Beauty & Style Is it Wrong to Kill Animals for fashion etc

[BarneyBent]

No, it isn't a strawman argument - it illustrates why your logic fails. And hard too.

Your logic being: "Any animal life is a positive. X means the creation of additional animal life. Therefore, X is a positive."

I've shown why it isn't applicable all the time, you were referring to a different scenario, but the logic itself is fundamentally flawed.

No, it is not fundamentally flawed. It is a straw man argument, as the two scenarios are not analogous. The reason your use of "my" logic is not applicable is because you are introducing a third element, the torture of the animal while it is still alive, which did not exist in my scenario. In any scenario in which that is not included, my logic holds true.

Yet you never stated this, at all. You were just vaguely referring to farming of fur, and some of these places are quite inhumane to their animals. Besides which, I am questioning the morality of killing an animal purely for vanity.

I have said previously that one of my conditions for "moral" or "ethical" farming are reasonable conditions. My scenarios are best case scenarios, I thought that was evident. There are plenty of farming practices which I do not consider moral.

As for questioning the morality of killing an animal purely for vanity, the question is essentially "under what circumstances is it ok to kill an animal". I would have thought the demand created by a fur industry bringing these animals into life would come under the umbrella of "circumstances".

I'm poking holes in your logic, not your scenario. And yet again, your scenario has the moral quandary of reason. What is the reason behind it?

No, you're not poking holes in my logic. You are applying my logic to scenarios that it was never meant to be applied to, and THEN poking holes in it. That is the definition of a straw man argument.

The moral quandary of reason? The reason behind it is irrelevent, because the reason for killing the animals is the same reason for them existing in the first place. If the animals were to exist anyway, then yes, reason comes into it, because you could be killing animals that already exist in their own right for absolutely no reason. However, in my farming for fur scenario, the reason for killing them is also the reason for giving them life in the first place. However superfluous the reason may be, it doesn't change the fact that without this reason, they wouldn't exist in the first place. By having this superfluous reason, you are giving these animals life when they otherwise wouldn't have had it.

I don't think you understood the purpose of my scenario...

I think I did. You tried to demonstrate how my logic was flawed, and that it is merely my preconceived notions of what is "right" and what is "wrong" that means I see one as acceptable and one as not acceptable. If I am wrong, please correct me.

However, ironically, it is in using this scenario that you have revealed your own preconceived notions about the morality of the fur industry. This is shown by the key difference between your scenario and mine. You attempt to compare the torture of LIVING animals to the skinning of DEAD animals. This demonstrates your inability (or unwillingness) to separate your preconceived notions about what the fur industry entails (which is often cruel, torturous and immoral) with what it COULD entail (which is essentially morally neutral).

What is common to both scenarios is that the animals are born, and the animals die. This is a natural pattern, even when aided by man's hand, as man's hand would aid both sides equally (man may kill them, but equally man gave them life).

What is not common is that your scenario added the element of torture which mine did not have. Had your scenario had the people hammering the dogs' legs AFTER they had died, not before (as I suggested you try), then the dogs still would have had a life they otherwise would not have, and no torture would be seen. You might question the sanity of people who want to bang dogs' legs with a sledgehammer, but the dogs do not feel the pain, they are done no wrong.

 

[Thrawn]

No, it is not fundamentally flawed. It is a straw man argument, as the two scenarios are not analogous. The reason your use of "my" logic is not applicable is because you are introducing a third element, the torture of the animal while it is still alive, which did not exist in my scenario. In any scenario in which that is not included, my logic holds true.

Of course they're analogous. I'm using your logic, after all. There is no "third element" - it is simply swapping one reason for another, using the same logic. And that is precisely why it is flawed.

I do not care if your scenario involved torture or not, the logic itself you used was stupid.

I have said previously that one of my conditions for "moral" or "ethical" farming are reasonable conditions. My scenarios are best case scenarios, I thought that was evident. There are plenty of farming practices which I do not consider moral.

Then perhaps you should have specified this in your scenario, because we were clearly looking at "fur farming" differently.

As for questioning the morality of killing an animal purely for vanity, the question is essentially "under what circumstances is it ok to kill an animal". I would have thought the demand created by a fur industry bringing these animals into life would come under the umbrella of "circumstances".

Does this demand make it moral, though?

No, you're not poking holes in my logic. You are applying my logic to scenarios that it was never meant to be applied to, and THEN poking holes in it. That is the definition of a straw man argument.

Too bad mate, because that is exactly why your logic is flawed - because it can apply to those situations, even though you didn't mean to. My point is, is that logic can't be applied all the time.

And the definition of a strawman is to take your argument and misinterpret your position. I didn't do that, I just took the logic you were using and ripped it to pieces because it didn't make much sense at all.

The moral quandary of reason? The reason behind it is irrelevent, because the reason for killing the animals is the same reason for them existing in the first place.

It's not irrelevant at all, because the reason is why this moral quandary exists in the first place.

If the animals were to exist anyway, then yes, reason comes into it, because you could be killing animals that already exist in their own right for absolutely no reason. However, in my farming for fur scenario, the reason for killing them is also the reason for giving them life in the first place. However superfluous the reason may be, it doesn't change the fact that without this reason, they wouldn't exist in the first place. By having this superfluous reason, you are giving these animals life when they otherwise wouldn't have had it.

Again, one could say the same thing for more extreme scenarios. I highlighted one and gave you a pretty good reason why the logic behind the statement "better to have lived and died, than never to have lived at all" is flawed, and isn't necessarily applicable in all situations.

I think I did. You tried to demonstrate how my logic was flawed, and that it is merely my preconceived notions of what is "right" and what is "wrong" that means I see one as acceptable and one as not acceptable. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I didn't try, I did demonstrate it using another scenario (while extreme, still uses the same logic).

However, ironically, it is in using this scenario that you have revealed your own preconceived notions about the morality of the fur industry. This is shown by the key difference between your scenario and mine. You attempt to compare the torture of LIVING animals to the skinning of DEAD animals.

Oh yes, I attempted it. Know why? Because of this:

So by that reckoning, any animal life is a positive. Farming for fur means the creation of additional animal life. Therefore, farming for fur is a positive. It's quite simple logic, in the end.

Quite simple? You're right - which is why it allows for my scenario. The logic is the same - perhaps you should have worded it differently, or made it more logical. Because it is a fallacy. "Animal life is positive. X means creation, therefore X is positive" - please, that makes no sense at all.

If you're using "fur farming", someone can use "crush legs with sledgehammer". Or anything, really...

This demonstrates your inability (or unwillingness) to separate your preconceived notions about what the fur industry entails (which is often cruel, torturous and immoral) with what it COULD entail (which is essentially morally neutral).

It doesn't demonstrate any in(ability) here, it demonstrates why the logic you used is faulty.

What is not common is that your scenario added the element of torture which mine did not have. Had your scenario had the people hammering the dogs' legs AFTER they had died, not before (as I suggested you try), then the dogs still would have had a life they otherwise would not have, and no torture would be seen. You might question the sanity of people who want to bang dogs' legs with a sledgehammer, but the dogs do not feel the pain, they are done no wrong.

Urrgh.

I'm not comparing the two scenarios by themselves, I am using them to show you why the logic you are using is flawed. You appear to be focusing on the differences between the two scenarios, but not the logic behind them (the logic you stated in a previous post). Want me to repeat the logic you were using again? Please, think about it... think about it real hard...

 

[kaysee]

...
I'm not against killing animals myself (sometimes it is necessary), but I hate people who torture them and/or do extremely painful things when it's not necessary. People, in my view, who torture animals like cane toads - are really no different to people who would torture someone's dog or cat. Why? Because it's really all about the mindset - the intention to go out of one's way to inflict physical harm/lots of pain to a defenceless animal that can't really be blamed for being what it is. I don't really care if it's a cane toad, or a dog - it's all still gratuitous animal cruelty.
...
.

And yet your avatar is all based around a cruel, antagonist from a fictional reality? Which you obviously like/enjoy otherwise you wouldn't put it on display.

Hmmm.... interesting.

 

[kaysee]

Ok so it is apparantly "wrong" for us to cultivate animals for fashion... right?

I am pressume this is because animals are living organisms and that come under stress/duress when killed for us to cultivate them for our purposes.

So... continuing the "moral" analysis away from animals (somewhat)...


What about cultivating silkworms?

They're bred and contained speciffically for the purpose of generating silk webs and then left to die in a never end cycle of mass production and animal "genocide"... surely that can't go on.

What about cultivating plants?

Plants, whilst not having a brain, are still living organisms that can suffer stress and duress... or are we only concerned with animals with brains. Then also keeping in mind that the brain of an "invertebrate" is totally different and incomparable to that of an "vertebrate".

and to a lesser extent...

What about the production of man-made fashion materials (synthetics, polyesters etc) that effect the living habitats of other species (either via mining or de-forrestisation)?

What about spiders or scorpians being used in plastic gear stick knobs... what about starfish/coral in plastic toilet seats... and so on (no guarantees these died of natural causes and yet are used for fashion).

Yeah... all of a sudden our "morales" do have limits/thresholds and they varying depending on the society and community influences. I guarantee that almost anyone who says it is "wrong" to kill something for fashion is a hypocrit to some degree. That is why I don't proclaim it to be "wrong".

I simply have my own personal thresholds but I don't have a problem with other people having a higher/lower one... just interesting the reasons people justify it as being wrong.

Ohhh and Thrawn... about aliens using use as bracelets: it is neither wrong or right. Things like that and this aren't black and white one way or the other. I wouldn't want us being used as bracelets... we either stop them or we can't... we accept that or we die trying. Same with animals.

 

[Caesar]

I've often said that you need a good reason to kill an animal. Pest control, clothing, food - yeah, fine. I don't think being fashionable falls into "good reason", take it for what you will.

Fur isn't just about being fashionable though. Maybe it has that image in a warm climate like Australia, but a big reason it's still worn so much around the world is that its warmth and durability is still far superior to most synthetic substitutes.

Sure, you can wear other stuff. But you can also wear hemp or cotton rather than leather belts, or get your protein from legumes instead of eating meat.

I should point out that I don't wear fur, or really endorse it, but I do sort of muse about the inconsistency of my stance sometimes.

 

[Thrawn]

And yet your avatar is all based around a cruel, antagonist from a fictional reality? Which you obviously like/enjoy otherwise you wouldn't put it on display.

Hmmm.... interesting.

Maybe I'll take you seriously if you can differentiate between fiction and reality.

I like RPGs where you hack and slash through enemies too, that doesn't mean I'd act that out irl.

Plants, whilst not having a brain, are still living organisms that can suffer stress and duress... or are we only concerned with animals with brains.

If you're seriously going to use this as a point of contention, I'm not going to even bother. But apparently my avatar is enough for you...

 

[BarneyBent]

Of course they're analogous. I'm using your logic, after all. There is no "third element" - it is simply swapping one reason for another, using the same logic. And that is precisely why it is flawed.

I do not care if your scenario involved torture or not, the logic itself you used was stupid.

No, the logic I used was not stupid. You are misusing the logic. You are blatantly using the logic in a situation it wasn't intended to be used for. There is absolutely a third element. By swapping the reason with the one you chose particularly, you are changing what the equation is.

It is no longer life - death = positive. It's now life - death - torture = negative. How can you not see this? You may have kept the word structure of the scenario, you may have kept it superficially consistent, but in fact you have totally changed the line of reasoning. If you cannot see this then there's no point discussing it further. Think hard, think real hard about it.

Then perhaps you should have specified this in your scenario, because we were clearly looking at "fur farming" differently.

As I said, I thought this was evident. I do not condone the torture of animals, I would hope and expect that any "fur farms", just as I hope and expect that any meat farms, would stick to certain standards of humane treatment. This will not always be the case, but I would expect standards to be set.

Does this demand make it moral, though?

What makes something moral? To me, generally speaking, something is immoral if it causes more harm than good. Under these circumstances, this would not be the case. Fur farming would only be taking the lives of animals that would not have existed were it not for fur farming. They are given life by fur farming. For me, this is more good than harm. Therefore, it is moral.

Importantly, there is no torture to counteract this. In your scenario, there is torture, to the extent that one could quite reasonably say that it would be better had these dogs not lived at all (debatable, but the fact it is debatable is itself enough to make it a no-no). This would be more harm than good, and therefore immoral.

Too bad mate, because that is exactly why your logic is flawed - because it can apply to those situations, even though you didn't mean to. My point is, is that logic can't be applied all the time.

And the definition of a strawman is to take your argument and misinterpret your position. I didn't do that, I just took the logic you were using and ripped it to pieces because it didn't make much sense at all.

No, no, no. If you actually look into the reasoning behind my logic (the creation of a positive which outweighs the negative makes it moral), you can see as I have written it above that in fact it doesn't apply to that scenario, not truly. You have shoved it into that scenario and shown why it DOESN'T fit. That is your entire argument.

As I have said countless times, by changing the situation verbally, you have misrepresented the logic. The introduction of torture is MASSIVELY important, and it was not a part of my argument. Your use of it is completely unjustified, and it is absolutely a straw man argument. You have not so much misinterpreted my position as misinterpreted my logic, and then defeated it on ground it was never meant to cover. That is absolutely a straw man argument.

Let's see. Torture was not a part of my logic. Torture was not a part of the discussion about fur farming. Torture was a part of your scenario. Pick the odd one out?

It's not irrelevant at all, because the reason is why this moral quandary exists in the first place.

No. It. Is. Not. The reason in itself is morally neutral. It is the result of that reason being applied which is morally charged.

If you were killing random animals, then yes, reason is important. Essentially, the difference is that wild animals are not brought to life by the reason, they are only killed by it. This changes the equation drastically, removing the life part but leaving the death part. So for farmed animals, you have:

life - death (+ reason) = positive, as life>death (so reason is irrelevant)

For wild animals, you have:

- death + reason = positive/negative. Reason varies greatly with relation to the death, so its value, how good the reason is, now becomes important in the evaluation of whether the act of killing the animal is justified.

Again, one could say the same thing for more extreme scenarios. I highlighted one and gave you a pretty good reason why the logic behind the statement "better to have lived and died, than never to have lived at all" is flawed, and isn't necessarily applicable in all situations.

Yes, you showed why that statement doesn't apply to all scenarios. Congratulations, you proved a slogan doesn't always hold true. Do you want a medal? "It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all", which it was of course based on, wouldn't apply to a woman who was beaten constantly by her lover to the point she was emotionally scarred for the rest of her life and never recovered, now would it? See, I can do it to.

It is a general piece of logic which is applicable to simple scenarios such as fur farming. Again, I thought that this was evident. If you were truly interested in debating this topic, instead of scoring points off straw man arguments, you would have seen this.

I didn't try, I did demonstrate it using another scenario (while extreme, still uses the same logic).

You didn't demonstrate anything about my preconceived notions. You demonstrated that the gist of the logic (not the logic itself, because you changed the formula, as I have demonstrated multiple times above) doesn't apply when torture is involved. While this is valid to certain topics of conversation, it is certainly not valid when talking about the farming of animals for fur, when it is provided that the treatment of the animals is not torturous.

Oh yes, I attempted it. Know why? Because of this:

So by that reckoning, any animal life is a positive. Farming for fur means the creation of additional animal life. Therefore, farming for fur is a positive. It's quite simple logic, in the end.

Quite simple? You're right - which is why it allows for my scenario. The logic is the same - perhaps you should have worded it differently, or made it more logical. Because it is a fallacy. "Animal life is positive. X means creation, therefore X is positive" - please, that makes no sense at all.

If you're using "fur farming", someone can use "crush legs with sledgehammer". Or anything, really...

So you take my closing statement completely out of context. I was summing up my post, and so omitted certain things I had said previously, such as that it was the comparison of life versus death. While death is bad, the creation of life is more good. Therefore, it is a positive. Pouncing on a few statements which were merely summaries, and which did not communicate the totality of my argument, and then trying to claim it is the basis of my argument, is quite simply ludicrous, and it is the reason your arguments are straw man arguments.

It doesn't demonstrate any in(ability) here, it demonstrates why the logic you used is faulty.

As I have said many, many times, no it doesn't. Go read back and see where you've gone wrong.

Urrgh.

I'm not comparing the two scenarios by themselves, I am using them to show you why the logic you are using is flawed. You appear to be focusing on the differences between the two scenarios, but not the logic behind them (the logic you stated in a previous post). Want me to repeat the logic you were using again? Please, think about it... think about it real hard...

The logic has completely changed. My argument is based around the positive value of life and the negative value of death. Your scenario introduced a new negative value, torture, which changes the argument. If you were in fact to look at the fundamentals of my logic and factor torture in, you would see that my "equations" of morality would actually find it a negative.

Separate yourself from those last, loose, closing statements, and actually look at what I have been arguing. Have a look at those equations I've put up. In fact, I'll do it again here:

Fur farming (my scenario):

life - death (+ reason) = positive, as life > death (reason is positive so it doesn't affect it)

Leg smashing (your scenario):

life - death - torture (+ reason) = negative, as death+torture > life (reason may affect it, depending on how good the reason is; it's hard to think of any for leg-smashing in particular, but for other "torturous" practices like medical testing, science experiements, etc, it's a lot less clear)

Wild animal harvesting (fur, meat, whatever):

- death (+ reason) = positive/negative, fully dependent on reason (if a person needed it to survive, the reason would outweigh the negative value of the death; if it was for a nice fur scarf, then the reason would be tiny and not cancel out the death).

 

[Thrawn]

No, the logic I used was not stupid. You are misusing the logic. You are blatantly using the logic in a situation it wasn't intended to be used for. There is absolutely a third element. By swapping the reason with the one you chose particularly, you are changing what the equation is.

That's the whole point why the logic:

"Animal life is positive. X means creation, therefore X is positive"

Does not work. And what equation is that? This is the equation I am referring to!

It is no longer life - death = positive. It's now life - death - torture = negative. How can you not see this? You may have kept the word structure of the scenario, you may have kept it superficially consistent, but in fact you have totally changed the line of reasoning. If you cannot see this then there's no point discussing it further. Think hard, think real hard about it.

So you are changing your initial logical statement, hmm? What line of reasoning have I changed? Again, and you said: Animal life is positive. X means creation, therefore X is positive. I'm looking at this logic on its own, regardless what X means.

What makes something moral? To me, generally speaking, something is immoral if it causes more harm than good. Under these circumstances, this would not be the case. Fur farming would only be taking the lives of animals that would not have existed were it not for fur farming. They are given life by fur farming. For me, this is more good than harm. Therefore, it is moral.

But you are still killing something purely for vanity. Does the killing of an animal justify personal vanity?

No, no, no. If you actually look into the reasoning behind my logic (the creation of a positive which outweighs the negative makes it moral), you can see as I have written it above that in fact it doesn't apply to that scenario, not truly. You have shoved it into that scenario and shown why it DOESN'T fit. That is your entire argument.

But it can. That is why I poked at it. It was fallacious, and you should have worded it differently.

As I have said countless times, by changing the situation verbally, you have misrepresented the logic.

I didn't misrepresent it, I am using exactly the same logic you were using. Again: "Animal life is positive. X means creation, therefore X is positive"

Your use of it is completely unjustified, and it is absolutely a straw man argument. You have not so much misinterpreted my position as misinterpreted my logic, and then defeated it on ground it was never meant to cover. That is absolutely a straw man argument.

I can put X as anything I want to show why the logic is faulty in the first place. That doesn't mean it's a strawman argument, it means the logic you used isn't the best way to go about it. It is all there, in writing. It was something very general, as X could mean anything, really.

Let's see. Torture was not a part of my logic. Torture was not a part of the discussion about fur farming. Torture was a part of your scenario. Pick the odd one out?

That torture is or isn't a part of your scenario is irrelevant. At it's core, the logic I have italicised a few times already is what raised my eyebrow.

No. It. Is. Not. The reason in itself is morally neutral. It is the result of that reason being applied which is morally charged.

Are you telling me reason has nothing to do with what is moral or immoral?

If you were killing random animals, then yes, reason is important. Essentially, the difference is that wild animals are not brought to life by the reason, they are only killed by it. This changes the equation drastically, removing the life part but leaving the death part. So for farmed animals, you have:

<snip mathematical blabble>

You are overcomplicating things - the reasons we do things, for anything, is always important. To say it is not important is absurd. What if they were killing the farmed animals for entertainment... the reason is not important now?

Yes, you showed why that statement doesn't apply to all scenarios. Congratulations, you proved a slogan doesn't always hold true. Do you want a medal? "It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all", which it was of course based on, wouldn't apply to a woman who was beaten constantly by her lover to the point she was emotionally scarred for the rest of her life and never recovered, now would it? See, I can do it to.

Exactly. So the logic/slogan is flawed.

It is a general piece of logic which is applicable to simple scenarios such as fur farming. Again, I thought that this was evident. If you were truly interested in debating this topic, instead of scoring points off straw man arguments, you would have seen this.

I really don't want to link the logic you stated again...

You didn't demonstrate anything about my preconceived notions. You demonstrated that the gist of the logic (not the logic itself, because you changed the formula, as I have demonstrated multiple times above) doesn't apply when torture is involved.

Here's our friend again:

"Animal life is positive. X means creation, therefore X is positive"

It's clear as daylight. I was using the same formula that you were using, nothing was changed until you added extra equations as a means to fix it. Perhaps if you had actually expanded on this logic initially with said "equations", we would not be having this discussion.

So you take my closing statement completely out of context. I was summing up my post, and so omitted certain things I had said previously, such as that it was the comparison of life versus death. While death is bad, the creation of life is more good. Therefore, it is a positive. Pouncing on a few statements which were merely summaries, and which did not communicate the totality of my argument, and then trying to claim it is the basis of my argument, is quite simply ludicrous, and it is the reason your arguments are straw man arguments.

I didn't say it was the basis of your argument, I simply said the initial logic you wrote was flawed. Who is being the strawman now? It is not my fault that you could not expand on said piece of logic in the first place, as I looked at it in isolation, regardless of what your argument was.

The logic has completely changed. My argument is based around the positive value of life and the negative value of death. Your scenario introduced a new negative value, torture, which changes the argument. If you were in fact to look at the fundamentals of my logic and factor torture in, you would see that my "equations" of morality would actually find it a negative.

Here it is again:

"Animal life is positive. X means creation, therefore X is positive"

This was the fundamental logic you posted - that's what I was attacking. If you're fixing it up, fair enough, but not expect me to view it in any other way if I have nothing to work with.

 

[BarneyBent]

Lol. This is getting like the SRP board. I'm going to skip all the bullshit and get back to the real issue, because it's getting boring and messy.

I used an argument that applied to fur farming. I thought it was clearly implied that torture was not included in that argument, and that of course torture would change things. Evidently, I was not clear enough for you, though I suspect you saw one base I didn't explicitly cover and pounced on it to try to discredit my argument about fur farming. You are correct in that my closing summary of the logic behind my argument was not fully explicit. Clearly you need everything spelt out to you. The logic itself, however, was more considered than that.

All that aside, let's get back to the bones of this matter. If animals were to be farmed for their fur, and the animals treated humanely (i.e. NOT smashed on the legs with a sledgehammer), then they would have lived a life they otherwise would not have. This scenario produces a positive outcome overall, and is therefore not immoral. This can be more or less decribed by a formula thus:

Moral value = life - death - torture + outcome/reason

In my example of fur farming, torture does not happen and as such = 0, the outcome/reason is stupid and also = 0. Let's say that the value of life is set at 100 and the value of the death is determined by the length of natural life not lived because of this death. So if the animals are killed 2/3s of the way through their life, the value of the death is 1/3. Then:

Moral value = 100 - 33 - 0 + 0
= 77
= positive

You could even add a relative coefficient for general standard of living for the animals, which might reduce the value of life from 100 to 50. Of course, this sort of thing is intangible, it's meant to demonstrate a point, not function as an accurate and acute evaluation of how moral something is.

If it were the bashing dogs legs, again lets say at 2/3s through the dogs' natural life, we can then add in torture, lets say that's 100 (equal to a full natural life lived), and the reason is "for kicks", and as such equals 0. Then:

Moral value = 100 - 33 - 100 + 0
= - 33
= negative

Now, discuss.

 

[kaysee]

Lol. This is getting like the SRP board. I'm going to skip all the bullshit and get back to the real issue, because it's getting boring and messy.

I used an argument that applied to fur farming...

Why even bother arguing fur farming... drop it down to a less "cute" or apparently less sentient species... silkworm.

Silkworms are breed in their masses, held in captivity to produce silk for fashion, and left to die. They serve no other purpose!

They are theoretically treated worse than any other species used in fashion items... and I guarantee Thrawn and other pro "morale" people here have had no problems buying/wearing fashion garments that have utilised silk as a product.

Stinks of hyprocrisy so bad!

 

[Schulzenfest]

But surely that reasoning only stands up when talking about animals that would have existed whether or not their fur was desired. Surely if their SOLE PURPOSE was to be killed for their fur, and if this purpose did not exist, THEY would not exist, then killing them for their fur actually grants them life they would otherwise not have had. Surely this is then a positive?

I don't know about you, but if I was a wild animal I would be just as happy not living at all compared to living in captivity until the point where by my death I could grant some rich woman a pretty coat.

 

[Thrawn]

Why even bother arguing fur farming... drop it down to a less "cute" or apparently less sentient species... silkworm.

Silkworms are breed in their masses, held in captivity to produce silk for fashion, and left to die. They serve no other purpose!

They are theoretically treated worse than any other species used in fashion items... and I guarantee Thrawn and other pro "morale" people here have had no problems buying/wearing fashion garments that have utilised silk as a product.

Stinks of hyprocrisy so bad!

Please come back when you understand the difference of cognitive and nervous system function between a mammal and an insect.

 

[Thrawn]

Evidently, I was not clear enough for you, though I suspect you saw one base I didn't explicitly cover and pounced on it to try to discredit my argument about fur farming. You are correct in that my closing summary of the logic behind my argument was not fully explicit. Clearly you need everything spelt out to you. The logic itself, however, was more considered than that.

Oh please.

Stop trying to cover your arse. You used some bad logic, and you should have expanded it or, hell, flat out changed it.

This scenario produces a positive outcome overall, and is therefore not immoral. This can be more or less decribed by a formula thus:

Moral value = life - death - torture + outcome/reason

"Positiveness" does not just simply mean living itself.

In my example of fur farming, torture does not happen and as such = 0, the outcome/reason is stupid and also = 0. Let's say that the value of life is set at 100 and the value of the death is determined by the length of natural life not lived because of this death. So if the animals are killed 2/3s of the way through their life, the value of the death is 1/3. Then:

Moral value = 100 - 33 - 0 + 0
= 77
= positive

Perhaps you could tell us where this "positiveness" comes from, in the lives those creatures will have? I'll say it to you: there is none. I can't say that living in a small, cooped up cage for your natural life with little to no exercise and extreme stress is "positive" (to the animal) in any sense of the word. You are only implying that life itself is a positive (which isn't necessarily always the case), but you are completely ignoring the life it is/will be living. The bottom line is: it is going to die just for someone's vanity, regardless of living conditions. How the hell is that a positive? Because your formula says so? Pfft.

That you'd try to explain this "positiveness" in a mathematical formula says it all. Why am I wasting my time with you?

 

[BarneyBent]

Oh please.

Stop trying to cover your arse. You used some bad logic, and you should have expanded it or, hell, flat out changed it.

Cover my arse? Seriously?

I said, in the context of FUR FARMING, without torture (I admit, this was implied, but I had said as much in previous posts which you obviously missed), that the desire for fur would create these lives that otherwise would not exist. Life has value. Therefore, in such a context (where torture is not included), this is an ultimately positive thing. The logic is not flawed. You just added torture into the equation, when it was (implicitly) never there.

"Positiveness" does not just simply mean living itself.

Really? I would say life is inherently valuable, provided it is not torturous.

Perhaps you could tell us where this "positiveness" comes from, in the lives those creatures will have? I'll say it to you: there is none. You are only implying that life itself is a positive, but you are completely ignoring the life it is/will be living.

You think? There are people that lead horrible lives, with immense hardships and pain, but would they give up life? No. Life will suck sometimes, but it's usually a lot better than the alternative. Now, a life filled with torture may be worse than no life at all, but as I said, I wouldn't condone a torturous life for these animals.

Animals bred and raised in a humane manner would experience a positive life, whether or not they were killed for their fur, and that is the point.

That you'd try to explain this positiveness in a mathematical formula says it all. Why am I wasting my time with you?

Oh please. I said quite clearly that the formulae were only to demonstrate the point in simple terms, and not an actual attempt at quantifying morality. I used them instead of words because words can become messy and ambiguous. But then, you've already proven your complete inability (or unwillingness) to read between the lines.

 

[Thrawn]

I don't know about you, but if I was a wild animal I would be just as happy not living at all compared to living in captivity until the point where by my death I could grant some rich woman a pretty coat.

Let's not forget the cramped, stressful conditions they are usually in. But not only that, and as you put, the end result. What are the "living standards" on the average fur farm, exactly? Apparently this is a "positive" simply because they are existing in the first place.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I don't know about you, but if I was a wild animal I would be just as happy not living at all compared to living in captivity until the point where by my death I could grant some rich woman a pretty coat.

Lol yeah this sums a lot of that argument up.

If aliens were to suddenly invade Earth and decide they want to breed/farm us because they want our eyes for necklaces and our brains for hats I think I could safely say I'd rather not be born opposed to serving that sort of purpose.

 

[Gen Y]

Quality of life is far preferable to quantity of life.

Life is only worth living if there is some enjoyment of fulfillment involved.

The quality of life for most captive animals is very poor, therefore it can be argued that their lives are not a positive in the scheme of things.


Many people seem to think that as long as animals were "bred for that purpose" it is okay to do just about anything.
This seems contradictory to the morality used in parenthood etc.
If you 'bring something into this world' I would argue that you have greater moral responsibility for it, not less.

In summary, if the benefit bought about by the use and death of the animal outweighs the animals interests in being pain free, able to satisfy instincts etc (ie needed for food survival, or going to save many lives through medical advance) then it is morally okay.
If the animals interests outweigh the benefit from killing/etc them (ie unnecessary fashion items) then it is morally abhorrent.

in response to the OP, i think the hats are bad taste, but provided the frogs are from the wild, and killed humanely, i don't have an issue with it.

 

[kaysee]

Please come back when you understand the difference of cognitive and nervous system function between a mammal and an insect.

So there is a threshold...

Perhaps you should classify which classifications of animals we "are" allowed to kill for fashion and which ones we aren't???

According to Thrawn:

- Mammals = no
- Fish = ?
- Reptiles = ?
- Amphibians = ?
- Birds = ?

Or is just vertebrates we're not allowed to kill???

but anything goes for invertebrates? Meaning we're free to do as we wish with:

- insects
- mollusks (inc squids, Octopi etc)
- crustaceans
- corals (people are free to hack away at the GBR to place coral on display at home right?)

As I said... the hypocrisy stinks arouind here.

 

[kaysee]

Let's not forget the cramped, stressful conditions they are usually in. But not only that, and as you put, the end result. What are the "living standards" on the average fur farm, exactly? Apparently this is a "positive" simply because they are existing in the first place.

This is a perfect example of human society projecting human thoughts onto animals... care to link decisive studies to support these claims???

Fact is we don't really know... it is purely hypothetical guesswork at best.

Sure we can easily hypothesise that animals held in captivity might be stressed due to "bad" living conditions. It is difficult for scientists to determine the stresses those animals face in their natural habitats. Stresses related to:

- initial fight for survival from birth to maturity.
- locating food resources.
- natural environment (weather/temp extremese from cold to hot).
- natural predators.
- and so forth.

So whilst an animal might be under "stress" in a captive environment there is no conclusive evidence that suggest that "stress" is any higher or lower than that they face in their native environment.

 

[BarneyBent]

I would still argue that a life is inherently positive, even if it is lived in captivity, provided this captivity is not too stressful. Animals in captivity in zoos go alright, even if their life isn't natural. Ask yourselves, if you were one of the animals farmed, and asked whether you wanted your life to end or not, do you think you'd say yes? No. Nobody does, human, animal, whatever, unless they are suicidal (in other words, mad), or in tremendous amounts of pain.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Are you for or against euthanasia, bloodstainedangel? Just out of interest. If you're not, then I can't see how you can argue that 'all life is positive'.

 

[BarneyBent]

Are you for or against euthanasia, bloodstainedangel? Just out of interest. If you're not, then I can't see how you can argue that 'all life is positive'.

I'm absolutely for euthanasia. If you have read what I've said, you should see exactly how I could be. Clearly you haven't, though. I have said many times that a life of torture, of pain, could well render the life no longer a positive. In that case, a mercy killing would be justified, and farming in such conditions would not. Euthanasia in a human context is not quite relevant to this anyway, as ultimately it should be a matter of the person involved's own free will. That is a matter for another thread though.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Admittedly that wasn't the best point I could've made.

But you really think being brought into existence in a captive environment to be killed when it would benefit a species higher on the food chain than you is a positive? It's basically the equivalent of being born into a jail and getting killed as soon as you start getting body hair. I'd rather not live at all TBH.

 

[BarneyBent]

Admittedly that wasn't the best point I could've made.

But you really think being brought into existence in a captive environment to be killed when it would benefit a species higher on the food chain than you is a positive? It's basically the equivalent of being born into a jail and getting killed as soon as you start getting body hair. I'd rather not live at all TBH.

I find that hard to believe, to be honest. Would you commit suicide if born into said jail? Would you regret being born, if you've never known anything else? And remember, these animals don't know why they are there, they can't be thrown into some existentialist crisis because their life has no purpose. They live. Their life doesn't cause them pain. It's quite simple.

 

[grizzlym]

Lol yeah this sums a lot of that argument up.

If aliens were to suddenly invade Earth and decide they want to breed/farm us because they want our eyes for necklaces and our brains for hats I think I could safely say I'd rather not be born opposed to serving that sort of purpose.

You ever read that Michel Faber book 'Under the skin'? It's kind of about that - truly disturbing.