I agree that the same points could have been made in a less counterproductive way. Specifically, I found them a bit aggressive and condescending (like âgotcha!â). I can see how this could warrant a temporary ban. (I donât have strong views either way about whether it should.)
I also agree that âforcibly impregnatingâ is graphic and Iâm not sure if itâs even generally accurate for animal agriculture, since I expect milder reactions from farmed animals than âforciblyâ suggests.
However â and I donât know if you had them in mind, so you can correct me if you didnât â the other terms, like âbreedingâ, âkillingâ and âeatingâ, donât really have any better alternatives for making the same points. Theyâre also standard terms in both animal ethics and animal agriculture (well, âslaughterâ instead of âkillingâ, and âslaughterâ is both more precise and graphic, or sometimes âdispatchâ, âprocessâ or âharvestâ, which are much less precise/âdescriptive and less graphic; and âmurderâ isnât applicable to nonhuman animals, because it refers to unlawful killing.) I donât think we should deter people from using them.
(EDITED)
Iâm not sure either way whether the example you pointed out was a reasonable interpretation of what Vasco wrote, but I think thatâs what votes and explanations should be used for, unless it becomes a disruptive pattern. Vasco did refer to both reasons applying to the direct victims and reasons applying to others affected, and the OP is mostly about whether or not the effects on others are generally more important than the effects on farmed animals.
I agree that the same points could have been made in a less counterproductive way. Specifically, I found them a bit aggressive and condescending (like âgotcha!â). I can see how this could warrant a temporary ban. (I donât have strong views either way about whether it should.)
This is my view too.
However â and I donât know if you had them in mind, so you can correct me if you didnât â the other terms, like âbreedingâ, âkillingâ and âeatingâ, donât really have any better alternatives for making the same points.
On the one hand, I believe applying the same terms to both humans and non-human animals is helpful to break speciesism. On the other, it can be offensive to people who attribbute quite different moral weights to humans and non-human animals (I do not).
Furthermore, my understanding from Vascoâs writing and comments is that heâs a classical utilitarian or close, so the replaceability argument should apply in principle even to humans, as long as the average human life-moment isnât worse, or greater numbers can make up for a worse average.
Agreed. To clarify, I strongly endorse expectational total hedonistic utilitarianism (which I think is the same as classical utilitarianism).
This is basically what matty pointed out in the last comment, and it seems worth it for Vasco to explicitly consider and respond to this point. Vasco did call it uncooperative, both if done to humans and to other humans.
Good point! I had not realised that, possibly because of the tone. I will reply.
Hey Vasco, I edited my response around when you were replying, and replaced the bottom part of my comment. What I had before and decided to replace wasnât useful/ârelevant in response to Lizka. Iâm just flagging this for you, but feel free to leave your comment as is.
I agree that the same points could have been made in a less counterproductive way. Specifically, I found them a bit aggressive and condescending (like âgotcha!â). I can see how this could warrant a temporary ban. (I donât have strong views either way about whether it should.)
I also agree that âforcibly impregnatingâ is graphic and Iâm not sure if itâs even generally accurate for animal agriculture, since I expect milder reactions from farmed animals than âforciblyâ suggests.
However â and I donât know if you had them in mind, so you can correct me if you didnât â the other terms, like âbreedingâ, âkillingâ and âeatingâ, donât really have any better alternatives for making the same points. Theyâre also standard terms in both animal ethics and animal agriculture (well, âslaughterâ instead of âkillingâ, and âslaughterâ is both more precise and graphic, or sometimes âdispatchâ, âprocessâ or âharvestâ, which are much less precise/âdescriptive and less graphic; and âmurderâ isnât applicable to nonhuman animals, because it refers to unlawful killing.) I donât think we should deter people from using them.
(EDITED)
Iâm not sure either way whether the example you pointed out was a reasonable interpretation of what Vasco wrote, but I think thatâs what votes and explanations should be used for, unless it becomes a disruptive pattern. Vasco did refer to both reasons applying to the direct victims and reasons applying to others affected, and the OP is mostly about whether or not the effects on others are generally more important than the effects on farmed animals.
Thanks for commenting, Michael.
This is my view too.
On the one hand, I believe applying the same terms to both humans and non-human animals is helpful to break speciesism. On the other, it can be offensive to people who attribbute quite different moral weights to humans and non-human animals (I do not).
Agreed. To clarify, I strongly endorse expectational total hedonistic utilitarianism (which I think is the same as classical utilitarianism).
Good point! I had not realised that, possibly because of the tone. I will reply.
Hey Vasco, I edited my response around when you were replying, and replaced the bottom part of my comment. What I had before and decided to replace wasnât useful/ârelevant in response to Lizka. Iâm just flagging this for you, but feel free to leave your comment as is.