Burney, your analogy between our treatment of animals and prostitution seems flawed

[Burney]

to me.

For our attitudes towards the former to move closer to the latter doesn’t necessarily require us to “willingly forego the pleasures” of eating animals. It can merely require a shift in attitudes to those who do and who are otherwise involved in the practice.

So, in the case of prostitution, it may still be partaken of by millions around the world, but you pay a huge social (and often professional) price in this becoming public knowledge. And if you are involved in the operations side of prostitution (pimp, sex trafficker) then you pay an even greater price.

Is it not conceivable that our attitude to eating dead animal flesh will go down a similar route in the future, whereby millions will still eat animals but will receive a level of opprobrium for doing so that doesn’t exist today?

And if you are involved in the operations side of eating animals - say a factory farmer or a KFC worker - you will simply become a social pariah in any social situation in which you reveal your occupation?

It wasn't an analogy, it was a benchmark of how, as a species, we are disinclined to allow questions of ethics to dominate our need to satiate our natural desires for pleasure. The point is that, after 10,000 years of civilisation, if we have only come that far on the commoditisation of human beings, how much further away do you think a worldwide moratorium on the commoditisation of animals is?

[Ash]

It wasn't an analogy, it was a benchmark of how, as a species, we are disinclined to allow questions of ethics to dominate our need to satiate our natural desires for pleasure. The point is that, after 10,000 years of civilisation, if we have only come that far on the commoditisation of human beings, how much further away do you think a worldwide moratorium on the commoditisation of animals is?

As long as there is a labour market, there will be 'commoditisation of human beings' as you put it. Some marital relationships could also be described thus. Prostitution doesn't have to be unethical.

[Burney]

As long as there is a labour market, there will be 'commoditisation of human beings' as you put it. Some marital relationships could also be described thus. Prostitution doesn't have to be unethical.

That argument relies for validity on the idea that there is no essential ethical difference between asking someone to sit at a computer terminal or operate a lathe for money and asking them to suck your cock for money. I would suggest that is a somewhat naive view.

[Ash]

That argument relies for validity on the idea that there is no essential ethical difference between asking someone to sit at a computer terminal or operate a lathe for money and asking them to suck you cock for money. I would suggest that is a somewhat naive view.

I used to know (in a non-commercial sense) a lady of negotiable affection who enjoyed her job and made tons of money from it. If a woman who was not unattractive offered you substantial readies in return for certain sexual services that it would not bother you to provide, would it come down to a matter of principle or price? (Your personal relationship commitments notwithstanding)

[Burney]

I used to know (in a non-commercial sense) a lady of negotiable affection who enjoyed her job and made tons of money from it. If a woman who was not unattractive offered you substantial readies in return for certain sexual services that it would not bother you to provide, would it come down to a matter of principle or price? (Your personal relationship commitments notwithstanding)

The principle is that you are taking something to which as humans we give real emotional weight and value, are stripping it of all emotion and turning it into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. The level of emotional disconnection that requires and the damage it must do to other parts of your life and view of the world seems to me a high price in and of itself.

[Monty92]

The principle is that you are taking something to which as humans we give real emotional weight and value, are stripping it of all emotion and turning it into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. The level of emotional disconnection that requires and the damage it must do to other parts of your life and view of the world seems to me a high price in and of itself.

How much emotional weight and value would you say the average casual sex encounter carries and how much damage would you say it does to other parts of your life and view of the world?

[Ash]

The principle is that you are taking something to which as humans we give real emotional weight and value, are stripping it of all emotion and turning it into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. The level of emotional disconnection that requires and the damage it must do to other parts of your life and view of the world seems to me a high price in and of itself.

Maybe, but should the woman be stigmatised? I can't help feeling that there is some humbug going around from men who feel that they are entitled to promiscuity but women aren't.

The one-night-stand is not supposed to be about 'real emotional weight and value', yet consenting adults may participate.

[Burney]

Maybe, but should the woman be stigmatised? I can't help feeling that there is some humbug going around from men who feel that they are entitled to promiscuity but women aren't.

The one-night-stand is not supposed to be about 'real emotional weight and value', yet consenting adults may participate.

It's not a question of 'should they be stigmatised'. They will be stigmatised regardless because of how society works. And, more to the point, they will feel that stigma whether they want to or not because they are conditioned to do so.

One-night stands freely entered into are - or should be - genuine exchanges of pleasure between equal partners and do involve what one might term 'short-term emotions'. They are not a commercial exchange where one party gets pleasure and the other gets money. The analogy breaks down on that point.

[redgunamo]

Maybe, but should the woman be stigmatised? I can't help feeling that there is some humbug going around from men who feel that they are entitled to promiscuity but women aren't.

The one-night-stand is not supposed to be about 'real emotional weight and value', yet consenting adults may participate.

Surely it would be women doing all the stigmatising?

And it's pointless asking them about it, of course; they're terribly confused about things at the best of times.

[Monty92]

It wasn't an analogy, it was a benchmark of how, as a species, we are disinclined to allow questions of ethics to dominate our need to satiate our natural desires for pleasure. The point is that, after 10,000 years of civilisation, if we have only come that far on the commoditisation of human beings, how much further away do you think a worldwide moratorium on the commoditisation of animals is?

But I'm not talking about a moratorium. I'm talking about a shift in attitudes whereby eating dead animals comes with a social stigma.

In the case of prostitution, many people believe it should be legalised on the basis of libertarian values and/or pragmatism, whereby prostitutes would be better treated and safer if it was legal.

In other words, we are pretty close to a scenario in which being a licensed brothel owner or a pimp would go some way to losing its social stigma. But if you operated out of these regulatory parameters, say as a sex trafficker, the stigma would remain. And equally for those who use illegal or sex trafficked prostitutes instead of legal ones.

In a world in which animal farming was more strictly regulated, is it not possible that treating chickens as terribly as we do now would come with a similar social stigma?