Foie Gras Ban/the Ethics of Foie Gras

[Mallet]

My general sense is that the "ridiculous luxury goods" sentiment is exactly what peta's tapping into. As with most farming operations, there are probably good, humane foie farms and piss poor / cruel ones. But such distinctions are uninteresting to a group that's interested in raising outrage to strengthen its support.

If it weren't for the unsympathetic luxury goods factor, peta would be going after run of the mill chicken operations. Purdue tortures more birds every five minutes than all the foie farmers in the country lay their hands on in a year.

But it it would be harder to get the the populace in an uproar over their own eating habits instead of the habits of the "overprivileged.'

I don't think that is a fair criticism. PETA does go after factory farming operations. In a big way, too.

[eatenmess]

i will take notice of this appeal as soon as PETA take notice of the crap they put out which is utter shite and then when they are forced by law or court to say what utter rubbish they just said they just release the world smallest statement saying they were slightly wrong.

i dont have to like or eat foie gras or veal etc, its just a step to make a small group of people feel theyve gained something somewhere along the line. who cares? who cares if eating or not eating meat is wrong or right? what will i change? id still eat what i eat even if it takes me to create it. funny thing is these protesters will vote liberal democrat. irony, its a blessing.

[daves]

Ah, the classic "slippery slope" argument is a false argument. Also unaware of any "right" to eat foie gras, which would be yet another false argument.

I'm curious why you think a "slippery slope" argument is a false argument. Is it the type of argument or this instance? You provide so little actual data supporting your statements that I couldn't tell.

In any case, it is well established that PETA's aim is to stop all meat consumption. All meat from farms. All hunting. All fishing. They truthfully state this as one of their campaigns on their website.

They are following a classic divide-and-conquer strategy toward this end. In this case, they are isolating a small portion of society ("ridiculous luxury goods for the overprivileged ranks") in order to establish a small victory. They are, of course, depending on an apathetic response from those not directly affected (and seen on this very thread!) in order to gain that victory. If and when they achieve it, they will constantly expand their campaign toward their stated goal.

Fascinating too that you would look to others to grant you the 'right' for what you decide to eat, especially for what has been produced from domesticated animals for hundreds of years. I prefer to eat by my own morality rather than PETA's.

At least I found a great deal of ironic humor in the notion that forcing a tube down a goose's throat and force-feeding it is part of "our natural omnivore diet."

I personally find it tragic when lack of knowledge results in "ironic humor". Our natural omnivore diet resulted in the domestication of animals about 10000 years ago IIRC. How we raise our livestock for food is indeed part of our natural history.

[Indirect Heat]

I'm curious why you think a "slippery slope" argument is a false argument. Is it the type of argument or this instance? You provide so little actual data supporting your statements that I couldn't tell.

I think generally speaking "slippery slope" arguments are considered a type of formal logical error. After all, slippery slope arguments cut both ways. While you can say, "First they came for my foie gras, then they came for my burger." you can also say, "First they force fed geese, then they stapled them to a wall and assaulted them with wiffle bats". Or whatever.

That said, I don't find anything particularly distasteful about the treatment of ducks and geese for foie gras. I think this problem can be solved by educating the public. Sadly, I'm not sure the public is interested in being educated.

[daves]

I think generally speaking "slippery slope" arguments are considered a type of formal logical error. After all, slippery slope arguments cut both ways. While you can say, "First they came for my foie gras, then they came for my burger." you can also say, "First they force fed geese, then they stapled them to a wall and assaulted them with wiffle bats". Or whatever.

Thanks Indirect Heat for the link. I didn't see my argument as a logical fallacy because, as the link says, "strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps". In this case, PETA is quite clear and vocal that their aim is to eliminate all animal products from our diets, so there is no need to travel from A to Z -- PETA is quite clear that Z (no meat) is their goal, and A (foie gras) is the start.

[Mallet]

Banning battery-type operations, whether it be from foie gras or for eggs, is a far step removed from the cessation of meat-eating. I certainly would not want to reject what I consider a perfectly valid argument (that that specific type of production is needlessly cruel) for no other reason than the fact that I disagree with their overall agenda. That locks us into a ideaological battle, which I find profoundly distasteful.

If you are willing to condone factory farming, then that's a separate discussion. If you don't, then you simply must accept that criticizing the production of foie gras in factory farms is perfectly legitimate. Criticism can be used to improve a system. After all, if all foie gras was produced in idyllic little family farms, with free range geese/poultry rushing to the gaveur for their feed, we would hardly be having this discussion.

[daves]

If you don't, then you simply must accept that criticizing the production of foie gras in factory farms is perfectly legitimate. Criticism can be used to improve a system. After all, if all foie gras was produced in idyllic little family farms, with free range geese/poultry rushing to the gaveur for their feed, we would hardly be having this discussion.

Mallet, you are presenting a reasonable argument that the type of production is an important point. While I would love to discuss the starvation and disease that would likely result from banning factory farms, that's another topic and I'm trying to keep the topic on foie gras bans. In any case, the efforts to ban foie gras do not attempt to ban a certain type of factory-like production. Instead, PETA's call to ban foie gras is regardless of the production method. They want to ban it all. Not just foie gras that was produced in factory farms, but *all* foie gras. Reason enough to condemn their goals in this case.

So I think you are mistaken: we would still be having this discussion even if all foie gras was produced in your idyllic setting, because PETA *still* wouldn't want the rest of us eating meat. Their publicly stated goal is to remove all animals and their products from our lives (including pets!). Their foie gras campaign is just one in their overall effort to force their morality upon all of us.

[Mallet]

We are not forced to take PETA's arguments on an all-or-nothing basis. The videos posted in the OP are (in my opinion) rightly provocative, and should provoke a desire to improve the conditions in those farms.

This is a definite improvement (and isn't some idyllic setting) (the link posted by jk1002 isn't working for me, for all I know this could be the same video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh_wJnQmETE

Keeping ducks confined in battery-type cages is simply not necessary. Obviously simply banning those cages would not appease PETA, but that's their problem, not mine. I certainly don't support a blanket ban on foie gras, but at the same time I think the industry must be sent a message that certain practices will not be tolerated.

It's possible to condemn PETA's overall agenda (I certainly do), while granting that certain practices should stop. Unfortunately, when the movement to continue producing foie gras becomes a license to allow all sorts of cruelty, I have a hard time support either side.

[Moopheus]

Heck, just about everything we talk about in this forum, from Japanese knives to organic heritage beans are ridiculous luxury goods for the overprivileged.

Right. It's practically our sole purpose to discuss the acquisition of ever-increasingly rarified luxury goods. Though the fact that basically anything that's not a product of an inhumane industrial process is seen as a "luxury good" is an indication of just why our world is quickly going to hell in a fruitbasket.

[violetfox]

On my list of things to worry about, ridiculous luxury goods for the overprivileged ranks as a pretty low priority.

Right. However, anyone telling me what I MAY and MAY NOT eat does concern me, quite a bit. It's politically correct (sort of) to eat factory farmed chicken, beef and pork, but it's NOT OK to eat foie gras? Nonsense.

While I'm on the subject, I'm baffled that anyone gives a goose's behind about celebrity pronouncements of this kind. Alicia Silverstone's "Kind Diet" - pffft.

[Dakki]

Heck, just about everything we talk about in this forum, from Japanese knives to organic heritage beans are ridiculous luxury goods for the overprivileged.

Right. It's practically our sole purpose to discuss the acquisition of ever-increasingly rarified luxury goods. Though the fact that basically anything that's not a product of an inhumane industrial process is seen as a "luxury good" is an indication of just why our world is quickly going to hell in a fruitbasket.

Right.

I agree that it's a shame industrial everything is replacing traditional production, but since trying to feed and clothe the world's population with pre-industrial methods is utterly impractical I think the main thing is to keep in mind that people like to see the stuff they choose to spend their discretionary income on as a necessity or a just a little luxury.

A goes to concerts every week, B has a giant plasma screen and a BluRay collection, C buys anything and everything Apple, D likes nice clothes, E needs a new "gaming rig" computer every year, E collects Beanie Babies, F hosts dinner parties and owns a lot of Le Creuset, G holds season tickets for the local sports team. Each one of them (if they think about it at all) thinks the others are fools for wasting their money like that.

So while I don't really consume foie gras (not because I'm virtuous, I just never acquired a taste for the stuff), I think it's unfair to condemn it on the grounds that only elitist decadent bougie bastards who probably vote for whatever political party I hate eat that junk, because I probably spend as much on other things that look just as stupid to an impartial observer.

I'd be perfectly willing to listen to arguments about the cruelty of gravage or the sanitation of battery-farm-produced foie gras, but I do expect the people making the arguments to be able to answer questions intelligently. Otherwise this just turns into an echo chamber where everyone just agrees dumbly and nobody learns anything and nobody's mind gets changed.

[Florida]

On my list of things to worry about, ridiculous luxury goods for the overprivileged ranks as a pretty low priority.

Right. However, anyone telling me what I MAY and MAY NOT eat does concern me, quite a bit. It's politically correct (sort of) to eat factory farmed chicken, beef and pork, but it's NOT OK to eat foie gras? Nonsense.While I'm on the subject, I'm baffled that anyone gives a goose's behind about celebrity pronouncements of this kind. Alicia Silverstone's "Kind Diet" - pffft.

And what concerns me is the use of false arguments to support an opposing viewpoint.

PETA does not condone factory farming. Saying “It's politically correct (sort of) to eat factory farmed chicken, beef and pork, but it's NOT OK to eat foie gras?” is a disingenuous statement, a statement which PETA 1) has never made and 2) would not agree with.

In full disclosure, I too enjoy foie gras on a very occasional basis. However, I am under no illusion that the consumption of foie is a “god given right.” I have the right to own guns, I have the right to tell a cop to go f*ck himself, I have the right to vote. I do not have the right to eat foie gras. As teenagers, we are all taught “driving is a privilege, not a right.” This is really no different, except for the fact the majority of Americans drive a car multiple times a day and probably have never and will never eat foie.

Also, I realize my answer is America-centric, but the simple fact is that I am familiar with American law and not English common/parliamentary law or whatever other form of law may be in your particular country of residence.

I think generally speaking "slippery slope" arguments are considered a type of formal logical error. After all, slippery slope arguments cut both ways. While you can say, "First they came for my foie gras, then they came for my burger." you can also say, "First they force fed geese, then they stapled them to a wall and assaulted them with wiffle bats". Or whatever.

Thanks Indirect Heat for the link. I didn't see my argument as a logical fallacy because, as the link says, "strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps". In this case, PETA is quite clear and vocal that their aim is to eliminate all animal products from our diets, so there is no need to travel from A to Z -- PETA is quite clear that Z (no meat) is their goal, and A (foie gras) is the start.

Sorry, but citing the very thing (the improbable conclusion) is the exact reason why the argument is false. It doesn’t matter what PETA says. They could say their ultimate goal is for every person on the globe to stop eating all together because even the consumption of a grain of rice is murder of the grain of rice. It simply doesn’t matter what they say. What does matter is the viability of the final conclusion – that being for everyone to become a vegetarian. Since there is a virtually zero chance PETA would ever succeed in this, the argument is false.

And if any argument on this thread is going be based upon either slandering PETA or insinuating some highly improbable grand doom circumstance, then those arguments are going to be called out for the intrinsic weakness on which they rely.

[paulraphael]

My general sense is that the "ridiculous luxury goods" sentiment is exactly what peta's tapping into. As with most farming operations, there are probably good, humane foie farms and piss poor / cruel ones. But such distinctions are uninteresting to a group that's interested in raising outrage to strengthen its support.

If it weren't for the unsympathetic luxury goods factor, peta would be going after run of the mill chicken operations. Purdue tortures more birds every five minutes than all the foie farmers in the country lay their hands on in a year.

But it it would be harder to get the the populace in an uproar over their own eating habits instead of the habits of the "overprivileged.'

I don't think that is a fair criticism. PETA does go after factory farming operations. In a big way, too.

Not in a parallel way. They are hoping ban production of foie, yes? I don't believe they're trying to ban the production of chicken (even though it's likely their wish).

[paulraphael]

Both sides of this arguement are frought with logical faceplants and sweeping assumptions.

I think we need to take a step back from all the loaded language. There are really two issues here: cruelty, and freedom of choice.

"Factory farming" is not the issue. It can't be. The world needs factory farming to feed even half the current population, so zealots need to drop the pastorial utopian fantasies of going back to traditional farming as soon as possible, lest they pollute this argument into an even darker pool of nonsense. We are stuck with industrial agriculture, period--so the question is, how can we do it better? How can we be efficient without torturing animals and polluting the environment? This is the only line of questioning that's going to get us anywhere.

As far as foie goes, we should first consider that in a world full of major farming issues, this is a minute one. A tempest in a teapot. That said, there are live geese in that teapot, and paying consumers, so we might as well address it.

A question that needs to be answered without bias is if foie production is inherently cruel. I personally doubt it, but don't claim any authority. A separate question is if it is often or sometimes cruel in practice. This seems likely. If we are cruel to chickens and steers, we are probably also cruel to geese. I would like to see this cruelty abolished, and I'm willing to see higher prices as a result. But this in no way constitutes a logical argument against rasing these creatures for food, or even against doing it with industrial efficiency. It's simply a call for standards of animal husbandry.

Feedom of choice? We have gobs of it when it comes to food, but we don't have any guarantees of it, or reasons to expect it to be limitless. We are not allowed to eat endangered animals. We are not allowed to eat the neighbor's children. And so on. I'm a lot more comfortable in a world where standards besides our senses of entitlement exert force on the market.

[daves]

In full disclosure, I too enjoy foie gras on a very occasional basis. However, I am under no illusion that the consumption of foie is a “god given right.” I have the right to own guns, I have the right to tell a cop to go f*ck himself, I have the right to vote. I do not have the right to eat foie gras. As teenagers, we are all taught “driving is a privilege, not a right.” This is really no different, except for the fact the majority of Americans drive a car multiple times a day and probably have never and will never eat foie.

Silly comparison, but I can see how you arrived at it. Perhaps our world views are so completely different that you cannot understand the point some are making. From reading your statements comparing the right to eat foie gras to rights spells out in the Constitution, it seems you believe that you only have the rights explicitly given to you. I believe we have all rights except for those explicitly taken away. Since there are no laws right now limiting my right to eat foie gras (at least in most places), then I do claim that right, and no amount of foot stamping from others will take it away. If they attempt to get laws passed that will take it away, I will fight to maintain that right.

Sorry, but citing the very thing (the improbable conclusion) is the exact reason why the argument is false. It doesn’t matter what PETA says. They could say their ultimate goal is for every person on the globe to stop eating all together because even the consumption of a grain of rice is murder of the grain of rice. It simply doesn’t matter what they say. What does matter is the viability of the final conclusion – that being for everyone to become a vegetarian. Since there is a virtually zero chance PETA would ever succeed in this, the argument is false.

And if any argument on this thread is going be based upon either slandering PETA or insinuating some highly improbable grand doom circumstance, then those arguments are going to be called out for the intrinsic weakness on which they rely.

It is offensive that you argue against your own strawman arguments. You quote "god given right" -- although only you brought up the strawman. Even better was your own insinuation that someone was "slandering PETA" when the data is on PETA's own web site.

Your conclusion that PETA has virtually zero chance of success reveals your lack of understand of the political nature of their campaign. You shouldn't be so naive about the political nature of the FDA (hint: "administration"). Getting foie gras banned establishes a precedent for future bans. And if you think that they will not use a precedent to try to achieve their overall goal...

[Florida]

My general sense is that the "ridiculous luxury goods" sentiment is exactly what peta's tapping into. As with most farming operations, there are probably good, humane foie farms and piss poor / cruel ones. But such distinctions are uninteresting to a group that's interested in raising outrage to strengthen its support.

If it weren't for the unsympathetic luxury goods factor, peta would be going after run of the mill chicken operations. Purdue tortures more birds every five minutes than all the foie farmers in the country lay their hands on in a year.

But it it would be harder to get the the populace in an uproar over their own eating habits instead of the habits of the "overprivileged.'

I don't think that is a fair criticism. PETA does go after factory farming operations. In a big way, too.

Not in a parallel way. They are hoping ban production of foie, yes? I don't believe they're trying to ban the production of chicken (even though it's likely their wish).

No.

From PETA's website:

"Oscar-winner Kate Winslet is following in the footsteps of other great actors, including Sir Roger Moore, in urging consumers and retailers to drop foie gras. She narrates this PETA exclusive video revealing undercover investigation footage of the cruelty that is endured by ducks and geese who are abused for this delicacy of despair."

Not banning foie.

Not proposing or supporting any legislation to ban foie, but urging consumers and retailers to not eat/sell foie.

Notice the lack of oppression. Notice that free will and choice in the matter still exist. Notice yet another false argument.

[daves]

I think we need to take a step back from all the loaded language. There are really two issues here: cruelty, and freedom of choice.

Actually Paul, the OP was quite clear that the issue at hand is the PETA campaign to ban foie gras, that this campaign might drive production to Chinese factory farms, and a later implication that PETA was imposing their morality onto your dietary decisions.

For some, their decision to support/oppose PETA on this issue relies only on this issue, and they can look at the issue in a vacuum. They will weigh the cruelty of the operation and likely their own personal stake in the outcome to make a decision.

You seem to be on this path.

I'm on a different path. I'll try to answer the same cruelty issue as you, and likely conclude that cruel husbandry is bad and should be banned. But those geese didn't look abused in the video, so I'd have a hard time supporting a blanket ban of the product.

Second, I would also look to see what rights are being limited. As mentioned up-thread, I have all rights except those removed. So don't worry: there will be no eating of endangered animals or the neighbor's children. But I do have the right, and I'll support others' rights to eat foie gras, with emphasis on the second part since I really don't even like it

And if you think this comes from a sense of entitlement, you're sadly mistaken. It comes from a deep sense of trust that others are able to be guided by their own morals rather than forcing mine upon them. In the scheme of things edible, I have every reason to not let PETA force their morals onto my plate.

[daves]

Not banning foie.

Not proposing or supporting any legislation to ban foie, but urging consumers and retailers to not eat/sell foie.

Notice the lack of oppression. Notice that free will and choice in the matter still exist. Notice yet another false argument.

No.

Supporting legislation banning serving foie gras:

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/05/save_chicagos_b.php

Supporting legislation banning production of foie gras:

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=97

"Contact PETA for a foie gras action pack and for information on how you can support legislation to prohibit force-feeding."

Further attempts to legislate what is on your plate:

http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/ActionAlerts-item.asp?id=3046

Note the website these are hosted on. I'm sure there are many more examples, but this is all I came up with in 10 seconds...

[Dakki]

I think most of us can agree PETA are a bunch of fanatics with an insane cause and the slebs who support them are naive muppets at best.

That said, we can't dismiss the foie gras thing on just those grounds. That would be an ad hominem argument.

And before anyone assumes otherwise I'm still pro-foie on the grounds that you better have a damn good reason for forbidding something. I'm just willing to listen to people who can tell me what that reason is.

[godito]

If we start any argument by saying that it's cruel to eat any animal unless it's the only aailable food, then PETA's right. But I don't believe that. I think we need to be more respectful of the food we eat (many of my customers won't eat innadrs, for instance, but they sure like the T-Bone, so we kill a whole cow only for a few selected cuts? That's cruel!)

As far as foie gras goes, I visited Hudson Valley's duck farm, and I didn't see the animals being treated with cruelty or disrespect (at least as compared to a couple of chicken farms I've seen). I think there should be more regulation on how we treat the animals we eat. Had we done so in the past, mad cow's decease and other dangerous illnesses might have never occured. I would just make a strict regulation on how a duck must be fed in order to obtain foie gras.

I think most of us can agree PETA are a bunch of fanatics with an insane cause and the slebs who support them are naive muppets at best.

+ 1/2.

Only half because I agree they are insane fanatics, but they have a strong intellectual supporting crew that get's listened to when they speak. And at least a few of them are well educated and eloquent.

Edited April 26, 2010 by godito (log)

[paulraphael]

It comes from a deep sense of trust that others are able to be guided by their own morals rather than forcing mine upon them. In the scheme of things edible, I have every reason to not let PETA force their morals onto my plate.

This sounds to me like a gentle way to express cultural relativism ... a version of the arguements that have been used (and continue to be used) to morally justify phenomena like apartheid, oppression of women, ivory trafficking, whaling for endangered species, child prostitution ...

We're not talking about people's moral rights to behaviors that don't affect anyone else. This isn't about what consenting couples do behind closed doors. It's about something has a concrete impact on someone / something besides ourselves, so an argument based on moral relativism strikes me as a deeply specious one. It's akin to saying, "well, if you don't believe in torturing, don't do it, but don't tell me what to do."

I'm not using this as an argument for or against foie ... it's a meta-argument for the notion that issues like cruelty to animals are a perfectly reasonable candidate for top-down legislation, rather than being left to personal choice.

Edited April 26, 2010 by paulraphael (log)

[paulraphael]

I think most of us can agree PETA are a bunch of fanatics with an insane cause and the slebs who support them are naive muppets at best.

That said, we can't dismiss the foie gras thing on just those grounds. That would be an ad hominem argument.

Yes .. althogh peta acually stands for a good cause (anti-cruelty). Unfortunately their approach to advocacy is fanatical, and therefore entirely self-defeating. They make enemies with people who could be their friends; they alienate majorities in order to embrace likeminded minorities; they take extreme and unwinable positions rather than reasonable ones that could succeed.

It's too bad. I wish there was an animal rights group that stood for animal husbandry and humane raising of livestock, and that based its positions on reason rather than hysteria.

Edited April 26, 2010 by paulraphael (log)

[SuperdavE]

I am all for good, delicious food and am also for treating animals well. PETA makes it seem like that putting a tube down water fowls' throats is horrible and disgusting when, in fact, ducks and geese naturally gorge themselves before winter to prepare for their long journey. Their esophaguses (esophagii?) are able to stretch without any harm to the bird.

I have heard some bad things about Hudson Valley lately and thats why the restaurant that I cook at switched to Sonoma Valley for our foie. I believe that you can love animals and foie simultaniously and that tree huggers and PETA go completely overboard with their B.S. petitions and bans.

Foie Gras is safe to animals and also delicious. Let's keep it around.

[Dakki]

I'm not sure PETA is merely anti-cruelty. My impression is that they equate the value of animal and human well-being and reject the exploitation of animals for any purpose. That's definitely not a good cause IMHO.

The strategy of proselytizing against luxury goods like furs and foie instead of (say) leather shoes and fast-food burgers seems to work, too.

They've done a bit of good in the past by bringing public attention to cruel practices in agriculture and animal testing laboratories but their principles are morally repugnant to me. But hey, just because Hitler built the Autobahn doesn't mean highways are wrong.

(Having invoked Godwin's Law, the circle is now complete! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)

[paulraphael]

I'm not sure PETA is merely anti-cruelty...

I think we're saying more or less the same thing. Their cause is anti-cruelty / animal rights, but their definitions of cruelty and animal rights are stupefyingly broad.