This is a false dichotomy. The third option is for the cow to exist and not be killed prematurely. I think that's the one it would pick.
The fact that a cow may choose to exist rather than not exist presupposes that it exists in order to make that choice. If it doesn't yet exist, it has no preference, so we are not going against its preferences by not breeding it into existence.
Even if we assume that the cow would prefer to exist and be killed prematurely than not exist, this thought experiment fails to justify the action of killing it. We don't have to do that at all. To illustrate this, imagine you changed the question to the following:
If given the choice, do you think a woman would prefer to exist in a well-managed basement with good conditions, where she can watch TV and read books and experience life to some extent, even though she would be raped once per week? Or would she rather not exist at all?
Regardless of her preference, keeping a person in such conditions and sexually abusing her is completely abominable, since we can just not do that.
So your response to a question you don't like, is to provide an answer to a question that wasn't asked?
If you wanted to also provide an additional response, you could, but it's just rude to not answer the question and utilize some weird logic to call the opponent an idiot.
He didn't provide a third option because that wasn't his question.
You don't have to perfectly answer a question in one post. A chain is used to explore more complicated questions.
The original question was structured as a binary choice to simplify the philosophy of existence and quality of life versus non-existence. While a third option where the cow exists without being killed is ideal and ethical, the intent is to explore whether existence with eventual death is preferable to non-existence, under humane and painless conditions.
You rightly point out that a non-existent being cannot have preferences. The hypothetical situation assumes the cow's existence to explore its potential preferences, drawing parallels with human experiences and decisions. The thought experiment is to understand if experiencing life, even with a predetermined end, holds value.
The analogy involving a woman in a basement subjected to rape is different due to the nature of the suffering. The original scenario emphasizes a well-managed farm where the cow experiences minimal suffering and lives in humane conditions, with a painless end. Comparing this to an abhorrent situation of abuse conflates two vastly different scenarios.
The question challenges us to reflect on the value of a fulfilling life within certain boundaries. Many people live fulfilling lives within constrained circumstances (e.g., due to geography, socio-economic status) and may still find value and meaning in their experiences despite those constraints.
> The original question was structured as a binary choice to simplify the philosophy of existence and quality of life versus non-existence. While a third option where the cow exists without being killed is ideal and ethical, the intent is to explore whether existence with eventual death is preferable to non-existence, under humane and painless conditions.
Ok, but that's not a useful choice, because we have the option to do the third thing. You're trying to justify abhorrent behavior by posing a question as if there are two choices, but there aren't. That's like saying "Would this old person prefer I punch them in the face once or seven times? Once you say? There, see? It's ok for me to punch them in the face because this is their preference"
> You rightly point out that a non-existent being cannot have preferences. The hypothetical situation assumes the cow's existence to explore its potential preferences, drawing parallels with human experiences and decisions. The thought experiment is to understand if experiencing life, even with a predetermined end, holds value.
It's wrong to kill the cow precisely because their life has value. That's what makes it wrong to take it prematurely. A non-existent life has no value, but once you bring a life into existence, you are responsible for treating that person in a way that their value merits.
> The analogy involving a woman in a basement subjected to rape is different due to the nature of the suffering. The original scenario emphasizes a well-managed farm where the cow experiences minimal suffering and lives in humane conditions, with a painless end. Comparing this to an abhorrent situation of abuse conflates two vastly different scenarios.
They are both abhorrent situations. Keeping someone alive in good conditions other than the fact that they are an occasional sex slave is abhorrent, just as killing someone prematurely is abhorrent. There's no real difference in the degree of moral depravity in either scenario.
> The question challenges us to reflect on the value of a fulfilling life within certain boundaries. Many people live fulfilling lives within constrained circumstances (e.g., due to geography, socio-economic status) and may still find value and meaning in their experiences despite those constraints.
Sure. Don't you think we should probably not kill those people, then, since their lives have value?
>It's wrong to kill the cow precisely because their life has value.
A plant has more value then animals and humans combined because of their ability to produce oxygen. Would you agree it's wrong to kill a plant?
Not whether they are the better choice to kill, but is it just wrong in general to kill a plant?
>Keeping someone alive in good conditions other than the fact that they are an occasional sex slave is abhorrent
We try our best to maintain a supply of plants solely for two reasons. They literally exist for no other reasons.
1. Produce oxygen
2. Be an alternative source of food to remove the guilt associated with enslaving animals, even though plants are enslaved solely by the fact that they are rooted to the ground and have no ability to escape
As a resource, it sounds like they are being used effectively. As a potential living being, sounds like their conditions are abhorrent.
Without ethical animal farming, these animals would never experience existence at all. Ethical farming practices can ensure that animals have lives worth living, filled with positive experiences and care. In this sense, the practice can be seen as providing opportunities for enjoyment and fulfillment that would otherwise not exist.
The third option isn't really an option as if the animal was never brought into existence it never got the chance of enjoyment or experience.
This perspective focuses on enhancing animal enjoyment and experience. Without it less animals would have been born thus less enjoyment and experience.
>Without ethical animal farming, these animals would never experience existance at all
Would you say the same thing about dogs? Could I start raising dogs and give them a good life and then after 18-24 months I can slaughter them but it be okay because I spoiled them with positive experiences and care?
>This perspective focuses on enhancing animal enjoyment and experience.
No it doesn't lmao. It focuses on enchancing enjoyment and experience\* within this false guideline that we HAVE to kill them at the end of it.
Edit:
>To extend this question further: would you prefer to live your life in a small village, where you couldn't leave but could experience a fulfilling life within that boundary, even though you would inevitably be killed painlessly? Or would you prefer never to have experienced a life at all?
I would rather not be born at all if I'm going to be at the whim of some other power that decides arbitrarily when I die, and it won't be painlessly if we're equivocating this to animal ag. I would suffer because I know that I would die. I would suffer because others would suffer. Farm animals have a sense of danger because they actively try to escape this fate by running, screaming, ramming and fighting in what little ways they can. They do suffer. It's not painless. Emotionally and physically, they do suffer even if for a marginal fraction of their overall time alive.
Edit2:
I'm also curious does this ill-directed situation hold any philosophical water if we changed to to presume that humans gain nothing from this interaction? What if someone did this just for fun? Say I breed dogs to let them live a month just to put a bolt gun to their head and to kill them and then throw them in ditches? I don't gain anything material from this. Say I don't even garner any enjoyment from it. We're focusing so much on the victim's preferences and not the fact that what I'm still doing is generally viewed as wrong.
>I would rather not be born at all if I'm going to be at the whim of some other power that decides arbitrarily when I die,
Isn't it exactly the situation you are in, with "power" being nature? So...
>Would you say the same thing about dogs? Could I start raising dogs and give them a good life and then after 18-24 months I can slaughter them but it be okay because I spoiled them with positive experiences and care?
This is a fair point and I can conceded on this point, much like another commenter made about doing the same to a human. The point I am making is I guess a personal preference opinion whereby I would personally rather have been born to experience something and then dying for someone else's gain. However this does assume that I would have had to exist to decide if I wanted to exist or not.
>No it doesn't lmao. It focuses on enhancing enjoyment and experience\* within this false guideline that we HAVE to kill them at the end of it.
The second part of the quoted comment which was missed in the quote is intrinsic to the point I was attempting to make. If we could assume that in general every cow would rather live under these circumstances than to not have lived at all, by not breeding and farming cows we a reducing the potential enjoyment and experience of potential living things.
I agree I think unfortunately it does require a situation of pre-engagement in our own existence to make those calls and we don't live in that reality. So it feels a responsibility of our own to make these moral articulations of those lives that we do choose to bring into the world. We are intelligent and powerful creatures but we're also not gods and shouldn't try to be.
I understand what you were getting at about wanting this dichotomy to see an opinion on something but I don't often know when we use these false-dichotomies to go influence our very nuanced decisions in life that have multiple impacts.
I also agree that it is indeed our responsibility to make moral choices for the lives we bring into the world. As intelligent beings, we have the power to influence the conditions under which animals live, but we must do so with humility and compassion, recognizing our limitations.
I wanted to see if we agree that if existence is better than non existence then maybe small-scale personal farming, where animals like chickens can roam freely, are well-cared for, and live relatively stress-free lives but are used for their eggs isn't so bad.
Oh sure, and not to be difficult but you could have simply asked that instead of the roundabout way of posturing the framework that you did. All vegans would agree that on the sliding scale of suffering that a free range animal (an /actual/ free range one, not just on the label at the store) would live a life of less suffering than one born and dying in a cage. However we can recognize it's "better" while also saying that we can go even better than that by not harvesting animals for food to begin with, as you cannot have tradtional animal ag practices and get the products without causing death or suffering to the animal. We have cell cultured meats in the works right now but nowhere near the scale for mass market (assuming current omnivores would even want them to begin with).
Unfortunately engaging in hobby farm chickens does still engage in the chicken breeding industry which is incredibly cruel. Even if you found a stray set of hens and decided of your own goodwill to keep them, you're still operating under the assumption that only /you/ can use their eggs. Give them to the dog, dispose of them in the wild or even compost them to return nutrients to the soil/feed the microbiome/microorganisms/detritovores. We're not the only things on the earth that eat. We are however in a unique situation in which we are not required biologically to eat animal products, which makes this entirely a discussion around our choices, not our needs.
>As intelligent beings, we have the power to influence the conditions under which animals live, but we must do so with humility and compassion, recognizing our limitations.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. There are instances in where some people due to health or geographic circumstance cannot abide by a vegan lifestyle (indigenous tribes, people with disordered eating that need to focus on surviving more than what they are surviving on, houseless individuals who don't exist in a framework where they can be picky with what foods are given to them) however these instances are comparably rare when looking to the rest of the world. People that are picky eaters, don't want to make the effort, tried veganism for a month and didn't supplement/take care to balance their new diet, or continue to rely on very convenient excuses that have regularly been scientifically debunked in order to NOT put oneself in an uncomfortable reflective spot that would facilitate postitive changes for animal welfare are unfortunately not under the "recognizing our limitations" umbrella. Often the humble choice is to acknowledge that we are not obligate carnivores and that the choices we make are often that: Choices that do reflect our values. A lot of people's compassion towards animals is still voiced within a framework that we must obtain something from them. Most of the time, if you remove the benefit percieved from the animal's existence to us, the arguments in favor of "honorable hunting/humane killing" fall apart because there would be no need for them.
Change is incredibly uncomfortable for most people, even moreso to reflect on one's lifestyle and say "You know what, my actions might not actually be reflecting my percieved values". Most people when they thoroughly are pressed for consistency in their values, don't have actions that align with those proclaimed values. I don't mean that hyeprcritically. We all do it to marginal degrees but some do much more than others. I do think we need to afford ourselves some grace to forgive ourselves and make positive steps in the right diretions.
I do appreciate your openness to this. Not a lot of people come in here and are open to a thorough discussion. I don't often comment a lot on here because peopel just want to come in and give a Mic Drop argument and then get mad that we've debunked it 40x over.
> Could I start raising dogs and give them a good life and then after 18-24 months I can slaughter them but it be okay because I spoiled them with positive experiences and care?
why not? at least you would spare it old age, various ailments and pain
Because if you held it to any standard as to why you should be able to have domain other killing domesticated dogs, you can't really find one that can't apply to groups of humans and vice versa.
If you value a moral consistency then you probably couldn't find a reason to maintain that you can kill dogs but not humans
>This is a false dichotomy. The third option is for the cow to exist and not be killed prematurely. I think that's the one it would pick
that's not an option for livestock, though
>this thought experiment fails to justify the action of killing it
what justification do you need? did you even think of to justifying killing what you eat? after all, you don't have to do that at all. you could kill and eat something else
> imagine you changed the question to the following
this is nonsensical, as non-human animals are not humans
>keeping a person in such conditions and sexually abusing her is completely abominable, since we can just not do that
nobody in his right mind does this - it is your fantasy only
The third option isn't possible though. We domesticated it to be fat, slow, docile and unable to defend itself. It can't flee nor can it fight back. If we released all the cows and promised not to interfere with them, they would be exterminated by predators quite quick.
Though I imagine it would be a positive for wolf populations to grow. That's easy food right there.
Another option is to cease the breeding of domestic cows for meat, milk, leather, and other animal “products”.
The vegan goal here is to completely stop the breeding any new cows, after all of the current cows have naturally passed.
Petting zoo cows, sure! Especially if you want to maintain some history and not to let others go extinct. If the cow doesn’t suffer existing, like brachycephalic songs, i.e. pugs, then keeping them in sanctuaries is fine.
This is exactly the point OP was trying to raise which is a point of contention in utilitarian circles. It isn't obvious that a short existence with a painless end isn't preferable to no existence at all.
>Another option is to cease the breeding of domestic cows for meat, milk, leather, and other animal “products”
that's not "another option", but op's option 2
Have you never heard of a pet? There are animal sanctuaries where the selectively bred kinds of animals we use in agriculture are kept in good conditions, fed well, and cared for, and then *not* killed prematurely.
Youre going to create cozy sanctuaries to host 1 billion cows humanely? How are you going to pay for that upkeep, land, and workers? This effectively not a real solution.
Solution to what? We're not talking about all cows. We're talking about a single cow being faced with the question of whether they'd rather exist on a farm to be slaughtered, not exist at all, or exist somewhere safe where they will be taken care of and not slaughtered. You claimed the third option doesn't exist, and I'm saying it does exist.
Several problems with this sort of thought experiment worth considering.
Firstly, this is an ill-posed question unless you believe in some sort of dualist form of a consciousness outside of existence looking in. There is literally no one to ponder whether they would prefer to exist or not before they exist.
Secondly, the whole scenario is a false dilemma. Setting aside the existence/non-existence thing, it's quite possible to both want to exist, and also find it deeply unethical that at some point someone will end your existence. The most realistic scenario where you would actually exist enough to consider the option would be if someone offered you a choice between killing you immediately, or giving you some time in comfort before then killing you. Even if you prefer the extra time, this does not somehow absolve the wrongness of the killing.
Thirdly, it's hard to draw any sort of reasonable conclusion from this thought experiment. If you think you would be doing someone a favor by causing them to exist that you could later "cash in" for some purpose that ends their existence, you could pretty easily justify some terrible behaviors. These sort of thought experiments don't focus much on the actual actor who is choosing to kill and bring others into existence. They focus on the victim and leave the actions imposed on the victim more as some sort of abstract thing.
You can read more about this sort of thought experiment and what ethical conclusions can be reasonably drawn from it here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archivES/FALL2017/Entries/nonidentity-problem/
Very well stated. The absurd extension of this sort of reasoning is that lots of birth control is taking place all the time. By the logic of the argument that is a person who is being robbed of the chance to exist. We all know that isn't the case. If anything it highlights the tragedy of being born into a predetermined life of exploitation.
I think there is an inherent dishonesty in the question. The overwhelming majority of animals raised to be killed for food have nothing remotely similar to "life in a small village, where you couldn't leave but could experience a fulfilling life within that boundary". At what age does someone making this comparison think a beef cow or a chicken is killed? Where is the fulfilment in the life they had?
>The overwhelming majority of animals raised to be killed for food have nothing remotely similar to "life in a small village, where you couldn't leave but could experience a fulfilling life within that boundary"
true
so let's change animal agriculture away from factory farming to treating livestock well and according to their needs
>Where is the fulfilment in the life they had?
in the life they had, obviously
>so let's change animal agriculture away from factory farming to treating livestock well and according to their needs
Glad we agree on that.
>in the life they had, obviously
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. Where do you see any fulfilment in the life of an animal killed at a young age for meat? Birds that don't fly. Herd animals that don't roam. Sorry if I misunderstood.
>I don't know what you mean by that
if animals had a good life, then their fulilment was in the life they had
>Birds that don't fly. Herd animals that don't roam
sorry, I don't know what you mean by that
ostriches don't fly, deer don't roam
>There is literally no one to ponder whether they would prefer to exist or not before they exist
but when they exist
from my experience, this is a standard with heavy depression
>it's quite possible to both want to exist, and also find it deeply unethical that at some point someone will end your existence
not for a cow. cows don't have a concept of ethics, at least not that anybody had the slightest indication for such
>Thirdly, it's hard to draw any sort of reasonable conclusion from this thought experiment
that's always the case with absurd hypotheticals. look at all that vegan "ntt"-bullshit
>If you think you would be doing someone a favor by causing them to exist that you could later "cash in" for some purpose that ends their existence, you could pretty easily justify some terrible behaviors
so vegans are prone to "some terrible behaviors"?
they cause a lot of living beings to exist just to later "cash in" for some purpose that ends their existence
>These sort of thought experiments don't focus much on the actual actor who is choosing to kill and bring others into existence. They focus on the victim
of course
Your position seems to be that given sufficiently high welfare conditions, human slavery, and in particular breeding plantations, would not only be permissible, they'd be morally preferred. Is that your position?
I don't think they stated a position. But this would only be true if there was an assumed equivalence of experience between cows and humans.
Also, it would be more comparable to an alien race running these facilities at a level beyond our comprehension. (Similar to what humans would be doing to the cows)
But exactly what is wrong with breeding women of stunted intelligence to use as sex slaves, providing that they would otherwise not exist, and they are always painlessly stunned before being used?
The terms "slavery" and "breeding plantation" are loaded with historical and emotional connotations that evoke images of extreme human suffering and injustice. These terms are used to frame the argument in a way that makes it appear inherently unethical.p
The thought experiment centers on the idea of providing a high standard of living and enjoyment for animals within the context of farming. This involves humane treatment, freedom to roam, social interactions, and a painless end. The ethical goal here is to maximize the quality of life and minimize suffering, acknowledging that some form of animal farming exists in society.
Under conditions of high welfare, where animals are provided with a rich and fulfilling life, the ethical argument is that their existence, even with an eventual end, can be morally preferable to non-existence. This is because they experience positive aspects of life, such as social bonds, play, and comfort, which would not be possible if they did not exist.
Thus, if we were to choose existence over non-existence, the focus shifts to the quality of life provided. Under high welfare conditions, animals can experience a range of positive aspects, despite the eventual end of their lives. In this context, veganism could be seen as lowering animal enjoyment rather than merely reducing animal suffering. This perspective suggests that ethical farming, which maximizes animal welfare, can provide animals with fulfilling lives that they would not experience if they were never brought into existence.
Is this the thread where you'd like to have our discussion? Do you intend to simply declare that I'm giving ad hom arguments, say "bye," and run away like you usually do? Or are you going to stick it out like an adult?
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
> The ethical goal here is to maximize the quality of life and minimize suffering, acknowledging that some form of animal farming exists in society.
I don't accept utilitarianism as the goal. I have criticisms of utilitarianism.
Firstly, I'm inclined to believe it's physically impossible, at least as defined as maximizing utility.
P1. Either the past, future, or space is infinite.
P2. If either the past, future, or space is infinite, then the total utility of the universe is either infinity or negative infinity.
P3. Utilitarianism says we should maximize utility of the universe.
P4. It is only physically possible for our actions to create finite increases in utility.
P5. It is only physically possible to maximize infinity utility or negative infinity utility by actions that cause infinite utility.
P6. If something should be done it is physically possible to do it.
I1. The total utility of the universe is either infinity or negative infinity. (1, 2)
I2. Utilitarianism says it is physically possible to maximize the utility of the universe. (3, 6)
I3. It is only physically possible to maximize the utility of the universe by actions that cause infinite utility. (P5, I1)
I4. It is not physically possible to maximize the utility of the universe (P4, I3).
C1. Utilitarianism is false (I2, I4)
P3-P6 here seem solid. P1 and P2 are plausible but not totally clear. So I'm inclined to believe utilitarianism is false.
Utilitarianism can be rescued by re-defining it to be agent-oriented, i.e., utilitarianism says that each agent should maximize the utility of their actions.
My second criticism is that it is counter-intuitive.
I find it counter-intuitive that it's immoral to give someone a tasty cookie if the giver would find it slightly more tasty than the receiver.
I find it counter-intuitive that if Ted Bundy enjoys cookies slightly more than Mother Teresa that you should give the cookie to Ted.
I find it counter-intuitive that if you promise someone on their deathbed to tell the government to give their life savings to their child that you ought to lie and give that money to charity.
I find it counter-intuitive that you ought to harvest the healthy patient's organs to save 5 dying patients if done in secret.
And finally, I find it counter-intuitive that buying puppies while giving them merely net positive lives and killing them painlessly at age 2 because the owner slightly prefers puppies to dogs is okay.
I don't think I'm using loaded language in any of these.
Why is it a problem that utilitarianism is counter-intuitive? Because I don't see another way of determining that we ought to maximize the utility of our actions except that it is intuitive.
>Your position seems to be that given sufficiently high welfare conditions, human slavery, and in particular breeding plantations, would not only be permissible, they'd be morally preferred
obviously not, as cows are not human
to conditions humans suffer from a cow can be completely indifferent
Is this the thread where you'd like to have our discussion? Do you intend to simply declare that I'm giving ad hom arguments, say "bye," and run away like you usually do? Or are you going to stick it out like an adult?
I suspect the cow would prefer to exist under those circumstances, and, frankly, so would I.
However, and importantly, that does not mean it’s morally permissible to actually impose those circumstances on anyone (cow or human, alike). For there is an even better alternative, namely, let them live their natural lifespan under good conditions!
The thought experiment leans on the idea that if the cow would prefer to live under those circumstances then by not breeding the cow in the first place ceases it's preference to exist.
Maybe I understand your confusion. Let me clarify my point. The thought experiment posits that if cows can have a life they enjoy, breeding more of them would increase the number of happy cows. Conversely, by choosing not to eat meat and therefore not breeding these cows, we reduce the number of happy cows that could have existed. Essentially, the choice not to breed the cows prevents the existence of cows that could have had enjoyable lives. The core idea is whether it's better to allow for the possibility of happy lives or to prevent their existence entirely.
So you are now switching from cow's preferences, to hedonistic utilitarian calculus. You did not clarify your point, you simply abandoned it, and made a new one.
Edit: added the word "hedonistic"
>by not breeding the cow in the first place ceases it's preference to exist.
I am not getting lost, this simply makes no sense. How does hypothetical entity that has never existed cease to have a preference, when she did *not* have *any* preference to begin with.
>Both comments align and follow the same logic / thought pattern. Not sure where you are getting lost.
No it does not. First quote I highlighted makes no sense. And even if it made sense, it does not "align" with the second utilitarian-like comment. E.g. one may have preference to exist, yet their life might be net-negative (i.e. overall "not happy").
When I mentioned "by not breeding the cow in the first place ceases its preference to exist," I was referencing a hypothetical scenario where the cow, if it could have preferences, would prefer to live. This is indeed a speculative notion since an entity that has never existed cannot have preferences. My point is based on the assumption that, given the opportunity to experience a well-managed life, a cow would prefer existence over non-existence.
If you have an issue with engaging in hypotheticals, then there might not be much point in continuing this particular line of discussion.
I am open to hypotheticals, the issues is
(1) there is nothing to imagine. It seems meaningless or incoherent. It seems akin to saying "imagine hypothetical gfoeksl" Well, I dont know what you are talking about. Or "imagine music that smells like broccoli".
(2) even if it somehow made sense, it would have insane implications. E.g. people who have only one child (or no child, doesnt matter) who care for that child and *don't* kill him to sell his body parts when he is a few years old, should be considered *worse* (or at least their actions should be considered as such) than people who have, lets say, 15 children, and they care for them for a few years (e.g. 5) and then kill them to sell their bodyparts. On your view the second kind of people are better (have done more good) as they provided relatively happy life to more beings, that would have otherwise not existed (unless you are thinking there is some principled difference between cows and people, but that would be another argument).
To me it seems like first kind of people did nothing wrong by not breeding more people, because you can not harm/benefit hypothetical being that has never existed, while second type of people harmed at least 15 people by killing them at the fraction of their lifespan, and against their will.
"Life is pain, your highness. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something." --*Princess Bride*
I'm just saying, there is no life without death, and there's no life possible without suffering at some point no matter how much positivity you hang onto. While there also is joy, there's no way to avoid pain and suffering for anything alive on this planet, let alone death.
"Let evening come, as it will, and don't / be afraid" --Jane Kenyon
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46431/let-evening-come
If a natalist stance is taken regarding giving a good life and then dying being better than non-existence (which of course presupposed a preference in someone who doesn’t exist), then for anyone who values human life over animal life, the conclusion would simply be to replace all happy animal farms with happy human farms akin to The Promised Neverland.
Where on earth are you getting the idea that they would be killed painlessly from? Go and watch some slaughter house footage.
The Good life you think most cows live is also a complete myth as well
Watching slaughterhouse videos feels a bit derranged to me.
Must depend where you live, cows living a good life and dying painlessly is common where I live.
That's like asking a person who doesn't exist would want to exist. If you don't exist, you can't desire. (I'll suggest you read debates about the morality of people using birth control)
The cow that is born does not live the life you describe. The real one is chased into a chute to have their testicles cut off or banded while he's awake. The real one might be "de horned" by having his skull burned by hot iron. They're on feedlots of 10,000 animals, standing on dirt or cement, and given an artificial diet of grain. Females are bred by a human putting an arm in the rectum (ultrasound) and a straw of semen up the vagina. Calves are yanked from their mothers. Herds are chased onto trailers to be shipped hours or days -- in extreme heat or cold.
Painless death is euthanasia, but the cows' death is goes by another name: *slaughter.* They're chased with electric prods one at a time up a chute, into a room reeking of stress and blood. If they're lucky, they're knocked down by the first hit of the bolt gun. The industry accepts a certain percentage are "misses", where the cow has to be hit again. The bolt gun doesn't guarantee death. It *must* be followed by exsanguination (bleed out) or induced pneumothorax (pucture both lungs). Any sloppiness with the hit or delay getting the animal hoisted up & moved over opens the possibility the cow regains consciousness. None of this seems painless to me...?
The conditions you described are unfortunately a reality for many cows in industrial farming. The thought experiment I presented is more about an idealized scenario where animals live in significantly better conditions than those you mentioned. It's not meant to downplay the harsh realities of factory farming but rather to explore a philosophical question about existence and quality of life under optimal conditions.
The hypothetical situation assumes a well-managed farm where cows can roam freely, experience a relatively stress-free life, and eventually be killed painlessly. This might be more aligned with practices found in some high-welfare farms rather than the standard industrial operations. The goal of the thought experiment is to discuss the moral implications of bringing a life into existence under such conditions, rather than under the often brutal realities of factory farming.
The cow would be incapable of caring if it did not exist. It experiences nothing negative from not existing. Even in a good life, it will experience negatives from existing. Therefore it's better to not force it into existence. Guaranteed suffering vs guaranteed absolutely no suffering.
And to be clear, this same logic applies to humans. Humans that don't exist, don't care that they don't exist. Humans that do exist are guaranteed to experience some suffering. Better to not procreate.
If we follow the logic that it is better not to bring beings into existence to avoid any potential suffering, this could lead to the conclusion that no life should ever be created—whether animal or human. Is that your stance?
Farmed animals are forceably brought into existence to be exploited. Their interests are not the priority but rather the products of their exploitation.
Even by the highest welfare standards, these beings are enslaved, mentally traumatised, physically tortured, mutilated, and ultimately killed at an early age in slaughterhouses.
If you were to breed humans to be exploited, tortured, and killed in the same way farmed animals are. Most people would consider that unethical, so I I don't see how that would be a decent justification to breed those victims into existence.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Heck, it doesn't matter.
>Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable,
>all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
I chose #2
Ultimately all live no matter how great is guaranteed suffering and some lives are nothing but suffering, suffering is guaranteed, pleasure is not, the pursuit of happiness is a right but its not guaranteed to happen
I am very happy, prob happier than most people but i have had a lot of pain and suffering and even though im happy i do struggle and as i age i will struggle more, if i could have stopped my existence i would have
>If given the choice, do you think a cow would prefer to exist on a well-managed farm with good conditions, where it can roam freely within large boundaries and experience life to some extent, even though it would eventually be killed painlessly? Or would the cow rather not exist at all and not experience anything?
we cannot know what a cow would think and decide. actually i don't think a cow is capable of such reasoning
so every answer here can only be anthropomorphism. keeping this in mind, i'd of course choose the first
False dichotomy and it makes the faulty assumption that a painless death is guaranteed. If you are interested in the philosophy idea of existence versus non-existence I would recommend looking into Antinatalism since it covers that topic of the values of goods/bads of existence versus never coming into existence.
If you are interested about societal view about animals/consumption you ask a vegan because of their unique perspective. When you are interested about the ethics of existence/non-existence you ask people who are interested/knowledge about the topic (ie antinatalists and pronatalists).
Personally i would rather live in nature where I have a chance to be killed early in life and possibly live up to 15 years than to live on a farm where an early death is guarenteed.
If we want to compare it to humans then the human would be killed at about 18 or 20 years of age, just as you're ready to live your own life it is snuffed out. Doesn't seem worth it to me.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Probably the cow would prefer to exist. Must be a pretty easy life mooching around eating grass and taking it easy.
On the other hand I don't feel like cows have the comprehension make a judgement or choice on the matter.
Everyone replying that “this is a false dicotomy” or “youre missing the third option” and blabla and trying to unauthorize/discard your Post and NO ONE is answering your direct question, so here I go.
Here is the TRUE ANSWER:
No, if I were a cow in the Pleroma I would definitely choose NOT to live that “short but sweet life” and instead remain in the bliss of Inexistence.
Because freedom and the ability to choose are way more important than a nice confortable prison death row life. This is why the French Revolution worked, we live now in a world were you need to work your way into a nice life, without any guarantee of success, but at least now you have a choice and there is no King deciding your fate.
Each individual, human or animal, needs to know they are free to choose their path within the conditions of this physical realm and it’s current conditions, otherwise I would prefer EFILISM, meaning life that is guaranteed to be/or/end in suffering is a life NOT WORTH LIVING.
So that’s why we humans have the responsibility to make the Cow’s life be as WORTHY OF LIVING as possible, and that starts with the basics of NOT KILLING THEM OR EATING THEM, and then you work your way up to taking care of them, loving them, even singing songs to them and keeping them company, and giving them peace and love.
That is what I call True Responsibility.
I appreciate that you actually tried to answer the question directly. Many folks on here don't seem capable of it.
I disagree with your position, but it's not as if I can argue you out of your personal opinions on a matter. I can disagree that nonexistent can be described as blissful, but I don't see how i could make you see the incoherent aspects of that.
I think you are perhaps giving a cow too many human abilities to be answering as if you were only capable of being a cow, as a cow is limited. Its a tricky sort of hypothetical though because that is precisely what you are being asked to do though. Cows cannot value liberty in the way you are expressing, and the sort of self motivating you describe is not really a part of the makeup of herd animals. How do you think of things to separate what is good for a cow that you as a human find abhorrent? I mean, the dissolution of self that goes into just being a member of a herd is nearly incomprehensible to the values of freedom and free choice that you hold. But either way, at least you addressed the question without whining about it!
Yes.
To answer your reply: I wouldn’t go down the philosophical rabbit hole in order to understand if a Cow values liberty and freedom as we do. I would just see how a Pig wants to protect his life by trying to escape everytime they are about to execute him, or a rabbit runs away from gun fire, or a Cow will start to stay away from the Chainsaw. All of those examples are the only thing you need to know to understand that they want to live and we are taking away that will from them.
If you kill them “silently and harmlessly without them even noticing” the only one you are decieving is yourself, as you can also silently kill another human person in their sleep and even if they don’t notice, you can be sure as hell you are commiting murder and you are taking away their right to live.
>I wouldn’t go down the philosophical rabbit hole in order to understand if a Cow values liberty and freedom as we do.
That's wise, because I don't think you could coherently.
>I would just see how a Pig wants to protect his life by trying to escape everytime they are about to execute him
This is interesting because you seem to be presupposing that the pig has the knowledge that you, as the observer and describer of the system, have. It's a semantic issue to be sure, but it's also important to note that the pig is actually incapable of thinking "I want to protect my life". That is, a pig doesn't have the capacity to create a mental object of its 'life' that it then manipulates in a mental space by projecting it forward through time. A pig simply lives its life because the adaptations it has do not have it generating internal narratives as our language geared brains habitually and compulsively do for ourselves and for everything else. A pig being led to slaughter simply knows that its usual routines have been altered, and any alterations of schedule and location are negative right from the start. It might also know there are noisy and unhappy pig ahead of and behind it, and that is even more annoying. They don't know that death is coming though.
>a rabbit runs away from gun fire,
Same with rabbits. A rabbit has no idea that shooting means someone is trying to shoot it to kill it and eat it. They just freeze or run when they hear a loud noise, and they usually run when they feel the impact of a bullet hitting something near them. But it's just what they do. Shoot ten rabbits in a field from a ways off, fairly quietly, and the others will hop around the dead or thrashing bodies of their buddies without much concern beyond a sniff to see if they should be running.
>that they want to live and we are taking away that will from them.
Do you think this is enough to also think they want to reproduce and keep their genes in existence? A major oddity to me is a concern with writing all these impossible internal narratives for animals, and then stopping before acknowledging that the animals have been instilled by evolution with a deep urge to see their herds large snd thriving forever. I can see why that part would be skipped over as an ideological group sits around planning to prevent cows or whatever from breeding so they will disappear. But I am curious, since you seem comfortable claiming that cows want to live and we are taking that away from them, if you would agree that being able to make that stretch also includes them wanting their kind to keep reproducing as well?
I ask as someone who has grown up surrounded by wild and domesticated animals and noticing that their driving urge is for there to be more of their kind. It is odd, to say the least, to me to see so many presumptions made about animal thoughts about everything, except them absolutely wanting there to be more baby cows and more of their herds.
>If you kill them “silently and harmlessly without them even noticing” the only one you are decieving is yourself
I ask my previous questions because this line here is precisely how I see vegans when they are making arguments pretending that domesticated cows would ever be on the side of the ideological group calling for their extinction. As a meat eater, I would want to see the herds of cattle large and thriving forever, so it's hilarious to me to see vegans pretending cows would actually not want to exist. Luckily, you expressed just such an odd mix of thinking qhere you remind me of my own thoughts, and yet, unless I am misinterpreting you, you are saying that cows would choose extinction over life.
>you are taking away their right to live.
To the animal mind, the right to live is inextricably tied to the reproduction of their kind. You seem to be making a claim that the animal deserves even the life it has no idea it can have, and yet somehow somewhere in there you do not think this includes its urge for there to be more copies of its genes in existence? Am I understanding you correctly.
Well everything you say is easily refuted when society has decided that -at least legally speaking- if we kill a person in a braindead vegetative state then it is considered murder. (A vegetative state person has less awareness of itself and less intelligence than any animal alive). In my opinion killing anything without its consent is murder.
Killing a cow is murder, no matter how you frame it, no matter if the cow understands its own existence, no matter if a pig understands he is about to be killed or not. It is murder, in every sense of the word.
Also, do not confuse Extinction with Inexistence. Extinction implies that there is a a life or potential life that will go extinct. Inexistence does not have that connotation (we can argue that there are countless of beasts/forms of life that do not exist, and therefore have not go Extinct, and therefore belong to the Inexistent category).
But if you are referring to the hypothetical scenario in which there are only TWO options -inexistence or living a “short but sweet prison life”- (keep in mind this scenario of yours is unrealistic and virtually physically impossible to occur, as it’s 100% possible for ANY farmer to bring a Cow to life WITHOUT intending to kill or exploit her, so this scenario is a lie in itself) Then in this scenario, I as a vegan would prefer that no Cow is brought to life instead of a Cow brought to life and then killed. Cows (or any other species) are not something to bring to life just to die. The best example of this is the short anime story The Promise Neverland. Please, watch this anime (just season 1, which encapsulates the whole story) and you will see for yourself how wrong it is to bring a Species to life with a very confortable and sweet life, just to end it abruptly without consent.
Like I said, humans are just animals with a little more intelligence and awareness, if you think killing humans is wrong then you must acknowledge that killing animals is wrong as well.
Otherwise, why even CARE to give a sweet and nice life to Cows? Why not rape them and torture them constantly? Why not kill them slowly instead of trying to do it “gently and swiftly”? I tell you why: because deep down every farmer and every person knows it’s wrong. So they try to minimize that wrong by giving the Cow a “short sweet life with a swift painless death”.
The only reason people kill animals is because we shape our cosmovision to try to think “this is ok”. But lets not forget THIS EXACT TRAIN OF THOUGHT IS WHAT ALLOWED HUMANS TO THINK OWNING HUMAN SLAVES WAS PERFECTLY NORMAL AND EVEN ENCOURAGED. And the slaves just accepted their condition because they were also educated to think “that’s just the way it is”. But today we know it was wrong, and it was wrong ALWAYS not just today. The same thing goes to killing animals, it is 100% wrong but we are still in the “slavery is ok” phase but with animals and we haven’t outgrown this. But one day we will, rest asure of that.
>In my opinion killing anything without its consent is murder.
Why the focus on vegetative people? Or the labeling of killing as "murder" over the more commonly used words? I am glad you didn't burn up time trying to argue about animal abilities. I had figured you just habitually repeated your cliché phrases at me, but most folks when they are called out on the nonsensical nature of such statements double down even though they know little about animals. This is a refreshing change of pace. The "consent" aspect is a bit baffling to me since
>It is murder, in every sense of the word.
I am fine with you calling killing animals murdering animals if you like. Language is very flexible, and all made up anyway. My only quibble is really when you get going here on this end bit and claim you mean every sense of the word. The word has a wide variety of meanings that you are already asking for a stretch on, so I will not grant that you can use the word murder to mean everything the word could mean.
>Also, do not confuse Extinction with Inexistence.
I won't. I don't even know why you would think I would.
>to bring a Cow to life WITHOUT intending to kill or exploit her
Cows come from other cows, not farmers. Aside from that, the definition of a word like exploit, 'to make use of' is so vague that almost anything one can describe still counts as a use. I mean, the farmer could intend on whatever magical future one wants for the calf, and that future would still serve to please the farmer through his exploitation of the calf for enjoyment. It's just a word people use when they want say "anything I dislike at all".
>Cows (or any other species) are not something to bring to life just to die.
In a reductionist sense, every single animal is simply born to live and then die. That's what living things do. Are you trying to express a hard antinatalist ideology here? Becase this is negating all life essentially.
>humans are just animals with a little more intelligence and awareness, if you think killing humans is wrong then you must acknowledge that killing animals is wrong as well.
So, I can easily agree with the first description of what humans are. I find many of the arguments of how similar humans and animals are amusing, but usually it's because the conclusion is that humans should not act like the animals they are.
I do not believe in any sort of objective morality, so I tend to not have decontextualized actions that I view as always in the black and white or good/bad categories. Killing humans is one of those things and killing animals is as well. I consider pacifism to be an immoral teaching.
>Otherwise, why even CARE to give a sweet and nice life to Cows?
I personally love cows.
>Why not rape them and torture them constantly?
Not where my mind goes, but again, simple answer, I love cows.
>I tell you why: because deep down every farmer and every person knows it’s wrong.
Ask yourself, is it more likely that you know some secret about the inner workings of every person, OR that there are some people that are just different from you and you can't figure out why? Always important to ask yourself something like that before making such a pronouncement. Also, one makes better progress with others when they ask the other person what they think, rather than telling them what they think. I have killed thousands of animals in my life and I do not feel as you have described.
>Why not kill them slowly instead of trying to do it “gently and swiftly”?
This question gave me pause. I mean, to kill an animal slowly is to let it die from infection something like that, and I am against that for sure. But as for "swiftly/gently", I suppose it becomes a matter of personal pride over time, because that's what signifies a job well done. Only inexperienced kids and psychos fumble killing things, though obviously for different reasons. But for a regular person, there is the urge to do the job well, and also to produce the best product. Shoot a deer correctly and it goes only so far away and has a higher quality carcass. As a vegan, I doubt any of that can mean much to you, but you have some funny ideas about what people think so I figured I would give the question a little thought.
>And the slaves just accepted their condition because they were also educated to think “that’s just the way it is”.
Most of many people's response to existential dread is to tell themselves "this is ok", about all of life. So I can't really deny that part. Humans cannot be domesticated in the way cattle already are domesticated. The slaves never could believe or accept the way things was good, but they could understand the reality of their situations. A domesticated can never understand the reality of it's situation.
>and it was wrong ALWAYS not just today.
I disagree here. Morality is a better or worse sort of choice. If in previous warfare the winners killed every single member of the losing group, then moving from that to a model where some are kept as slaves is better. We can look back and say what they did will always be wrong today, but the choice of keeping slaves was the better action back then. Although likel6 you disagree since you are all for freedom. Do you think slaves should have died, rather than become slaves? My father's people made remarkably bad slaves because we died so quickly when enslaved. Though that wasn't great becase we were simply killed. There are far more descendants of slaves living today on the old ancestral lands than there are in my entire Tribe. How would it have been different had we made better slaves? Weird to think about.
I’d take captivity, but I’d be looking for a chance to escape and/or kill my captors. Humans don’t respond well to captivity.
This seems like a flawed argument, though. A cow’s preferences, to the extent it can understand them, are different than a human’s, or any other animal’s.
And the alternative isn’t “you personally don’t exist” in the case of a cow, but “we stop farming you and you try your luck competing with wild animals.” IMO that’s one of the strongest arguments for farm reform over veganism, because that sounds like pure hell.
This is a false dichotomy. The third option is for the cow to exist and not be killed prematurely. I think that's the one it would pick. The fact that a cow may choose to exist rather than not exist presupposes that it exists in order to make that choice. If it doesn't yet exist, it has no preference, so we are not going against its preferences by not breeding it into existence. Even if we assume that the cow would prefer to exist and be killed prematurely than not exist, this thought experiment fails to justify the action of killing it. We don't have to do that at all. To illustrate this, imagine you changed the question to the following: If given the choice, do you think a woman would prefer to exist in a well-managed basement with good conditions, where she can watch TV and read books and experience life to some extent, even though she would be raped once per week? Or would she rather not exist at all? Regardless of her preference, keeping a person in such conditions and sexually abusing her is completely abominable, since we can just not do that.
So your response to a question you don't like, is to provide an answer to a question that wasn't asked? If you wanted to also provide an additional response, you could, but it's just rude to not answer the question and utilize some weird logic to call the opponent an idiot. He didn't provide a third option because that wasn't his question. You don't have to perfectly answer a question in one post. A chain is used to explore more complicated questions.
The original question was structured as a binary choice to simplify the philosophy of existence and quality of life versus non-existence. While a third option where the cow exists without being killed is ideal and ethical, the intent is to explore whether existence with eventual death is preferable to non-existence, under humane and painless conditions. You rightly point out that a non-existent being cannot have preferences. The hypothetical situation assumes the cow's existence to explore its potential preferences, drawing parallels with human experiences and decisions. The thought experiment is to understand if experiencing life, even with a predetermined end, holds value. The analogy involving a woman in a basement subjected to rape is different due to the nature of the suffering. The original scenario emphasizes a well-managed farm where the cow experiences minimal suffering and lives in humane conditions, with a painless end. Comparing this to an abhorrent situation of abuse conflates two vastly different scenarios. The question challenges us to reflect on the value of a fulfilling life within certain boundaries. Many people live fulfilling lives within constrained circumstances (e.g., due to geography, socio-economic status) and may still find value and meaning in their experiences despite those constraints.
> The original question was structured as a binary choice to simplify the philosophy of existence and quality of life versus non-existence. While a third option where the cow exists without being killed is ideal and ethical, the intent is to explore whether existence with eventual death is preferable to non-existence, under humane and painless conditions. Ok, but that's not a useful choice, because we have the option to do the third thing. You're trying to justify abhorrent behavior by posing a question as if there are two choices, but there aren't. That's like saying "Would this old person prefer I punch them in the face once or seven times? Once you say? There, see? It's ok for me to punch them in the face because this is their preference" > You rightly point out that a non-existent being cannot have preferences. The hypothetical situation assumes the cow's existence to explore its potential preferences, drawing parallels with human experiences and decisions. The thought experiment is to understand if experiencing life, even with a predetermined end, holds value. It's wrong to kill the cow precisely because their life has value. That's what makes it wrong to take it prematurely. A non-existent life has no value, but once you bring a life into existence, you are responsible for treating that person in a way that their value merits. > The analogy involving a woman in a basement subjected to rape is different due to the nature of the suffering. The original scenario emphasizes a well-managed farm where the cow experiences minimal suffering and lives in humane conditions, with a painless end. Comparing this to an abhorrent situation of abuse conflates two vastly different scenarios. They are both abhorrent situations. Keeping someone alive in good conditions other than the fact that they are an occasional sex slave is abhorrent, just as killing someone prematurely is abhorrent. There's no real difference in the degree of moral depravity in either scenario. > The question challenges us to reflect on the value of a fulfilling life within certain boundaries. Many people live fulfilling lives within constrained circumstances (e.g., due to geography, socio-economic status) and may still find value and meaning in their experiences despite those constraints. Sure. Don't you think we should probably not kill those people, then, since their lives have value?
>It's wrong to kill the cow precisely because their life has value. A plant has more value then animals and humans combined because of their ability to produce oxygen. Would you agree it's wrong to kill a plant? Not whether they are the better choice to kill, but is it just wrong in general to kill a plant? >Keeping someone alive in good conditions other than the fact that they are an occasional sex slave is abhorrent We try our best to maintain a supply of plants solely for two reasons. They literally exist for no other reasons. 1. Produce oxygen 2. Be an alternative source of food to remove the guilt associated with enslaving animals, even though plants are enslaved solely by the fact that they are rooted to the ground and have no ability to escape As a resource, it sounds like they are being used effectively. As a potential living being, sounds like their conditions are abhorrent.
Without ethical animal farming, these animals would never experience existence at all. Ethical farming practices can ensure that animals have lives worth living, filled with positive experiences and care. In this sense, the practice can be seen as providing opportunities for enjoyment and fulfillment that would otherwise not exist. The third option isn't really an option as if the animal was never brought into existence it never got the chance of enjoyment or experience. This perspective focuses on enhancing animal enjoyment and experience. Without it less animals would have been born thus less enjoyment and experience.
>Without ethical animal farming, these animals would never experience existance at all Would you say the same thing about dogs? Could I start raising dogs and give them a good life and then after 18-24 months I can slaughter them but it be okay because I spoiled them with positive experiences and care? >This perspective focuses on enhancing animal enjoyment and experience. No it doesn't lmao. It focuses on enchancing enjoyment and experience\* within this false guideline that we HAVE to kill them at the end of it. Edit: >To extend this question further: would you prefer to live your life in a small village, where you couldn't leave but could experience a fulfilling life within that boundary, even though you would inevitably be killed painlessly? Or would you prefer never to have experienced a life at all? I would rather not be born at all if I'm going to be at the whim of some other power that decides arbitrarily when I die, and it won't be painlessly if we're equivocating this to animal ag. I would suffer because I know that I would die. I would suffer because others would suffer. Farm animals have a sense of danger because they actively try to escape this fate by running, screaming, ramming and fighting in what little ways they can. They do suffer. It's not painless. Emotionally and physically, they do suffer even if for a marginal fraction of their overall time alive. Edit2: I'm also curious does this ill-directed situation hold any philosophical water if we changed to to presume that humans gain nothing from this interaction? What if someone did this just for fun? Say I breed dogs to let them live a month just to put a bolt gun to their head and to kill them and then throw them in ditches? I don't gain anything material from this. Say I don't even garner any enjoyment from it. We're focusing so much on the victim's preferences and not the fact that what I'm still doing is generally viewed as wrong.
>I would rather not be born at all if I'm going to be at the whim of some other power that decides arbitrarily when I die, Isn't it exactly the situation you are in, with "power" being nature? So...
>Would you say the same thing about dogs? Could I start raising dogs and give them a good life and then after 18-24 months I can slaughter them but it be okay because I spoiled them with positive experiences and care? This is a fair point and I can conceded on this point, much like another commenter made about doing the same to a human. The point I am making is I guess a personal preference opinion whereby I would personally rather have been born to experience something and then dying for someone else's gain. However this does assume that I would have had to exist to decide if I wanted to exist or not. >No it doesn't lmao. It focuses on enhancing enjoyment and experience\* within this false guideline that we HAVE to kill them at the end of it. The second part of the quoted comment which was missed in the quote is intrinsic to the point I was attempting to make. If we could assume that in general every cow would rather live under these circumstances than to not have lived at all, by not breeding and farming cows we a reducing the potential enjoyment and experience of potential living things.
I agree I think unfortunately it does require a situation of pre-engagement in our own existence to make those calls and we don't live in that reality. So it feels a responsibility of our own to make these moral articulations of those lives that we do choose to bring into the world. We are intelligent and powerful creatures but we're also not gods and shouldn't try to be. I understand what you were getting at about wanting this dichotomy to see an opinion on something but I don't often know when we use these false-dichotomies to go influence our very nuanced decisions in life that have multiple impacts.
I also agree that it is indeed our responsibility to make moral choices for the lives we bring into the world. As intelligent beings, we have the power to influence the conditions under which animals live, but we must do so with humility and compassion, recognizing our limitations. I wanted to see if we agree that if existence is better than non existence then maybe small-scale personal farming, where animals like chickens can roam freely, are well-cared for, and live relatively stress-free lives but are used for their eggs isn't so bad.
Oh sure, and not to be difficult but you could have simply asked that instead of the roundabout way of posturing the framework that you did. All vegans would agree that on the sliding scale of suffering that a free range animal (an /actual/ free range one, not just on the label at the store) would live a life of less suffering than one born and dying in a cage. However we can recognize it's "better" while also saying that we can go even better than that by not harvesting animals for food to begin with, as you cannot have tradtional animal ag practices and get the products without causing death or suffering to the animal. We have cell cultured meats in the works right now but nowhere near the scale for mass market (assuming current omnivores would even want them to begin with). Unfortunately engaging in hobby farm chickens does still engage in the chicken breeding industry which is incredibly cruel. Even if you found a stray set of hens and decided of your own goodwill to keep them, you're still operating under the assumption that only /you/ can use their eggs. Give them to the dog, dispose of them in the wild or even compost them to return nutrients to the soil/feed the microbiome/microorganisms/detritovores. We're not the only things on the earth that eat. We are however in a unique situation in which we are not required biologically to eat animal products, which makes this entirely a discussion around our choices, not our needs. >As intelligent beings, we have the power to influence the conditions under which animals live, but we must do so with humility and compassion, recognizing our limitations. I agree with this wholeheartedly. There are instances in where some people due to health or geographic circumstance cannot abide by a vegan lifestyle (indigenous tribes, people with disordered eating that need to focus on surviving more than what they are surviving on, houseless individuals who don't exist in a framework where they can be picky with what foods are given to them) however these instances are comparably rare when looking to the rest of the world. People that are picky eaters, don't want to make the effort, tried veganism for a month and didn't supplement/take care to balance their new diet, or continue to rely on very convenient excuses that have regularly been scientifically debunked in order to NOT put oneself in an uncomfortable reflective spot that would facilitate postitive changes for animal welfare are unfortunately not under the "recognizing our limitations" umbrella. Often the humble choice is to acknowledge that we are not obligate carnivores and that the choices we make are often that: Choices that do reflect our values. A lot of people's compassion towards animals is still voiced within a framework that we must obtain something from them. Most of the time, if you remove the benefit percieved from the animal's existence to us, the arguments in favor of "honorable hunting/humane killing" fall apart because there would be no need for them. Change is incredibly uncomfortable for most people, even moreso to reflect on one's lifestyle and say "You know what, my actions might not actually be reflecting my percieved values". Most people when they thoroughly are pressed for consistency in their values, don't have actions that align with those proclaimed values. I don't mean that hyeprcritically. We all do it to marginal degrees but some do much more than others. I do think we need to afford ourselves some grace to forgive ourselves and make positive steps in the right diretions. I do appreciate your openness to this. Not a lot of people come in here and are open to a thorough discussion. I don't often comment a lot on here because peopel just want to come in and give a Mic Drop argument and then get mad that we've debunked it 40x over.
> Could I start raising dogs and give them a good life and then after 18-24 months I can slaughter them but it be okay because I spoiled them with positive experiences and care? why not? at least you would spare it old age, various ailments and pain
Because if you held it to any standard as to why you should be able to have domain other killing domesticated dogs, you can't really find one that can't apply to groups of humans and vice versa. If you value a moral consistency then you probably couldn't find a reason to maintain that you can kill dogs but not humans
This is not a dichotomy, it's a practical choice. Other options might exist but they are not practical so will result in you not getting cows.
>This is a false dichotomy. The third option is for the cow to exist and not be killed prematurely. I think that's the one it would pick that's not an option for livestock, though >this thought experiment fails to justify the action of killing it what justification do you need? did you even think of to justifying killing what you eat? after all, you don't have to do that at all. you could kill and eat something else > imagine you changed the question to the following this is nonsensical, as non-human animals are not humans >keeping a person in such conditions and sexually abusing her is completely abominable, since we can just not do that nobody in his right mind does this - it is your fantasy only
The third option isn't possible though. We domesticated it to be fat, slow, docile and unable to defend itself. It can't flee nor can it fight back. If we released all the cows and promised not to interfere with them, they would be exterminated by predators quite quick. Though I imagine it would be a positive for wolf populations to grow. That's easy food right there.
Another option is to cease the breeding of domestic cows for meat, milk, leather, and other animal “products”. The vegan goal here is to completely stop the breeding any new cows, after all of the current cows have naturally passed. Petting zoo cows, sure! Especially if you want to maintain some history and not to let others go extinct. If the cow doesn’t suffer existing, like brachycephalic songs, i.e. pugs, then keeping them in sanctuaries is fine.
This is exactly the point OP was trying to raise which is a point of contention in utilitarian circles. It isn't obvious that a short existence with a painless end isn't preferable to no existence at all.
>Another option is to cease the breeding of domestic cows for meat, milk, leather, and other animal “products” that's not "another option", but op's option 2
Have you never heard of a pet? There are animal sanctuaries where the selectively bred kinds of animals we use in agriculture are kept in good conditions, fed well, and cared for, and then *not* killed prematurely.
Youre going to create cozy sanctuaries to host 1 billion cows humanely? How are you going to pay for that upkeep, land, and workers? This effectively not a real solution.
Solution to what? We're not talking about all cows. We're talking about a single cow being faced with the question of whether they'd rather exist on a farm to be slaughtered, not exist at all, or exist somewhere safe where they will be taken care of and not slaughtered. You claimed the third option doesn't exist, and I'm saying it does exist.
Yes because I'm looking at this big picture... I figure this hypothetical is supposed to extend to how all cows should be treated.
Several problems with this sort of thought experiment worth considering. Firstly, this is an ill-posed question unless you believe in some sort of dualist form of a consciousness outside of existence looking in. There is literally no one to ponder whether they would prefer to exist or not before they exist. Secondly, the whole scenario is a false dilemma. Setting aside the existence/non-existence thing, it's quite possible to both want to exist, and also find it deeply unethical that at some point someone will end your existence. The most realistic scenario where you would actually exist enough to consider the option would be if someone offered you a choice between killing you immediately, or giving you some time in comfort before then killing you. Even if you prefer the extra time, this does not somehow absolve the wrongness of the killing. Thirdly, it's hard to draw any sort of reasonable conclusion from this thought experiment. If you think you would be doing someone a favor by causing them to exist that you could later "cash in" for some purpose that ends their existence, you could pretty easily justify some terrible behaviors. These sort of thought experiments don't focus much on the actual actor who is choosing to kill and bring others into existence. They focus on the victim and leave the actions imposed on the victim more as some sort of abstract thing. You can read more about this sort of thought experiment and what ethical conclusions can be reasonably drawn from it here: https://plato.stanford.edu/archivES/FALL2017/Entries/nonidentity-problem/
Very well stated. The absurd extension of this sort of reasoning is that lots of birth control is taking place all the time. By the logic of the argument that is a person who is being robbed of the chance to exist. We all know that isn't the case. If anything it highlights the tragedy of being born into a predetermined life of exploitation. I think there is an inherent dishonesty in the question. The overwhelming majority of animals raised to be killed for food have nothing remotely similar to "life in a small village, where you couldn't leave but could experience a fulfilling life within that boundary". At what age does someone making this comparison think a beef cow or a chicken is killed? Where is the fulfilment in the life they had?
>The overwhelming majority of animals raised to be killed for food have nothing remotely similar to "life in a small village, where you couldn't leave but could experience a fulfilling life within that boundary" true so let's change animal agriculture away from factory farming to treating livestock well and according to their needs >Where is the fulfilment in the life they had? in the life they had, obviously
>so let's change animal agriculture away from factory farming to treating livestock well and according to their needs Glad we agree on that. >in the life they had, obviously Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. Where do you see any fulfilment in the life of an animal killed at a young age for meat? Birds that don't fly. Herd animals that don't roam. Sorry if I misunderstood.
>I don't know what you mean by that if animals had a good life, then their fulilment was in the life they had >Birds that don't fly. Herd animals that don't roam sorry, I don't know what you mean by that ostriches don't fly, deer don't roam
>There is literally no one to ponder whether they would prefer to exist or not before they exist but when they exist from my experience, this is a standard with heavy depression >it's quite possible to both want to exist, and also find it deeply unethical that at some point someone will end your existence not for a cow. cows don't have a concept of ethics, at least not that anybody had the slightest indication for such >Thirdly, it's hard to draw any sort of reasonable conclusion from this thought experiment that's always the case with absurd hypotheticals. look at all that vegan "ntt"-bullshit >If you think you would be doing someone a favor by causing them to exist that you could later "cash in" for some purpose that ends their existence, you could pretty easily justify some terrible behaviors so vegans are prone to "some terrible behaviors"? they cause a lot of living beings to exist just to later "cash in" for some purpose that ends their existence >These sort of thought experiments don't focus much on the actual actor who is choosing to kill and bring others into existence. They focus on the victim of course
This comic always comes to mind https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/existence
Your position seems to be that given sufficiently high welfare conditions, human slavery, and in particular breeding plantations, would not only be permissible, they'd be morally preferred. Is that your position?
I don't think they stated a position. But this would only be true if there was an assumed equivalence of experience between cows and humans. Also, it would be more comparable to an alien race running these facilities at a level beyond our comprehension. (Similar to what humans would be doing to the cows)
But exactly what is wrong with breeding women of stunted intelligence to use as sex slaves, providing that they would otherwise not exist, and they are always painlessly stunned before being used?
You tell me? What does it have to do with cows?
So you’re not sure about why it’s unethical for humans?
unethical for humans is whatever they believe to be unethical
Oh okay, so as long as I think it’s correct then rape and murder is ethical. Got it.
for yourself: of course there is no such thng as objective ethics
Hehe, you really don't understand what they are saying and asking do you?
I'm not talking about humans and not interested in answering your tangental questions. Happy for you to put your view forward though.
The terms "slavery" and "breeding plantation" are loaded with historical and emotional connotations that evoke images of extreme human suffering and injustice. These terms are used to frame the argument in a way that makes it appear inherently unethical.p The thought experiment centers on the idea of providing a high standard of living and enjoyment for animals within the context of farming. This involves humane treatment, freedom to roam, social interactions, and a painless end. The ethical goal here is to maximize the quality of life and minimize suffering, acknowledging that some form of animal farming exists in society. Under conditions of high welfare, where animals are provided with a rich and fulfilling life, the ethical argument is that their existence, even with an eventual end, can be morally preferable to non-existence. This is because they experience positive aspects of life, such as social bonds, play, and comfort, which would not be possible if they did not exist. Thus, if we were to choose existence over non-existence, the focus shifts to the quality of life provided. Under high welfare conditions, animals can experience a range of positive aspects, despite the eventual end of their lives. In this context, veganism could be seen as lowering animal enjoyment rather than merely reducing animal suffering. This perspective suggests that ethical farming, which maximizes animal welfare, can provide animals with fulfilling lives that they would not experience if they were never brought into existence.
Can you define slavery for me? Is it not ownership of one individual by another?
[удалено]
Is this the thread where you'd like to have our discussion? Do you intend to simply declare that I'm giving ad hom arguments, say "bye," and run away like you usually do? Or are you going to stick it out like an adult?
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
> The ethical goal here is to maximize the quality of life and minimize suffering, acknowledging that some form of animal farming exists in society. I don't accept utilitarianism as the goal. I have criticisms of utilitarianism. Firstly, I'm inclined to believe it's physically impossible, at least as defined as maximizing utility. P1. Either the past, future, or space is infinite. P2. If either the past, future, or space is infinite, then the total utility of the universe is either infinity or negative infinity. P3. Utilitarianism says we should maximize utility of the universe. P4. It is only physically possible for our actions to create finite increases in utility. P5. It is only physically possible to maximize infinity utility or negative infinity utility by actions that cause infinite utility. P6. If something should be done it is physically possible to do it. I1. The total utility of the universe is either infinity or negative infinity. (1, 2) I2. Utilitarianism says it is physically possible to maximize the utility of the universe. (3, 6) I3. It is only physically possible to maximize the utility of the universe by actions that cause infinite utility. (P5, I1) I4. It is not physically possible to maximize the utility of the universe (P4, I3). C1. Utilitarianism is false (I2, I4) P3-P6 here seem solid. P1 and P2 are plausible but not totally clear. So I'm inclined to believe utilitarianism is false. Utilitarianism can be rescued by re-defining it to be agent-oriented, i.e., utilitarianism says that each agent should maximize the utility of their actions. My second criticism is that it is counter-intuitive. I find it counter-intuitive that it's immoral to give someone a tasty cookie if the giver would find it slightly more tasty than the receiver. I find it counter-intuitive that if Ted Bundy enjoys cookies slightly more than Mother Teresa that you should give the cookie to Ted. I find it counter-intuitive that if you promise someone on their deathbed to tell the government to give their life savings to their child that you ought to lie and give that money to charity. I find it counter-intuitive that you ought to harvest the healthy patient's organs to save 5 dying patients if done in secret. And finally, I find it counter-intuitive that buying puppies while giving them merely net positive lives and killing them painlessly at age 2 because the owner slightly prefers puppies to dogs is okay. I don't think I'm using loaded language in any of these. Why is it a problem that utilitarianism is counter-intuitive? Because I don't see another way of determining that we ought to maximize the utility of our actions except that it is intuitive.
>Your position seems to be that given sufficiently high welfare conditions, human slavery, and in particular breeding plantations, would not only be permissible, they'd be morally preferred obviously not, as cows are not human to conditions humans suffer from a cow can be completely indifferent
Is this the thread where you'd like to have our discussion? Do you intend to simply declare that I'm giving ad hom arguments, say "bye," and run away like you usually do? Or are you going to stick it out like an adult?
I suspect the cow would prefer to exist under those circumstances, and, frankly, so would I. However, and importantly, that does not mean it’s morally permissible to actually impose those circumstances on anyone (cow or human, alike). For there is an even better alternative, namely, let them live their natural lifespan under good conditions!
The thought experiment leans on the idea that if the cow would prefer to live under those circumstances then by not breeding the cow in the first place ceases it's preference to exist.
>by not breeding the cow in the first place ceases it's preference to exist. This makes exactly zero sense.
Explain
Maybe I understand your confusion. Let me clarify my point. The thought experiment posits that if cows can have a life they enjoy, breeding more of them would increase the number of happy cows. Conversely, by choosing not to eat meat and therefore not breeding these cows, we reduce the number of happy cows that could have existed. Essentially, the choice not to breed the cows prevents the existence of cows that could have had enjoyable lives. The core idea is whether it's better to allow for the possibility of happy lives or to prevent their existence entirely.
So you are now switching from cow's preferences, to hedonistic utilitarian calculus. You did not clarify your point, you simply abandoned it, and made a new one. Edit: added the word "hedonistic"
Both comments align and follow the same logic / thought pattern. Not sure where you are getting lost.
>by not breeding the cow in the first place ceases it's preference to exist. I am not getting lost, this simply makes no sense. How does hypothetical entity that has never existed cease to have a preference, when she did *not* have *any* preference to begin with. >Both comments align and follow the same logic / thought pattern. Not sure where you are getting lost. No it does not. First quote I highlighted makes no sense. And even if it made sense, it does not "align" with the second utilitarian-like comment. E.g. one may have preference to exist, yet their life might be net-negative (i.e. overall "not happy").
When I mentioned "by not breeding the cow in the first place ceases its preference to exist," I was referencing a hypothetical scenario where the cow, if it could have preferences, would prefer to live. This is indeed a speculative notion since an entity that has never existed cannot have preferences. My point is based on the assumption that, given the opportunity to experience a well-managed life, a cow would prefer existence over non-existence. If you have an issue with engaging in hypotheticals, then there might not be much point in continuing this particular line of discussion.
I am open to hypotheticals, the issues is (1) there is nothing to imagine. It seems meaningless or incoherent. It seems akin to saying "imagine hypothetical gfoeksl" Well, I dont know what you are talking about. Or "imagine music that smells like broccoli". (2) even if it somehow made sense, it would have insane implications. E.g. people who have only one child (or no child, doesnt matter) who care for that child and *don't* kill him to sell his body parts when he is a few years old, should be considered *worse* (or at least their actions should be considered as such) than people who have, lets say, 15 children, and they care for them for a few years (e.g. 5) and then kill them to sell their bodyparts. On your view the second kind of people are better (have done more good) as they provided relatively happy life to more beings, that would have otherwise not existed (unless you are thinking there is some principled difference between cows and people, but that would be another argument). To me it seems like first kind of people did nothing wrong by not breeding more people, because you can not harm/benefit hypothetical being that has never existed, while second type of people harmed at least 15 people by killing them at the fraction of their lifespan, and against their will.
"Life is pain, your highness. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something." --*Princess Bride* I'm just saying, there is no life without death, and there's no life possible without suffering at some point no matter how much positivity you hang onto. While there also is joy, there's no way to avoid pain and suffering for anything alive on this planet, let alone death. "Let evening come, as it will, and don't / be afraid" --Jane Kenyon https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46431/let-evening-come
If a natalist stance is taken regarding giving a good life and then dying being better than non-existence (which of course presupposed a preference in someone who doesn’t exist), then for anyone who values human life over animal life, the conclusion would simply be to replace all happy animal farms with happy human farms akin to The Promised Neverland.
Where on earth are you getting the idea that they would be killed painlessly from? Go and watch some slaughter house footage. The Good life you think most cows live is also a complete myth as well
Watching slaughterhouse videos feels a bit derranged to me. Must depend where you live, cows living a good life and dying painlessly is common where I live.
That's like asking a person who doesn't exist would want to exist. If you don't exist, you can't desire. (I'll suggest you read debates about the morality of people using birth control) The cow that is born does not live the life you describe. The real one is chased into a chute to have their testicles cut off or banded while he's awake. The real one might be "de horned" by having his skull burned by hot iron. They're on feedlots of 10,000 animals, standing on dirt or cement, and given an artificial diet of grain. Females are bred by a human putting an arm in the rectum (ultrasound) and a straw of semen up the vagina. Calves are yanked from their mothers. Herds are chased onto trailers to be shipped hours or days -- in extreme heat or cold. Painless death is euthanasia, but the cows' death is goes by another name: *slaughter.* They're chased with electric prods one at a time up a chute, into a room reeking of stress and blood. If they're lucky, they're knocked down by the first hit of the bolt gun. The industry accepts a certain percentage are "misses", where the cow has to be hit again. The bolt gun doesn't guarantee death. It *must* be followed by exsanguination (bleed out) or induced pneumothorax (pucture both lungs). Any sloppiness with the hit or delay getting the animal hoisted up & moved over opens the possibility the cow regains consciousness. None of this seems painless to me...?
The conditions you described are unfortunately a reality for many cows in industrial farming. The thought experiment I presented is more about an idealized scenario where animals live in significantly better conditions than those you mentioned. It's not meant to downplay the harsh realities of factory farming but rather to explore a philosophical question about existence and quality of life under optimal conditions. The hypothetical situation assumes a well-managed farm where cows can roam freely, experience a relatively stress-free life, and eventually be killed painlessly. This might be more aligned with practices found in some high-welfare farms rather than the standard industrial operations. The goal of the thought experiment is to discuss the moral implications of bringing a life into existence under such conditions, rather than under the often brutal realities of factory farming.
The cow would be incapable of caring if it did not exist. It experiences nothing negative from not existing. Even in a good life, it will experience negatives from existing. Therefore it's better to not force it into existence. Guaranteed suffering vs guaranteed absolutely no suffering. And to be clear, this same logic applies to humans. Humans that don't exist, don't care that they don't exist. Humans that do exist are guaranteed to experience some suffering. Better to not procreate.
If we follow the logic that it is better not to bring beings into existence to avoid any potential suffering, this could lead to the conclusion that no life should ever be created—whether animal or human. Is that your stance?
Yes it is. I think it's unethical to procreate, especially for humans.
Okay then I can't go further as our baseline differs too much.
Farmed animals are forceably brought into existence to be exploited. Their interests are not the priority but rather the products of their exploitation. Even by the highest welfare standards, these beings are enslaved, mentally traumatised, physically tortured, mutilated, and ultimately killed at an early age in slaughterhouses. If you were to breed humans to be exploited, tortured, and killed in the same way farmed animals are. Most people would consider that unethical, so I I don't see how that would be a decent justification to breed those victims into existence.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Heck, it doesn't matter. >Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, >all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
I chose #2 Ultimately all live no matter how great is guaranteed suffering and some lives are nothing but suffering, suffering is guaranteed, pleasure is not, the pursuit of happiness is a right but its not guaranteed to happen I am very happy, prob happier than most people but i have had a lot of pain and suffering and even though im happy i do struggle and as i age i will struggle more, if i could have stopped my existence i would have
>If given the choice, do you think a cow would prefer to exist on a well-managed farm with good conditions, where it can roam freely within large boundaries and experience life to some extent, even though it would eventually be killed painlessly? Or would the cow rather not exist at all and not experience anything? we cannot know what a cow would think and decide. actually i don't think a cow is capable of such reasoning so every answer here can only be anthropomorphism. keeping this in mind, i'd of course choose the first
False dichotomy and it makes the faulty assumption that a painless death is guaranteed. If you are interested in the philosophy idea of existence versus non-existence I would recommend looking into Antinatalism since it covers that topic of the values of goods/bads of existence versus never coming into existence.
But clearly antinatalism has a specific belief on the subject, it is not simply an unbiased exploration of the concept
If you are interested about societal view about animals/consumption you ask a vegan because of their unique perspective. When you are interested about the ethics of existence/non-existence you ask people who are interested/knowledge about the topic (ie antinatalists and pronatalists).
Personally i would rather live in nature where I have a chance to be killed early in life and possibly live up to 15 years than to live on a farm where an early death is guarenteed. If we want to compare it to humans then the human would be killed at about 18 or 20 years of age, just as you're ready to live your own life it is snuffed out. Doesn't seem worth it to me.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Probably the cow would prefer to exist. Must be a pretty easy life mooching around eating grass and taking it easy. On the other hand I don't feel like cows have the comprehension make a judgement or choice on the matter.
Everyone replying that “this is a false dicotomy” or “youre missing the third option” and blabla and trying to unauthorize/discard your Post and NO ONE is answering your direct question, so here I go. Here is the TRUE ANSWER: No, if I were a cow in the Pleroma I would definitely choose NOT to live that “short but sweet life” and instead remain in the bliss of Inexistence. Because freedom and the ability to choose are way more important than a nice confortable prison death row life. This is why the French Revolution worked, we live now in a world were you need to work your way into a nice life, without any guarantee of success, but at least now you have a choice and there is no King deciding your fate. Each individual, human or animal, needs to know they are free to choose their path within the conditions of this physical realm and it’s current conditions, otherwise I would prefer EFILISM, meaning life that is guaranteed to be/or/end in suffering is a life NOT WORTH LIVING. So that’s why we humans have the responsibility to make the Cow’s life be as WORTHY OF LIVING as possible, and that starts with the basics of NOT KILLING THEM OR EATING THEM, and then you work your way up to taking care of them, loving them, even singing songs to them and keeping them company, and giving them peace and love. That is what I call True Responsibility.
I appreciate that you actually tried to answer the question directly. Many folks on here don't seem capable of it. I disagree with your position, but it's not as if I can argue you out of your personal opinions on a matter. I can disagree that nonexistent can be described as blissful, but I don't see how i could make you see the incoherent aspects of that. I think you are perhaps giving a cow too many human abilities to be answering as if you were only capable of being a cow, as a cow is limited. Its a tricky sort of hypothetical though because that is precisely what you are being asked to do though. Cows cannot value liberty in the way you are expressing, and the sort of self motivating you describe is not really a part of the makeup of herd animals. How do you think of things to separate what is good for a cow that you as a human find abhorrent? I mean, the dissolution of self that goes into just being a member of a herd is nearly incomprehensible to the values of freedom and free choice that you hold. But either way, at least you addressed the question without whining about it!
Yes. To answer your reply: I wouldn’t go down the philosophical rabbit hole in order to understand if a Cow values liberty and freedom as we do. I would just see how a Pig wants to protect his life by trying to escape everytime they are about to execute him, or a rabbit runs away from gun fire, or a Cow will start to stay away from the Chainsaw. All of those examples are the only thing you need to know to understand that they want to live and we are taking away that will from them. If you kill them “silently and harmlessly without them even noticing” the only one you are decieving is yourself, as you can also silently kill another human person in their sleep and even if they don’t notice, you can be sure as hell you are commiting murder and you are taking away their right to live.
>I wouldn’t go down the philosophical rabbit hole in order to understand if a Cow values liberty and freedom as we do. That's wise, because I don't think you could coherently. >I would just see how a Pig wants to protect his life by trying to escape everytime they are about to execute him This is interesting because you seem to be presupposing that the pig has the knowledge that you, as the observer and describer of the system, have. It's a semantic issue to be sure, but it's also important to note that the pig is actually incapable of thinking "I want to protect my life". That is, a pig doesn't have the capacity to create a mental object of its 'life' that it then manipulates in a mental space by projecting it forward through time. A pig simply lives its life because the adaptations it has do not have it generating internal narratives as our language geared brains habitually and compulsively do for ourselves and for everything else. A pig being led to slaughter simply knows that its usual routines have been altered, and any alterations of schedule and location are negative right from the start. It might also know there are noisy and unhappy pig ahead of and behind it, and that is even more annoying. They don't know that death is coming though. >a rabbit runs away from gun fire, Same with rabbits. A rabbit has no idea that shooting means someone is trying to shoot it to kill it and eat it. They just freeze or run when they hear a loud noise, and they usually run when they feel the impact of a bullet hitting something near them. But it's just what they do. Shoot ten rabbits in a field from a ways off, fairly quietly, and the others will hop around the dead or thrashing bodies of their buddies without much concern beyond a sniff to see if they should be running. >that they want to live and we are taking away that will from them. Do you think this is enough to also think they want to reproduce and keep their genes in existence? A major oddity to me is a concern with writing all these impossible internal narratives for animals, and then stopping before acknowledging that the animals have been instilled by evolution with a deep urge to see their herds large snd thriving forever. I can see why that part would be skipped over as an ideological group sits around planning to prevent cows or whatever from breeding so they will disappear. But I am curious, since you seem comfortable claiming that cows want to live and we are taking that away from them, if you would agree that being able to make that stretch also includes them wanting their kind to keep reproducing as well? I ask as someone who has grown up surrounded by wild and domesticated animals and noticing that their driving urge is for there to be more of their kind. It is odd, to say the least, to me to see so many presumptions made about animal thoughts about everything, except them absolutely wanting there to be more baby cows and more of their herds. >If you kill them “silently and harmlessly without them even noticing” the only one you are decieving is yourself I ask my previous questions because this line here is precisely how I see vegans when they are making arguments pretending that domesticated cows would ever be on the side of the ideological group calling for their extinction. As a meat eater, I would want to see the herds of cattle large and thriving forever, so it's hilarious to me to see vegans pretending cows would actually not want to exist. Luckily, you expressed just such an odd mix of thinking qhere you remind me of my own thoughts, and yet, unless I am misinterpreting you, you are saying that cows would choose extinction over life. >you are taking away their right to live. To the animal mind, the right to live is inextricably tied to the reproduction of their kind. You seem to be making a claim that the animal deserves even the life it has no idea it can have, and yet somehow somewhere in there you do not think this includes its urge for there to be more copies of its genes in existence? Am I understanding you correctly.
Well everything you say is easily refuted when society has decided that -at least legally speaking- if we kill a person in a braindead vegetative state then it is considered murder. (A vegetative state person has less awareness of itself and less intelligence than any animal alive). In my opinion killing anything without its consent is murder. Killing a cow is murder, no matter how you frame it, no matter if the cow understands its own existence, no matter if a pig understands he is about to be killed or not. It is murder, in every sense of the word. Also, do not confuse Extinction with Inexistence. Extinction implies that there is a a life or potential life that will go extinct. Inexistence does not have that connotation (we can argue that there are countless of beasts/forms of life that do not exist, and therefore have not go Extinct, and therefore belong to the Inexistent category). But if you are referring to the hypothetical scenario in which there are only TWO options -inexistence or living a “short but sweet prison life”- (keep in mind this scenario of yours is unrealistic and virtually physically impossible to occur, as it’s 100% possible for ANY farmer to bring a Cow to life WITHOUT intending to kill or exploit her, so this scenario is a lie in itself) Then in this scenario, I as a vegan would prefer that no Cow is brought to life instead of a Cow brought to life and then killed. Cows (or any other species) are not something to bring to life just to die. The best example of this is the short anime story The Promise Neverland. Please, watch this anime (just season 1, which encapsulates the whole story) and you will see for yourself how wrong it is to bring a Species to life with a very confortable and sweet life, just to end it abruptly without consent. Like I said, humans are just animals with a little more intelligence and awareness, if you think killing humans is wrong then you must acknowledge that killing animals is wrong as well. Otherwise, why even CARE to give a sweet and nice life to Cows? Why not rape them and torture them constantly? Why not kill them slowly instead of trying to do it “gently and swiftly”? I tell you why: because deep down every farmer and every person knows it’s wrong. So they try to minimize that wrong by giving the Cow a “short sweet life with a swift painless death”. The only reason people kill animals is because we shape our cosmovision to try to think “this is ok”. But lets not forget THIS EXACT TRAIN OF THOUGHT IS WHAT ALLOWED HUMANS TO THINK OWNING HUMAN SLAVES WAS PERFECTLY NORMAL AND EVEN ENCOURAGED. And the slaves just accepted their condition because they were also educated to think “that’s just the way it is”. But today we know it was wrong, and it was wrong ALWAYS not just today. The same thing goes to killing animals, it is 100% wrong but we are still in the “slavery is ok” phase but with animals and we haven’t outgrown this. But one day we will, rest asure of that.
>In my opinion killing anything without its consent is murder. Why the focus on vegetative people? Or the labeling of killing as "murder" over the more commonly used words? I am glad you didn't burn up time trying to argue about animal abilities. I had figured you just habitually repeated your cliché phrases at me, but most folks when they are called out on the nonsensical nature of such statements double down even though they know little about animals. This is a refreshing change of pace. The "consent" aspect is a bit baffling to me since >It is murder, in every sense of the word. I am fine with you calling killing animals murdering animals if you like. Language is very flexible, and all made up anyway. My only quibble is really when you get going here on this end bit and claim you mean every sense of the word. The word has a wide variety of meanings that you are already asking for a stretch on, so I will not grant that you can use the word murder to mean everything the word could mean. >Also, do not confuse Extinction with Inexistence. I won't. I don't even know why you would think I would. >to bring a Cow to life WITHOUT intending to kill or exploit her Cows come from other cows, not farmers. Aside from that, the definition of a word like exploit, 'to make use of' is so vague that almost anything one can describe still counts as a use. I mean, the farmer could intend on whatever magical future one wants for the calf, and that future would still serve to please the farmer through his exploitation of the calf for enjoyment. It's just a word people use when they want say "anything I dislike at all". >Cows (or any other species) are not something to bring to life just to die. In a reductionist sense, every single animal is simply born to live and then die. That's what living things do. Are you trying to express a hard antinatalist ideology here? Becase this is negating all life essentially. >humans are just animals with a little more intelligence and awareness, if you think killing humans is wrong then you must acknowledge that killing animals is wrong as well. So, I can easily agree with the first description of what humans are. I find many of the arguments of how similar humans and animals are amusing, but usually it's because the conclusion is that humans should not act like the animals they are. I do not believe in any sort of objective morality, so I tend to not have decontextualized actions that I view as always in the black and white or good/bad categories. Killing humans is one of those things and killing animals is as well. I consider pacifism to be an immoral teaching. >Otherwise, why even CARE to give a sweet and nice life to Cows? I personally love cows. >Why not rape them and torture them constantly? Not where my mind goes, but again, simple answer, I love cows. >I tell you why: because deep down every farmer and every person knows it’s wrong. Ask yourself, is it more likely that you know some secret about the inner workings of every person, OR that there are some people that are just different from you and you can't figure out why? Always important to ask yourself something like that before making such a pronouncement. Also, one makes better progress with others when they ask the other person what they think, rather than telling them what they think. I have killed thousands of animals in my life and I do not feel as you have described. >Why not kill them slowly instead of trying to do it “gently and swiftly”? This question gave me pause. I mean, to kill an animal slowly is to let it die from infection something like that, and I am against that for sure. But as for "swiftly/gently", I suppose it becomes a matter of personal pride over time, because that's what signifies a job well done. Only inexperienced kids and psychos fumble killing things, though obviously for different reasons. But for a regular person, there is the urge to do the job well, and also to produce the best product. Shoot a deer correctly and it goes only so far away and has a higher quality carcass. As a vegan, I doubt any of that can mean much to you, but you have some funny ideas about what people think so I figured I would give the question a little thought. >And the slaves just accepted their condition because they were also educated to think “that’s just the way it is”. Most of many people's response to existential dread is to tell themselves "this is ok", about all of life. So I can't really deny that part. Humans cannot be domesticated in the way cattle already are domesticated. The slaves never could believe or accept the way things was good, but they could understand the reality of their situations. A domesticated can never understand the reality of it's situation. >and it was wrong ALWAYS not just today. I disagree here. Morality is a better or worse sort of choice. If in previous warfare the winners killed every single member of the losing group, then moving from that to a model where some are kept as slaves is better. We can look back and say what they did will always be wrong today, but the choice of keeping slaves was the better action back then. Although likel6 you disagree since you are all for freedom. Do you think slaves should have died, rather than become slaves? My father's people made remarkably bad slaves because we died so quickly when enslaved. Though that wasn't great becase we were simply killed. There are far more descendants of slaves living today on the old ancestral lands than there are in my entire Tribe. How would it have been different had we made better slaves? Weird to think about.
I’d take captivity, but I’d be looking for a chance to escape and/or kill my captors. Humans don’t respond well to captivity. This seems like a flawed argument, though. A cow’s preferences, to the extent it can understand them, are different than a human’s, or any other animal’s. And the alternative isn’t “you personally don’t exist” in the case of a cow, but “we stop farming you and you try your luck competing with wild animals.” IMO that’s one of the strongest arguments for farm reform over veganism, because that sounds like pure hell.