Fatty livers of force-fed ducks and geese

Brazil: Foie gras banned in Sao Paulo restaurants

Legislators in Brazil's largest city, Sao Paulo, have banned the production and sale of foie gras, a delicacy made from the fatty liver of force-fed ducks and geese. City councillors said animals go through a great deal of suffering for the production of the pate. Animal rights campaigners have hailed the move, but some of Sao Paulo's best-known chefs have voiced concern. ~ BBC

Eating animals is one thing, perhaps; but what about the degree of suffering involved in processing animals as food for humans? Is it a concern for you ~ and what are the philosophical and/or spiritual considerations in your mind?

What are the moral dimensions to this issue? Are there any specific standards ~ be they spiritual or otherwise ~ by which human behaviour can measure itself?

@fmf said
What are the moral dimensions to this issue? Are there any specific standards ~ be they spiritual or otherwise ~ by which human behaviour can measure itself?

The Bible says that man was given dominion over the animals. We were to be their shepherds. The moral implication is that we do not cause them undue pain and suffering. But humans can't even keep from inflicting pain and suffering on other humans. We seem spectacularly unfit to be the "shepherds" of the planet's creatures.

Good for Sao Paulo.

@suzianne said
The Bible says that man was given dominion over the animals. We were to be their shepherds. The moral implication is that we do not cause them undue pain and suffering. But humans can't even keep from inflicting pain and suffering on other humans. We seem spectacularly unfit to be the "shepherds" of the planet's creatures.

Good for Sao Paulo.

In many parts of the world, livestock are kept in conditions which, if they were humans, would be called concentration camps. Not a nice thing to be doing to them. We also perform experiments on animals which would be unconscionable on humans. The standard argument is that much human suffering is alleviated thereby, discounting the suffering of the animals. Human insensitivity to animals is appalling.

@moonbus said
Human insensitivity to animals is appalling.

A couple of questions purely for the purpose of seeing that the breeze is shot on this issue:

What do you think about the use of rat poison?

Do you think humans need to exercise some sensitivity with insects?

@moonbus said
We also perform experiments on animals which would be unconscionable on humans.

Do you think this unconscionable human behaviour should be tackled by assigning rights to animals [even though, as non-human creatures, they can't assume any corresponding responsibilities]?

Or do you think it should be tackled by restricting the rights of humans [and creating responsibilities] based on what is and isn't deemed conscionable?

@fmf said
A couple of questions purely for the purpose of seeing that the breeze is shot on this issue:

A true seer sees variously and is not concerned about shifting winds.

@fmf said
Do you think this unconscionable human behaviour should be tackled by assigning rights to animals [even though, as non-human creatures, they can't assume any corresponding responsibilities]?

Or do you think it should be tackled by restricting the rights of humans [and creating responsibilities] based on what is and isn't deemed conscionable?

1. No, animals do not have rights. It makes no sense to talk about giving them rights either. Only moral agents have rights, and animals are not moral agents.

The right way to think about it is to compare it with burning books. Burning books to prevent people from coning in contact with contrary ideas, is a stupid way of defending an ideology. Now, would it make sense to say that books need a right not to be burned? Of course not. That’s looking through the telescope from the wrong end. It’s not the books which should not be burned; it’s the people who want to burn books who need to see that preventing people from reading contrary ideas is not the best way to defend their own ideology.

Similarly, it’s not animals which need rights not to be experimented on. It’s people who need to see that this is cruelty, and they should stop being cruel. Not because animals have or should have rights, but because cruelty is an intrinsic evil.

@moonbus said
No, animals do not have rights. It makes no sense to talk about giving them rights either. Only moral agents have rights, and animals are not moral agents.

Good. I agree with you. Several years ago I was besieged by several posters who believed quite stridently that animals DO have rights and who thought my rationale - that animals cannot comprehend or accept the responsibilities that correspond to rights - meant that I believed that people in comas and babies do not have human rights.

@fmf said
Do you think this unconscionable human behaviour should be tackled by assigning rights to animals [even though, as non-human creatures, they can't assume any corresponding responsibilities]?

Or do you think it should be tackled by restricting the rights of humans [and creating responsibilities] based on what is and isn't deemed conscionable?

2. No again, restricting rights of people to experiment on animals is nonsense. People have no such right to start with. They have a right to freedom of religion, press, to keep and bear arms (in some countries), etc., but there is no right per se to experiment on animals.

Your bracketed remark holds the essential insight here: making people aware of their responsibility as moral agents is the way forward. As moral agents, we have a responsibility not to increase gratuitous suffering in the world.

@fmf said
Good. I agree with you. Several years ago I was besieged by several posters who believed quite stridently that animals DO have rights and who thought my rationale - that animals cannot comprehend or accept the responsibilities that correspond to rights - meant that I believed that people in comas and babies do not have human rights.

Lol. Some people have a very confused notion of rights, as if they were benefits the government hands out to people for good behavior.

@moonbus said
2. No again, restricting rights of people to experiment on animals is nonsense. People have no such right to start with.

Let's put experimenting and cruel forms of slaughter [there is presumably no right to do these things] at one end of a scale or spectrum and then shearing a poodle to make it look utterly ridiculous or putting a little tartan waistcoat on a Siamese cat [humans presumably have the right to do these things] at the other end of the spectrum. What lies in the grey areas ~ in between ~ for you?

@fmf said
Let's put experimenting and cruel forms of slaughter [there is no right] at one end of a scale or spectrum and then shearing a poodle to make it look utterly ridiculous or putting a little tartan waistcoat on a Siamese cat [humans presumably have the right to do these things] at the other end of the spectrum. What lies in the grey areas ~ in between ~ for you?

There is a broad field of gray, on the one edge of which are drug trials on humans who have been informed of the risks and who have consented, which is unproblematic, and on the other edge of which we spray pesticides on crops to eliminate ‘vermin’ and later discover that bee populations are dying out. Bees are primary pollinators, and if bees go extinct, we will have a very much harder time thriving here, too. Which is problematic. So our definition of ‘vermin’ has to change.

I have no qualms about swatting a possibly malaria-infected mosquito. I do not have to tolerate an animal, including a possibility fatal insect bite, that threatens to kill or maim me.

Making poodles look ridiculous is a matter of taste. I would not presume to make tastelessness a crime, but neither would I go to a dog show specifically about that sort of grooming.

Have you seen the movie Little Miss Sunshine? There really are parents who press their kids into the most tasteless competitions. Must be traumatizing for some of the kids. That’s a borderline case for me. I would not ban such competitions. I just wish parents would grow up and love their kids unconditionally without the kids having to ‘perform tricks’ to gratify their parents.

Please excuse typos. I’m working on a smartphone this morning, with an awkwardly tiny virtual keyboard.

@fmf said
Let's put experimenting and cruel forms of slaughter [there is presumably no right to do these things] at one end of a scale or spectrum and then shearing a poodle to make it look utterly ridiculous or putting a little tartan waistcoat on a Siamese cat [humans presumably have the right to do these things] at the other end of the spectrum. What lies in the grey areas ~ in between ~ for you?

We are in a privileged position, being at the top of the food chain, but being conscious agents we also bear a heavy responsibility to ensure that we do not spoil the biosphere. Any organism which overpopulates its habitat and spews out too much waste, insures its own extinction. We are no exception to this, but we carry-on as if we could multiply our population and our waste indefinitely.
The human population is already too large for this planet, and worldwide population control is absolutely essential if we are to survive here for the next thousand years. How to organize worldwide population control, whether through contraception or culling or draconian restrictions on the number of children per family, is a problematic area.