Comments on: Open thread: question for discussion

By: Jesse Walker

Jesse Walker — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:54:51 +0000

Isn't there a difference between a ban on foie gras production and a ban on foie gras consumption? The former is comparable to a ban on dogfighting; the latter is more like a ban on buying dogfighting videos.

By: Gino

Gino — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:47:19 +0000

I’ll take a stab at it. There really is no good distinction. Animals are chattles, and while we should not condone animal fighting for entertainment, we also shouldn’t tell other people what to do with their property. The idea that there needn’t always be a law for every evil is somewhere very near the core of libertarianism.

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:15:00 +0000

The tit-for-tat argument suggests we should be eating dogs, but leaving cows alone.

Not that I have a better rationalization.

By: markm

markm — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:11:22 +0000

In regards to meat production, remember that animals eat each other. A hog would eat you if he got the chance. And they rarely kill as cleanly as a slaughterhouse does, or even as a skilled hunter aims to.

OTOH, when humans decide to torture something, we can be far more cruel than any animal.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:29:48 +0000

“I see no distinction between dogfighting and foie gras. Therefore, I do not think dogfighting should be illegal.”

Got to go with that one, myself. I don’t care for dogfighting, but I care for invasive government less.

There is actually a fairly long list of things and behaviours I wish would end that I would nontheless not wish the government to prohibit.

By: Bumper

Bumper — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:54:17 +0000

Given that within the many cultures of this planet almost every creature that one culture finds objectionable another finds tasty, rationale is trumped by rationalization and where and who you grew up with counts for most of our culinary choices. And anyway as we learned at the movies, when it comes to pigs it’s really all about personality.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:53:24 +0000

These are extremely tough issues, and really do test our ability to find consistency and to live a life of intellectual honesty.

I eat meat, though for four weeks I didn’t. Those were the worst four weeks of my life. I need meat to function. If it’s between me and the animals, I’m choosing myself.

That said, I don’t believe in causing suffering or pain. There is enough of that in the world without my contribution. So I don’t eat foie gras, veal, or factory-produced chickens.

I want the animals I eat to live the best possibles lives – until their throats are slit.

It’s not perfect, and I truly wish I did not have the need to eat meat. But I do. Since I don’t have the need to eat veal and other indulgences that are produced by causing extreme suffering to a living being, I don’t.

But it’s an odd case. Usually something is morally wrong qua morally wrong. I don’t abuse children and I won’t associate with those who do. Yet I don’t judge the people next to me who order foie gras or veal.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:17:38 +0000

This is another version of the question “where do you find the right to drink water in the Constitution”? On what principled grounds can you argue that the State can prohibit children from drinking alcohol but not water?

If you accept that the State can prohibit some animal cruelty but that complete animal freedom is impossible, you have to draw the line somewhere. Most rational people can agree on the two extremes, but no two people will draw the line in precisely the same place.

By: Bill S

Bill S — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:13:39 +0000

The idea that cruelty has to be an “all or nothing” standard is simplistic.

Boxing Legal – Streetfighting Illegal
Hunting Legal – Hunting so as to deliberately maim and injure animals – Illegal.

With dogfighting, society has chosed to label the activity as having no redeeming quality or purpose. (Rightfully).

With foie gras, society has determined (for now) the production methods are not “over the line.”

By: Another Attorney

Another Attorney — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:09:45 +0000

Some of the libertarians discussing this issue have argued that rights exist on a continuum, based on the organism’s level of sentience: a bird has more rights than a roach, but fewer than a dolphin. Under that scheme, fois gras may be acceptable because geese are stupider than dogs. (Pigs, of course, are smarter, which would militate against bacon.)

There is also some disagreement about whether fois gras necessarily involves pain and cruelty to the bird (there were statements by some farmers that their geese come running for gavage).