Pigs as organ donors

[Shaker]

The difference to me at least, is not irrelevant. They are not humans, they are my food.

But you are simply repeating "food, food, food" without actually justifying why in your opinion it's acceptable to regard animals as food. I think I've tried - however briefly, as I'm posting on my phone as well as dashing around - to say why I think the opposite, but I don't think you've made your case. Simply restating a position of speciesism when speciesism is being questioned doesn't hack it; it would be the same if in a discussion of racism someone merely kept saying "But they're only darkies".

[floo]

But you are simply repeating "food, food, food" without actually justifying why in your opinion it's acceptable to regard animals as food. I think I've tried - however briefly, as I'm posting on my phone as well as dashing around - to say why I think the opposite, but I don't think you've made your case. Simply restating a position of speciesism when speciesism is being questioned doesn't hack it; it would be the same if in a discussion of racism someone merely kept saying "But they're only darkies".

Animals of other species aren't humans and are there for our use, imo.

BTW Are you a pacifist?

[BeRational]

But you are simply repeating "food, food, food" without actually justifying why in your opinion it's acceptable to regard animals as food. I think I've tried - however briefly, as I'm posting on my phone as well as dashing around - to say why I think the opposite, but I don't think you've made your case. Simply restating a position of speciesism when speciesism is being questioned doesn't hack it; it would be the same if in a discussion of racism someone merely kept saying "But they're only darkies".

You eat vegetables.

They are alive.

We are related to them as well as animals.

Why do you feel it ok to eat one non human cousin rather than another?

What you think makes it ok to eat them, is probably much the same reason I feel it okay to eat other non human cousins.

[Shaker]

Animals of other species aren't humans

Well ... yes, we know.

and are there for our use, imo.

By whose agreement and by which right?

BTW Are you a pacifist?

Yes. Not absolutely - self-defence, etc.

[floo]

Well ... yes, we know.
By whose agreement and by which right?
Yes. Not absolutely - self-defence, etc.

So if an animal attacked you would you defend yourself, even if it meant killing it?

[Shaker]

You eat vegetables.

They are alive.

Everything we eat has been alive at some point. Life alone isn't the morally relevant category.

We are related to them as well as animals.

Why do you feel it ok to eat one non human cousin rather than another?

Because some are sentient and some are not. By definition those which are sentient have the capacity to suffer; those which are not do not. That's what the word means. A living but non-sentient thing - like a lettuce - has no capacity to suffer. It has no interests - no preference for one state of affairs over another based on an aversion to negative states (physical pain; psychological fear/anxiety). A lettuce is not, in Peter Singer's terminology, a subject-of-a-life; its existence cannot go better or worse for it because it has no awareness of its existence.

Cows do; carrots don't. There's no need to eat cows.

[Shaker]

So if an animal attacked you would you defend yourself, even if it meant killing it?

As an absolute last resort, yes. Same goes for humans, come to that.

[floo]

As an absolute last resort, yes.

If your house had a problem with rats and mice, which are a human health problem, how would you deal with it?

[BeRational]

Everything we eat has been alive at some point. Life alone isn't the morally relevant category.
Because some are sentient and some are not. By definition those which are sentient have the capacity to suffer; those which are not do not. That's what the word means. A living but non-sentient thing - like a lettuce - has no capacity to suffer. It has no interests - no preference for one state of affairs over another based on an aversion to negative states (pain; fear). A lettuce is not, in Peter Singer's terminology, a subject-of-a-life; its existence cannot go better or worse for it because it has no awareness of its existence.

Cows do; carrots don't. There's no need to eat cows.

Cows do not have cares or emotions either, or not sufficient for me to care.

The lettuce has no desire to be eaten either. It has evolved its own way (which we have presumably interfered with for our own ends), it evolved to do what it does to continue. Being eaten was not its objective.

So you have rationalised a different arbitrary line to me.

So what?

You should really, be finding a way to convert sunlight directly to food with no living thing needing to die.

Are you doing that?

[BeRational]

As an absolute last resort, yes. Same goes for humans, come to that.

In extreme circumstances I would consider humans food as well.

[Robbie]

I cannot see the difference between eating animals like pigs, and using their organs to save human lives.

There is no difference.
I don't eat animals - others do so by that token no reason why organs from pigs should not be transplanted into humans.
If pigs are bred for slaughter anyway why not breed them for transplants? As long as they have a good life, rooting around in fields.

Better if the pig consents though, preferably carries a donor card and its organs only used if it dies in an accident.

Must admit I thought it had already been done somewhere sometime, thought I saw it on TV years ago. Perhaps I dreamed it.

We're obsessed with prolonging human life.

If your house had a problem with rats and mice, which are a human health problem, how would you deal with it?

Humane mouse trap, i have one and it works.

[Shaker]

If your house had a problem with rats and mice, which are a human health problem, how would you deal with it?

That has already happened in the case of mice - a few years ago I had an issue of mice getting into the cupboards under the kitchen sink through a tiny, tiny gap in the brickwork. (And mice can get through the smallest of gaps). I bought a couple of live capture traps and some of that expanding foam stuff; loaded up the traps with peanut butter, caught all the mice, let them go in the field next to my house, filled up the hole with foam, job done.

[BeRational]

That has already happened in the case of mice - a few years ago I had an issue of mice getting into the cupboards under the kitchen sink through a tiny, tiny gap in the brickwork. (And mice can get through the smallest of gaps). I bought a couple of live capture traps and some of that expanding foam stuff; loaded up the traps with peanut butter, caught all the mice, let them go in the field next to my house, filled up the hole with foam, job done.

I do the same, catch them by hand that the cat brings in alive, and release where the cat cannot get them.

I also take spiders outside.

[Sriram]

Cows do not have cares or emotions either, or not sufficient for me to care.

The lettuce has no desire to be eaten either. It has evolved its own way (which we have presumably interfered with for our own ends), it evolved to do what it does to continue. Being eaten was not its objective.

So you have rationalised a different arbitrary line to me.

So what?

You should really, be finding a way to convert sunlight directly to food with no living thing needing to die.

Are you doing that?

How do you know cows do not have emotions and cares? A severely mentally retarded child also will not have any cares or awareness.  So...we could breed such children and use them as organ donors...right?!.

If you have a problem only because they look human, we could perhaps breed them to look a little different. Maybe we could even fertilize and grow them in labs instead of normal birth.  Would that be acceptable?

[floo]

In extreme circumstances I would consider humans food as well.

In 1972 there was an air crash in the Andes. It was a good while before the survivors were rescued, they ate the flesh from the dead passengers.

[Shaker]

Cows do not have cares or emotions either, or not sufficient for me to care.

That's the issue, isn't it - you don't care.

The lettuce has no desire to be eaten either.

A lettuce is not something to which the concept of desire even applies.

It has evolved its own way (which we have presumably interfered with for our own ends), it evolved to do what it does to continue. Being eaten was not its objective.

Correct.

So you have rationalised a different arbitrary line to me.

So what?

Your repeated, rather surly and petulant repetition of "So what?" when people are going to some pains to tell you what (e.g. #80) suggests that they and I are wasting our time.

You should really, be finding a way to convert sunlight directly to food with no living thing needing to die.

Are you doing that?

You're not actually reading any posts in reply to yours at all, are you? I suggest a new user name might be in order.

[BeRational]

How do you know cows do not have emotions and cares? A severely mentally retarded child also will not have any cares or awareness.  So...we could breed such children and use them as organ donors.

If you have a problem only because they look human, we could perhaps breed them to look a little different. Maybe we could even fertilize and grow them in labs instead of normal birth.  Would that be acceptable?

As I have already said. NO to humans, I grant ALL humans equal rights.

I draw an arbitrary line for my species.

Animals are food, and a resource, and that is the line I draw.

you kill and eat vegetables because you draw the line differently, but equally arbitrarily.

Why do you not convert sunlight to food?

[Sebastian Toe]

Must admit I thought it had already been done somewhere sometime, thought I saw it on TV years ago. Perhaps I dreamed it.

Oh Lucky Man?

http://rjbuffalo.com/oluckyman/VTS_01_4-00.18.15.255.jpg

[floo]

That has already happened in the case of mice - a few years ago I had an issue of mice getting into the cupboards under the kitchen sink through a tiny, tiny gap in the brickwork. (And mice can get through the smallest of gaps). I bought a couple of live capture traps and some of that expanding foam stuff; loaded up the traps with peanut butter, caught all the mice, let them go in the field next to my house, filled up the hole with foam, job done.

We have never had a problem with rats, thank goodness. However, we did have a mouse problem some years back in an old property and used a humane mouse trap. 

[BeRational]

That's the issue, isn't it - you don't care.
A lettuce is not something to which the concept of desire even applies.
Correct.
Your repeated, rather surly and petulant repetition of "So what?" when people are going to some pains to tell you what suggests that they and I are wasting our time.
You're not actually reading any posts in reply to yours at all, are you? I suggest a new user name might be in order.

I care about the welfare of the cow, and good husbandry, but I do not care that it is ultimately food as well.

The cow does not have desires either, it just lives like a lettuce and is a distant evolutionary cousin that you are happy to kill and eat.

I do not think you can show that eating animals is wrong, just that you do not like it, and they are not the same thing.

[floo]

As I have already said. NO to humans, I grant ALL humans equal rights.

I draw an arbitrary line for my species.

Animals are food, and a resource, and that is the line I draw.

you kill and eat vegetables because you draw the line differently, but equally arbitrarily.

Why do you not convert sunlight to food?

Can you actually 'kill' a vegetable? Surely only something that has a brain and consciousness can be killed in the same way as one can kill a human or animal?

[Shaker]

I care about the welfare of the cow, and good husbandry, but I do not care that it is ultimately food as well.

As I said ...

The cow does not have desired either

You know this how?

I do not think you can show that eating animals is wrong, just that you do not like it, and they are not the same thing.

Again, you can't show suffering to be wrong to one who doesn't care that suffering is wrong. That's why, in humans, psychopaths are not just incurable but untreatable.

[BeRational]

Can you actually 'kill' a vegetable? Surely only something that has a brain and consciousness can be killed in the same way as one can kill a human or animal?

Is it alive?

If it lives, it can die.

[Shaker]

Can you actually 'kill' a vegetable? Surely only something that has a brain and consciousness can be killed in the same way as one can kill a human or animal?

You can kill a vegetable insofar as you can bring an end to the processes that sustain its life - cutting a lettuce or not watering a pot plant, for example.

[Sriram]

In 1972 there was an air crash in the Andes. It was a good while before the survivors were rescued, they ate the flesh from the dead passengers.

I am sure many people wouldn't.  Death isn't that frightening to all people that they would do anything to live. 

Would the people in air crash kill some weak person unlikely to live....and eat him?