designing slaughterhouses to reduce suffering. that clearly makes no sense at all. the non-human animals are still marched off to a brutal, painful and sadistic death. to accommodate a pretended need for animal flesh, instead of what nature intended. there is nothing “humane” and decent about slaughterhouses, and those that design them. geeze.

Temple Grandin has no empathy, she just like pretending that she does. there is no dilemma, she is clearly an apologist for the slaughter of innocent animals. and she wouldn’t be on a lifelong “mission” to redesign slaughterhouses.

But notice what Grandin is doing. She *justifies* exploiting animals because, she writes, “the most important thing for an animal is the quality of its life.” The question is: why is this only true for nonhuman animals? For example, in the hypothetical you offered above, could we justify bringing that happy child into the world *for the end* of killing her at 16 for biomedical testing or, say, keeping her pretty happy throughout those 16 years while we occasionally remove non-vital pieces of her body for different purposes?

Either the child is compelled to live in the same dank, dark, fetid conditions as pigs or chickens are today – never knowing love or companionship, never allowed free movement, never experiencing sunlight or comfort or freedom from suffering. And at the end the child will die a painful violent death. However, that child will live a good long 70 years.

Or, the child will grow up in a loving family, with games in the sun, siblings and friends, fun things to discover about the world, a chance to run and play and climb, but that child will be given a lethal injection at 16.

Which do you think would be better? If death is the worse scenario for you, then you will choose number one. Personally I’d select number two. When the choice is this extreme, quality of life does outweigh mere quantity.

I’m not suggesting that in the real world we are compelled to make this choice on behalf of animals or humans. This is just a though experiment to see which fate you consider to be worse: Long, torturous life. Or short, happy, fulfilling life.

If death holds something better, kill yourself. You won’t because as you said, you don’t have that desire. nd this is most likely because you are living a good life…just like the animals Grandin makes “happy.” So it stands to reason that these animals don’t have the desire to die either. That is: death is a harm to them and Grandin (and you) are wrong.

Moreover, your argument about Grandin’s consistency is erroneous unless she argues that killing babies and so on is okay.

So what you call extremism is simple, straightforward logic.

I wanted to let this subject go, but after having a debate with a person who was so extremely religious and would not let go of his view to have an objective debate (BTW, it was on another subject)…I came to the realization that it might be unfair to ask that of anyone. The only way of really getting through a person, is only if you’re willing to understand where they’re coming from (especially when it mimics popular views)…but finding sense in your opponent’s argument can only make your case stronger as you are forced to find another way to argue it. To briefly touch on the subject I was not wanting to discuss…I think that is why hardcore extremists have trouble relating their beliefs to the average meat eater…they believe in their position so strongly that they’re not willing to see the other side…and the same goes on the other end.

But if your vision is to one day see a world of non-meat eaters (as far stretched as that sounds to me) this will only be accomplished by people like Temple Grandin. People who saw a part that could be fixed and went after it…after all, we’re not going to turn the world to non-meat eating people overnight, so in the meanwhile, I would think that non-meat eaters would be happy with a step towards not torturing or causing the animals excessive pain and in this case even making sure the animals are happy till the last breath. Temple took a step towards animal rights and my problem is with people criticizing that step…if the world ever stops eating meat it will be because of those first steps taken…future pupils will study her as one who took action towards this cause. And while I admire your efforts towards what you believe in, what have you done that has impacted animal treatment to the length of Temple‘s efforts? (Keep in mind that again…this is not something you can change over night…as I’m foreseeing a reply that goes along the lines of animal treatment should not be an issue in the first place as we should not be raising them to eat…and in that case my reply is. it is what it is as of now…so only comment on how it can be changed not on how you believe it should be….forgive me if my prediction is wrong.)

I understand wanting more, but if you can’t appreciate the steps that are required to get to more, then nothing will ever get accomplished.

Note the *key* qualifier: “may actually.” Exactly! Maybe you are right, BUT maybe you are wrong, and the death state *is* neutral, which I think is the only position that can be logically sustained (or perhaps it is worse). We should, then, adopt the precautionary principle because, as you said, there *might* be an afterlife and that *might* be better, and so on.

And since we DON’T know (because we CAN’T know) we ought to assume that death is a harm, especially when the person dying has a high quality of life, because *if* we are wrong, then the consequences are rather huge.

You wrote, “Temple believes an animal should die happy…”

But the only way Grandin can sustain her argument is by presupposing that death isn’t a harm, which I think is clearly false in most instances, especially for the animals Grandin has helped to make “happy.” Moreover, she is a speciesist *because* by parity of reasoning, Grandin can’t possibly say it is a bad thing to kill a baby or a mentally handicapped human so long as the death is painless, which she would *never* say because, in the final analysis, she is just trying to justify the status quo when it comes to our exploitation of animals.

but never mind that because I’m at a point of agreeing to disagree.

But that misses the point. Follow along: *If* you argue, as Ms. Grandin does, that quality of life matters, then by implication, quantity of life matters. If I am happy and healthy (i.e., I have a good quality of life) then it would be unreasonable to argue that I don’t, therefore, also want to KEEP being happy and healthy. Likewise, if I have a *poor* quality of life, then it would reasonable to argue that, therefore, I *don’t* want to keep living that life.

Re-read my syllogism: the death state is neutral so *if* you have a good quality of life *then* moving into a neutral state is a harm to you because GOOD is better than NEUTRAL. If you are suffering horrendously, on the hand, the neutral state is not a harm.

But the first version proves that death *can be a harm* sometimes. And that sometimes includes when Ms. Grandin creates situations for “happy animals” to die “happily.” When those “happy animals” die then death is a harm to them BECAUSE they are moving from a “happy” state to a neutral state.

I *never* argued that death is the “worst thing possible,” only that A) we should be cautious about saying death isn’t a harm, B) I think I’ve shown that *sometimes* death is a harm, and C) Ms. Grandin is a speciesist.

But it is extremely important to note that Ms. Grandin CAN’T use this argument to justify causing needless harm and death, say, by eating animals when non-animal sources of nutrition are widely available, *as she clearly tries to do*. Again, if one can still reasonably argue that *even if* death is not a harm, needlessly killing is prima facie wrong. Killing a baby, for example, even if death doesn’t harm that baby, just because you get some kind of pleasure from it, is prima facie immoral because that death is completely needless.

You said: “any argument that posits that *quality* of life matters implies that *quantity* of life matters.”

That is simply not true…I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase quantity over quality because there are many who have lived a long and depressing life while others had a short but fulfilling one.

You may want to have a long life, but that is not promised…the only thing a person can really do is to do their best to have a quality life…as even some of the fittest people die young.

You are right, there is no proof of some grand afterlife, but Temple Grandin is religious so her beliefs are consistent and logical in that sense. I’m not that religious, but I do believe that there is more to life than what we see…and for some people and animals a neutral state is better than their current existence. Do you think a neutral state is a peaceful one? How many people do you think live a peaceful life? Do you think that for some perhaps a neutral state is better than the chaotic life they currently live? Seeing how many people turn to suicide, I would answer that with a yes.

During slavery times runaways slaves would sometimes be with their whole family. There might be five kids and if there was a baby who would risk getting everyone caught, sometimes a mother would have to make the decision to kill the baby because they A) did not want a life of slavery for that baby and B) did not want all the other kids to get caught and to have to live a life of slavery. I can’t imagine being in that position in which I’d have to make that decision, but I can only imagine how at that moment “death is not the worst thing that can happen to my baby” could have been something that came across one of those mother’s minds.

I don’t want to get in the discussion of meat-eaters versus non-meat eaters because that part of your argument did not interest me, I’ve head it all many times before. I’m more interested in the fact that you have an issue with Temple Grandin’s statement about death not being the worst thing that can happen. I can think of about a million of other worst things which include the Ways people can die but not death itself, slavery, war, poverty (all things that only exist in the state of living). The worst thing that can happen is if the quality (which has nothing to do with quantity) of life is not a good one…I’ve found that people who have a great life (rich in the ways that matter) are less afraid to die.

You keep saying I’m wrong…but that’s your opinion and that’s fine. But I have a feeling that my opinions have me more at peace…so if being wrong has gained me that peace of mind, I’m happy to be it…and honestly, once again—animals do not process death the way that we do. Animals are way more at peace with their nature than humans could ever be…they accept the cycle of life.

That is, on your own reasoning: A) experiencing happiness or a good quality of life is good; B) the death state is permanently neutral, I argue, because positing an afterlife is not logically defensible; C) good is better than permanently neutral; and D) therefore when one is forced from a good state to a permanently neutral state, one is harmed. Ergo, death is a harm.

But yes, *if* Ms. Grandin applied her logic consistently, instead of obviously in a speciesist way, *then* her position would be more coherent — still wrong, but more coherent.

However, when using this argument to justify causing needless harm and death, say, by eating animals when non-animal sources of nutrition are widely available, one can still reasonably argue that *even if* death is not a harm, needlessly killing is prima facie wrong. Killing a baby, for example, even if death doesn’t harm that baby, just because you get some kind of pleasure from it, is prima facie immoral because that death is completely needless.