Guilty pleasures or conscious immoral decisions you take?

[Valmy]

incest, open relationships (aka cheating), homosexuality, etc.

I have to ask: in what weird universe are open relationships also known as cheating?  If your partner knows and accepts you are going to be having sex with other people there is no cheating.  You actually have to promise to be faithful and then not be to cheat.  'Cheating' by definition is breaking a rule.

[The Minsky Moment]

Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.

No I don't think that at all. 

I do think that as a matter of actual fact, absent animal agriculture, cows would not exist in siginficant numbers outside of Hindu-majority countries.

So for most cows on the planet, the "choice" is between never existing or existing as part of human agriculture.

[crazy canuck]

Also are incest, cheating and homosexuality all ethically equivalent to Marti?

[Grey Fox]

Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.

In fact there are some 300 million cows and buffalo in India, some wild and some domesticated for milk etc. That's way more than in any other country, three times as many as in the US.

Personally I love a steak. I just try not to kid myself I was doing the cow a favour by eating it.

How many cows do you think would be alive in North America within a year if the population became vegan?

I'm guesstimating about 50%. We use milk right? Oh you said Vegan.

Damn, Cow genocides!

[The Minsky Moment]

My opinion is that there is nothing inherently moral about existing, as a person or an animal.

That doesn't resolve the question.  One doesn't need to prove that bovine agricultural is inherently moral, only that it is not immoral.

And if letting the cow population dwindle to a million is a bad thing, they wouldn't the good thing be to try to increase the cow population, and give more cows the precious gift of existence? 

I addressed this in the parable.  The premise of the argument is that there is some underlying moral obligation to sustain the existence of other creatures.  I deny this obligation exists, and even if it did exist, it would not be practicable to fulfill.

[Ideologue]

Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.

No I don't think that at all. 

I do think that as a matter of actual fact, absent animal agriculture, cows would not exist in siginficant numbers outside of Hindu-majority countries.

So for most cows on the planet, the "choice" is between never existing or existing as part of human agriculture.

Indeed.  "Never existing" is a meaningless factor in moral reasoning.

[Capetan Mihali]

My opinion is that there is nothing inherently moral about existing, as a person or an animal.

That doesn't resolve the question.  One doesn't need to prove that bovine agricultural is inherently moral, only that it is not immoral.

One doesn't need to prove that to... justify slaughtering cows?  I don't think "bovine agriculture" (great euphemism) is inherently immoral, but if it's not inherently moral, why is it better than letting all the cows die or get on tire rafts to India? 

Otherwise the proposition is really just "Breed them to kill them or let them die off, who gives a shit?"  Which isn't much to discuss.

[Gups]

Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.

No I don't think that at all. 

I do think that as a matter of actual fact, absent animal agriculture, cows would not exist in siginficant numbers outside of Hindu-majority countries.

So for most cows on the planet, the "choice" is between never existing or existing as part of human agriculture.

Why would we end animal agriculture? I thought this was about eating cows, not about keeping them for milk.

And if we aren't killing cows on the basis that it is morally wrong to do so, what difference does it make whether we are Hindu or not?

You go dwon this path you end up with every sperm being sacred. A potential life is as worthy as an actual one. Any life, no matter how miserable or short, is better than no life at all. And numerous other untenable positions.

[Ideologue]

You go dwon this path you end up with every sperm being sacred.

It's true.  That's why I keep all mine alive.  I'm running out of freezer space.

[The Minsky Moment]

Why would we end animal agriculture? I thought this was about eating cows, not about keeping them for milk.

And if we aren't killing cows on the basis that it is morally wrong to do so, what difference does it make whether we are Hindu or not?

You go dwon this path you end up with every sperm being sacred. A potential life is as worthy as an actual one. Any life, no matter how miserable or short, is better than no life at all. And numerous other untenable positions.

Its pretty clear you have misunderstood the argument, so I will take responsibility for not having expressed it well.

The first premise is precisely that every sperm is not sacred - ie there is no general moral obligation to sustain and protect animal life.

That still leaves open the question of whether it can be morally permissible to raise animals for slaughter - ie the lack of a moral obligation to act benevolently doesn't imply the lack of a moral obligation to refrain from acting malevolently.

But on what basis can it be morally wrong to slaughter animals?  Only if constitutes cruelty to the animal as compared to not having that practice.  But the animal in question would not exist if the first place, if humans had not raised it for that purpose - that is premise 2, which is a factual premise.    So the argument for the immorality of slaugher hinges on being able to claim that the aninal would be better off never existing in the first place - for how can animal slaughter be immoral vis the animal if the animal is better off for the practice existing?

Of course that argument goes only so far.  A life consisting entirely of being tortured in prison is probably not worth living.  So there are good arguments to be made that basic standards of decent treatment of farm animals are morally required.

Primarily, take issue with my factual premise #2.  Your first objection cites India - but "free cows" exist in India only because of Hinduism, a belief system that is far from ubiquitous.  In the real world, most places are more like Missouri than India.  If humans did not use cows for their own purposes, then outside India, most of those cows would never exist.  So the unique example of India is not a valid counter-argument; my argument is not based on the *impossibility* of maintaining cow existence outside human use, but only the unlikelihood of that occurring as a general matter.

You also point out correctly that cows would still be used for milk.  But that would still involve a very large reduction of the number of cows used in human agriculture.  There still would be many cows that would never come into being and with respect to those particular cows, you would still to argue that they are better off for that.

[The Brain]

Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical.  Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.

The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?

[Razgovory]

I can't imagine that being pumped with hormones and the milked by a machine is that pleasant (which is typical of dairy farms), even that is a form of exploitation.  As I said my friend was a vegan so even milk was verbotten.  Cows are fairly expensive to keep.  Most people wouldn't keep cattle if it wasn't profitable.  It would be similar to keeping large zoo animals.  There are not large numbers of giraffes or rhinos in the US.

[crazy canuck]

Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical.  Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.

The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?

Incest can also be between a parent and their child.

[Barrister]

Most people wouldn't keep cattle if it wasn't profitable. 

Someone should tell that to my brother-in-law.

[The Brain]

Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical.  Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.

The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?

Incest can also be between a parent and their child.

So if something can be done in a questionable manner it is in itself bad?

I assume you mean that the child is a minor.