi thoughts and feelings, and everything to do with their ability to invade the Morlock tunnels and wipe them all out, as a matter of survival. That is, it doesn't matter if the Eloi object, if they lack the means to enforce their objections. Eloi thoughts do not carry any weight in Morlock arguments.

Besides that, feeding themselves to humans by the billions as captive domesticated prey species may be the only shot those species have at reaching other planets.

Please, describe to me this 'humane killing' process, what does it look like?

I believe it's the equivalent of being shot in the head. If it's quick and clean, it's probably about as humane as can be, save for sedating first.

So, shooting someone in the head is 'humane' then? Then, what does 'humane' even mean?

I believe you meant to reply to me. It implies a very quick exit, which is more humane that a lingering painful one.

I think some chicken processors will use controlled-atmosphere stunning — or “gas stunning” — which desensitizes the chickens to pain before slaughtering. (that last bit was copy/paste from another source).

Not the parent poster, but I think, given that this boils down to an emotional reaction, it's perfectly consistent to value the well-being of different animals in different ways.

There's no inherent quality that makes a cat or dog more or less deserving of humane treatment than a cow or pig. There's no inherent difference (aside from judgments around taste) that makes it acceptable to eat the meat of a cow but not of a dog (and, indeed, in some cultures, the opposite can be the case).

At the end of the day it's all just what we've been socialized from a young age to believe is acceptable or not, sometimes reinforced with religious beliefs.

I personally will never be swayed by vegetarian/vegan "the poor animals!"-type arguments (but fully respect people who choose not to eat meat for those reasons). Arguments around health, sustainability, and cost (in that order) are what I care about.

(For the record, I think torturing any animal out of malice is messed up and is probably an indicator of some sort of mental illness. However, other people simply being indifferent toward animal welfare is just not something I care about. Everyone has different emotional attachments to different things.)

Is a neverending, emotional and often really messed-up rabbit hole. Closing eyes when is not convenient for the discurse, and rejecting any logical reasoning or fact against.

We can see people on tv acussing other people of being torturers and organising harassment plans against them, whereas happily showing their "baby" toy-dog in their arms.

The same dogs selectively breeded to keep cute deformed craneus, jaw bones like an acordion, popping eyes, crossed teeth, deformed humerus and femurs, no tail, chronic fatigue, all sort of health problems. Dogs feeded with "vegan dog food" for years... and castrated of course. All for human entertainment. How this is not an extreme evil form of torture for them?

Maybe they should give example and kill those pets humanely as soon as possible to end their endless life of suffering?

There's another aspect don't think it's mentioned yet, that someone's emotional attachment imbues an animal with a difference that makes harming it different to harming another animal.

Similar (at a different level) to me snapping a stick, vs snapping my kids "favourite" stick that he found. Identical actions in one respect, but the human emotional impact is very different.

I'm intentionally not answering this as it hides the point I'm trying to make which is that people have fundamental disagreements on various issues and how to deal with this is an open question. That isn't to say your question isn't valid or uninteresting, just that I don't want the debate to go that direction.

I guess this depends on where we consider the line for "peaceful" to be. If the culture shifted enough where your views were in the minority, there's legislative action that can be taken criminalizing raising and harvesting of animals for food (in the US they just did this with dog and cats for example, with the latest farm bill).

Whether you agree or not, if your behavior is criminalized, the matter is settled (as a point of law at least).

To be fair, I don't know that violence against you (or others) would really convince you that these lives are valuable or not, just that you might value not being violently punished for acting on your beliefs.

> This is a fundamental disagreement, the only possible peaceful solution is agree to disagree (I hope we don't come down to the non-peaceful ones)

So here is the kicker, exactly because vegan people see these animal lives as worth valuing, they don't consider your "agree to disagree" stance as a "peaceful solution", as it implies the death and suffering of these entities.

It's one of those subjects where you can't have an "agree to disagree" or a "live and let live", or a "to each their own" type of deal, because one side is considering that a third party is involved and hurt, while the other side doesn't consider that a third party is involved at all. i.e: sentient being vs food.

Eh. We exist in a society where people who perform abortions must live with people who believe a fetus is equivalent to a full human life. People who believe unbelievers go to hell must live with people who are atheists.

The tension between vegans and non-vegans is not unique or unprecedented. The only thing that's new is veganism's recent growth spurt, which has produced a lot of new converts that mainstream society is slowly learning to tolerate, and vice versa.

Exactly. Also the scale of the "3rd party damage" is humongous in case of bio-industry. Many millions of animals per day are having the life squeezed out of m.

Abortions need supervision, paperwork, a studied persons decision. Slaughterhouse killing of often done by immigrants, unable to find any better work.

Where the embryo can potentially harm the mother, the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative impact on our lives.

So I agree there are similar cases, but all these cases are very ---very--- unique in their dynamics.

> the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative impact on our lives

We kill them because in doing so they have a positive impact on our lives.

I understand that. And that's what sets it apart from the embryo-killings. Live farm animals prove no danger, live embryos (to some extend) do pose a danger to women

Interesting, judging by the other replies, that the opponents in your debate have not agreed to disagree, despite the fact that the underlying differences are deep-rooted enough that any action on their part, especially on an internet forum, is unlikely to make a change.

> the underlying differences are deep-rooted enough

Although I'm not one of the other replies, I do think I'd actually disagree on this point. I used to feel the same way like GP (and still do, to some extent), but my view has definitely softened after learning more. After being presented with some ethical dilemma's, and seeing descriptions of how we actually treat animals, I found out I actually can be affected by the suffering of animals - just not to the same scale.

In other words: even though it might feel like a fundamental disagreement, I've experienced that there can still be room for your opinion to change to at least move somewhat in the other direction.

I didn't technically disagree, I merely asked for clarification of a statement. The only answer was a downvote.

Edit: I'm not vegan because I'm lazy and love bacon cheeseburgers, etc. Beyond Meat and their ilk are helping to address the last part and I'm excited for it.

That is why violent solutions are sometimes the only possibility. There are times my values can be different from someone else, and times that different value system cannot be allowed to exist in the world.