Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy #42
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Yahya
I think the moral discussion here is all based on assumptions. The utilitarian framework is one that is based on an axiomatic position, and that is: what is harmful is that which is bad. I fail to see that as an established fact.
Since they-re working from assumptions one can also work from assumption and circumvent the problem of -I want to do whatever I want, - by saying that that which is desired is that which is good. And that can pretty much justify why I would eat a cow but not a cat, because I simply want. Of course, all these starting points are subjective, but given these facts, one can make claims within the frameworks that arise from those starting points.
I, of course, don-t follow that assumption.
And of course within the utilitarian framework, the statement of not eating animals is not entirely consistent. The utilitarian framework deals with pain and pleasure. And we can also add the principle of the greatest good for the
greatest number of people. That is a sound concept until you ask: are a hundred extremely happy people better than a billion almost miserable people? And after all, when we consume pleasure at the expense of the pain of animals, then we have maximized our pleasure. So then my question to you, the reader, is: is a great amount of pleasure okay if it is accompanied by a great amount of pain? And is it better or worse than substantially less pleasure accompanied by substantially less pain? Keep in mind that the utilitarian framework says that pleasure=good and pain=bad. Essentially what we're saying is: great evil and great good, small good and small evil
Food for thought
reply
I think the moral discussion here is all based on assumptions. The utilitarian framework is one that is based on an axiomatic position, and that is: what is harmful is that which is bad. I fail to see that as an established fact.
Since they-re working from assumptions one can also work from assumption and circumvent the problem of -I want to do whatever I want, - by saying that that which is desired is that which is good. And that can pretty much justify why I would eat a cow but not a cat, because I simply want. Of course, all these starting points are subjective, but given these facts, one can make claims within the frameworks that arise from those starting points.
I, of course, don-t follow that assumption.
And of course within the utilitarian framework, the statement of not eating animals is not entirely consistent. The utilitarian framework deals with pain and pleasure. And we can also add the principle of the greatest good for the
greatest number of people. That is a sound concept until you ask: are a hundred extremely happy people better than a billion almost miserable people? And after all, when we consume pleasure at the expense of the pain of animals, then we have maximized our pleasure. So then my question to you, the reader, is: is a great amount of pleasure okay if it is accompanied by a great amount of pain? And is it better or worse than substantially less pleasure accompanied by substantially less pain? Keep in mind that the utilitarian framework says that pleasure=good and pain=bad. Essentially what we're saying is: great evil and great good, small good and small evil
Food for thought
reply
Jack
Yes, the vegetarian side of the argument is not difficult to defend, but it isn't completely infallible. There are many examples of how human consumption of animals has had a morally positive impact in some form. First, let's talk about livestock. Animals such as cows and sheep are domesticated and would not likely survive (and definitely not survive at their current numbers) without human protection. These animals only are protected by humans because of their use to us, they are able to pass their genes onto their offspring without worry about their survival, which is an affordance most wild animals do not have. In this, human cultivation of livestock could be considered a mutually beneficial contract so long as the animals are treated humanly throughout their existence. What I am implying here is that while the consumption of animal products is not necessarily wrong, our current methods of mass-producing them are inexcusable. The second example I would like to bring up is animals such as deer, where humans have removed all of their natural predators and our hunting of them only serves to maintain balance in an ecosystem that we have a duty to maintain since we were the ones who sent it into imbalance into the first place.
Those are my two main arguments, I would love to hear any issues with them since I haven't found a good place to voice them and so they are likely somewhat flawed.
reply
Yes, the vegetarian side of the argument is not difficult to defend, but it isn't completely infallible. There are many examples of how human consumption of animals has had a morally positive impact in some form. First, let's talk about livestock. Animals such as cows and sheep are domesticated and would not likely survive (and definitely not survive at their current numbers) without human protection. These animals only are protected by humans because of their use to us, they are able to pass their genes onto their offspring without worry about their survival, which is an affordance most wild animals do not have. In this, human cultivation of livestock could be considered a mutually beneficial contract so long as the animals are treated humanly throughout their existence. What I am implying here is that while the consumption of animal products is not necessarily wrong, our current methods of mass-producing them are inexcusable. The second example I would like to bring up is animals such as deer, where humans have removed all of their natural predators and our hunting of them only serves to maintain balance in an ecosystem that we have a duty to maintain since we were the ones who sent it into imbalance into the first place.
Those are my two main arguments, I would love to hear any issues with them since I haven't found a good place to voice them and so they are likely somewhat flawed.
reply
Ethan
He never mentioned an argument against whether or not animals actually have the capability to suffer. Suffering is an experience that can only be present in a conscious mind. There are many unknowns around what make up a conscious perceiver/mind. We hypothesize that at least it's the capability of metacognition, Language and memory. There are no other animals on this planet that are capable of all of these things in the same way a human being is. Suffering requires a conscious perceiver to be defined as suffering, not a functional reaction to a given input in the brain of an animal. For example, When you have surgery and the doctor cuts you open while you're unconscious, the pain neurons and receptors are still firing in the same functional way they do while you're conscious and in the same way an animal's would. However, because you're unconscious, you aren't suffering. Therefor, animals incapable of having a conscious are also incapable of having experience of any kind at all. They are simply functional being that give behavioral outputs to specific inputs, much like a programmed computer.
reply
He never mentioned an argument against whether or not animals actually have the capability to suffer. Suffering is an experience that can only be present in a conscious mind. There are many unknowns around what make up a conscious perceiver/mind. We hypothesize that at least it's the capability of metacognition, Language and memory. There are no other animals on this planet that are capable of all of these things in the same way a human being is. Suffering requires a conscious perceiver to be defined as suffering, not a functional reaction to a given input in the brain of an animal. For example, When you have surgery and the doctor cuts you open while you're unconscious, the pain neurons and receptors are still firing in the same functional way they do while you're conscious and in the same way an animal's would. However, because you're unconscious, you aren't suffering. Therefor, animals incapable of having a conscious are also incapable of having experience of any kind at all. They are simply functional being that give behavioral outputs to specific inputs, much like a programmed computer.
reply
Chip
6: 55 the reason we would NOT eat our cat is NOT because we are a speciesist but rather because we don't know the risk involved or if it tastes funny or if its unappealing, to put it in perspective my friend eat his pet pig when it died. why because he knows it tastes good are there are no unknown risks involved, if you knew your cat taste like bacon and it was perfectly healthy to cook then you may consider it, I still wouldn't eat the cat in this scenario where it is healthy and taste like bacon but still again NOT because of the species but because of our relationship, I would eat other cats and so would everyone else if they tasted like bacon and had no unknown risks
reply
6: 55 the reason we would NOT eat our cat is NOT because we are a speciesist but rather because we don't know the risk involved or if it tastes funny or if its unappealing, to put it in perspective my friend eat his pet pig when it died. why because he knows it tastes good are there are no unknown risks involved, if you knew your cat taste like bacon and it was perfectly healthy to cook then you may consider it, I still wouldn't eat the cat in this scenario where it is healthy and taste like bacon but still again NOT because of the species but because of our relationship, I would eat other cats and so would everyone else if they tasted like bacon and had no unknown risks
reply
Anna
In my opinion, it comes down to personhood. My idea of personhood is that somebody becomes a person when there is someone who truly cares for/about them. Fluffy the cat is cared for by her humans - she is a person (though, I think there are different levels of personhood, and Fluffy isn't as much of a person as the family's human child) so you shouldn't eat her. A nameless cow in a huge herd does not have personhood - we don't need to feel guilty about killing it. However, its capacity to feel pain means we should try to avoid unnecessary cruelty - we shouldn't torture it to death, we should give it a clean death.
reply
In my opinion, it comes down to personhood. My idea of personhood is that somebody becomes a person when there is someone who truly cares for/about them. Fluffy the cat is cared for by her humans - she is a person (though, I think there are different levels of personhood, and Fluffy isn't as much of a person as the family's human child) so you shouldn't eat her. A nameless cow in a huge herd does not have personhood - we don't need to feel guilty about killing it. However, its capacity to feel pain means we should try to avoid unnecessary cruelty - we shouldn't torture it to death, we should give it a clean death.
reply
Jeremiah
The fact of the matter is that humans are made in God's image, and humans are not animals. That's why we have greater intellect and capacity for emotions and creativity. We can eat whatever animals we want as long as we don't eat their blood, and animal testing in itself isn't morally wrong. A righteous person takes care of his animals, but that doesn't mean that we can't test on animals within reason. If we test on an animal, and it becomes blind or is heavily injured, then we should put it to sleep so that it doesn't have to suffer pain. So we can test animals without violating morality.
reply
The fact of the matter is that humans are made in God's image, and humans are not animals. That's why we have greater intellect and capacity for emotions and creativity. We can eat whatever animals we want as long as we don't eat their blood, and animal testing in itself isn't morally wrong. A righteous person takes care of his animals, but that doesn't mean that we can't test on animals within reason. If we test on an animal, and it becomes blind or is heavily injured, then we should put it to sleep so that it doesn't have to suffer pain. So we can test animals without violating morality.
reply
kade
(ive never been the kinda guy to care about other peoples diets or lifestyles for the record, theres nothing wrong inherently for eating meat lol) that said
this video helped me make a rational decision to stop eating meat as soon as i can, which id considered for -years- but never got to because of my familys lifestyle and my own hesitation. ive always loved crash course philosophy but this was the first video to make such an immediate change in my actions and not just my beliefs. ty!
reply
(ive never been the kinda guy to care about other peoples diets or lifestyles for the record, theres nothing wrong inherently for eating meat lol) that said
this video helped me make a rational decision to stop eating meat as soon as i can, which id considered for -years- but never got to because of my familys lifestyle and my own hesitation. ive always loved crash course philosophy but this was the first video to make such an immediate change in my actions and not just my beliefs. ty!
reply
LifeWithOlga
I don't think its okay to use animals for entertaiment, fashion or other superficial desires but for food I'm okay with it thus far. Non-human animals eat each other and some animals eat us humans. They don't Need to eat us to survive either. Animals also don't eat certain kind of animals they also have a preferences and taste. We don't eat our pets because we have our relationship with them. Most farms kids keep that one chicken they love over others.
reply
I don't think its okay to use animals for entertaiment, fashion or other superficial desires but for food I'm okay with it thus far. Non-human animals eat each other and some animals eat us humans. They don't Need to eat us to survive either. Animals also don't eat certain kind of animals they also have a preferences and taste. We don't eat our pets because we have our relationship with them. Most farms kids keep that one chicken they love over others.
reply
Dave
On a more serious note: Would a pig or lion feel bad or morally unfair eating me? Does my rooster (not a euphamism) overthink waking me up at 4am and thereby causing me to suffer? Is morality the difference between humans and other animals? If that is the case, then moral philosophies that nonhuman animals possess cannot be the right philosophies.
reply
On a more serious note: Would a pig or lion feel bad or morally unfair eating me? Does my rooster (not a euphamism) overthink waking me up at 4am and thereby causing me to suffer? Is morality the difference between humans and other animals? If that is the case, then moral philosophies that nonhuman animals possess cannot be the right philosophies.
reply
Amandeep
i always thought it was strange that we think chinese eating dog is wrong, just as indians would think us eating cows is wrong and strange. And muslims think eating pork is strange and wrong. All or no animals should be eaten. I understand not eating your pet as you have a bond with it and consider it family. i am for eating all animals.
reply
i always thought it was strange that we think chinese eating dog is wrong, just as indians would think us eating cows is wrong and strange. And muslims think eating pork is strange and wrong. All or no animals should be eaten. I understand not eating your pet as you have a bond with it and consider it family. i am for eating all animals.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
