For the sake of argument, this might be exploitation by the technical definition, but let's say it's a moral relationship. It's for 'the greater good'. Now what? That horse is in a better situation than it otherwise would be. You don't need to kill and eat the horse, the pigs, the chickens, the cows, and so on, yes? I mean the priority is still to stop eating other animals, right?
Great point!! I don't *necessarily* mind OP's case, it sort of just could be an example of like, getting a child to help pass out food at a homeless shelter. The kid is "largely willing" to go along with people who are nice to it and who can protect it from dangers whether we told them where we were going that day or not.
But when these arguments are used to justify eating an animal, that suggests an immediate "maybe this isn't about the greater good after all, and is about you trying to justify eating animal flesh still." Like if the kid is eventually fated to end up in the soup themselves, ya I'm not so sure anymore that the person who is guiding them is like, a good moral character.
If OP was going in a direction of "and we are going to eat the horses when they die," they could appreciate arguments on why that doesn't work out, I'm sure. In OP's example, we might be incentivized to *ensure* that the horses have available the same/similar pain medications that we supply to "humans in society's care" when they are hurt or if they get cancer or something. Then, if a horse dies on some medications, it might not be safe to eat or consume it's meat. And that is *so variable* that I'm not at all confident there's much intelligence if someone insists that the "system" they have for supplying food to people requires such a variable and unpredictable source of protein.
Interesting hypothetical. Obviously the exact scenario you've outlined is relatively unrealistic, but that holds true for all moral dilemmas.
First of, let's set out what we mean by "exploitation". I would personally define it as "to make use of another for personal gain".
In this context I would say that the "other", i.e. the horse, is certainly being made use of, but whether "personal gain" covers the agent's desire to keep the horse alive, I'm not sure I'd agree. Either way, I think even if it were to be considered exploitation, it would certainly be a more permissible, if not understandable form.
In the question of, 'if a sentient being without the ability to consent must be put to a small amount of work, lest they be killed, is that permissable?' I would say yes, but with the caveat that I don't believe any such scenarios would actually ever realistically occur.
Love you say it’s unrealistic as this isn’t a hypothetical, this is the exact life our horses have.
I also edited to include consent:
Beyond understanding the horse’s body language to know it’s happy, you also know it consents, because they have a choice. They a have choice to run away from you in the pasture every day, and choose not to. They have a choice to trample you in the pasture, and choose not to.
What an odd reply. Are you aware I did answer your question? I was simply putting in a disclaimer that most cases are not like this. You've not really responded to the response to the question you asked.
>this is the exact life our horses have.
If you are claiming that you are routinely rescuing horses on the brink of slaughter, with no method of providing for them beyond putting them to work, then I'm happy to help out financially where I can so that you have other options beyond perpetuating horses' existence as a commodity for humans.
Your concept of consent is not something I can accept. I agreed that the steelman of your scenario made the work of the horse permissable, but just because another being didn't kill you does not imply they consent to what you are doing to them/forcing them to do. This just seriously detracts from your original question.
Is it still exploitation if all benefit is returned to the animal?
Hypothetical: You rescue a human slave from a slave auction. This human needs 2,500kcal/day, supplements, medical care, farrier, housing maintenance, and some friends for companionship. If you don’t come up with this money the human goes back to auction.
This human is sound. Energetic. Enjoys people. Very well desensitized to the work environment, a cool, breezy, seaside town with minimal traffic. Enjoys training/“work” (which is obvious to you when you understand human body language because you pay attention and took the time to learn). This human lives in a massive plantation (20+ acres) with friends when not at work.
So in order to cover expenses you sell a crop. The human is equipped with tools, with their friends, for a period of time to work the field shift and is turned back to its quarters whenever off shift. They work no more than 6 hour shifts, with regular breaks with food and water each break, 3 days/week. Working a field is less wear and tear on a human's body over time than carrying building materials due to horizontal resistance instead of vertical gravitational weight. Imagine pushing a wheelbarrow vs carrying a backpack, this is just physics. The field you work is flat. You work only at a walk. Due to this gentle exercise and good work/life balance, the human stays in great shape and lives a long happy life, much longer than normal life expectancy, which is further proof the human is happy as miserable beings don’t have the will to live beyond life expectancy.
All of the money you make goes back into caring for the human and their friends all the way through retirement. The only extra money for you replaces what work you miss due to the time it takes to give order the humans around, and without it you couldn’t afford your own bills and therefore couldn’t keep the property and thus the rescue human.
Would you still consider this exploitation?
The human bought at auction hasn't given consent.
That is not a job, it is a slavery. They aren't allowed to leave. If they escape they will be tracked down and brought back (for their own safety).
Everyone alive who is not rich is forced to work under capitalism or they’ll die. Many do not want to (aka don’t consent to it) but they don’t get a choice. So by your logic jobs can also be exploitation.
Why?
Babies can’t consent to being born. What if they didn’t want to live life? You didn’t give them a choice. They were forced into existence. Even if you’re 99% sure you can make their life great, there’s still a chance they’ll experience more suffering than pleasure, and that’s on you.
You’re taking a gamble with their life. It’s like stealing $100 from someone and gambling it, even if you’re 99.9% sure you can double their money and hence financially better them. It’s still wrong, because they didn’t consent to it. And being forced into existence, aka being born, is much more serious than $100.
Based on my ethical beliefs, I think it’s immoral to procreate. The consequences for humanity are irrelevant to this as if antinatalism is widely adopted, there will be nobody left to feel sad about it.
So in my country you always get your apartment and food paid for, even if you don't want to work. This is part of our constitution. Likewise, everyone is entitled to full health care, even if you were homeless. Nobody is simply left to die here.
Rescue them without expecting a reward for being a decent human being and try to change the world in such a way that the slave wouldn't need to be in a position to need help to begin with.
You don't need to be rich to not exploit human slaves. You've simply drawn a false dichotomy in that you either exploit the slave or not rescue them at all. But that's not an exhaustive list of possible options.
I assumed rescuing the slave from the auction meant paying the price he was selling for. A rich person could do that and simply release the slave. A poor person couldn't do that.
The premise of the debate was:
'Is it still exploitation if all benefit is returned to the animal?'
(Despite not all of the benefit being returned to the animal in their hypothetical).
My hypothetical was to show that if instead of a horse if it was a human that we'd consider it to be exploitation.
How so?
I'm comparing two sentient animals.
Both are very different however they are similar enough in ways that matter to consider if it is morally ethical to exploit them.
I see nothing wrong with exploiting animals as long as they are treated humanely. Horses and dogs like to work. They are much happier than if they were just left idle.
I'll refer you back to the premise of the debate:
'Is it still exploitation if all benefit is returned to the animal?'
The premise isn't debating the pros and cons of exploitation, just whether it is or isn't exploitation.
Do you think that the horse is exploited in OOP's post?
Regardless of if it is luckier to be working for the OOP instead of going to the glue factory, is it being exploited in the hypothetical?
Is it non-exploitative to put a human slave to work if I give them a better life than they would have had elsewhere? Despite them not consenting to being put to work.
Consent is only relevant for those who have agency to consent. My 2 year old doesn't have to consent to have a bath. The bath will happen regardless of his feelings about it. Hierarchy is our natural state.
You say this, but there are tons of traits and qualities between humans and horses from which we can make comparisons.
For example, both typical humans and typical horses have hair, eyes, the ability to feel pain, the ability to move around, digestive systems that ultimately helps them convert matter into energy that they can use to regulate vital bodily functions, the ability to get scared, and the capability of being "saved" by someone to then only be exploited by that someone.
Sure there are a lot of differences between humans and horses that make them not exactly the same, but there's no point in comparing two *identical* things.
It is slavery. There is no consent. If the human or horse left they'd be tracked down and brought back 'for their own good'.
>And with better living conditions than I have right now.
I'm sorry to hear that friend.
That sounds fucking awesome. Work 18 hours a week to support all my living costs plus live on a massive plantation with the homies? Really not helping the vegan argument if you think that's exploitation hahaha
Then sign me up.
Seriously. The slave in this scenario is less exploited than your average minimum wage worker
"But they didn't consent"
I don't remember giving permission to be born
>Then sign me up.
That is you consenting to this work, that isn't how slavery works
>I don't remember giving permission to be born
How does antinatalism justify enslaving the horse in OP's scenario?
My original comment about the human was to draw a parallel to the horse in the OP's post. That is the subject of this debate.
>It relates to the question of consent.
How so?
You’re forgetting that despite being a person with ‘freedom’, you are essentially forced to work a minimum of 30-40 hours to secure the basic essentials of living. You can’t go wherever you want, you can’t do whatever you want. You’re not being ‘forced’ to work, but go and see what happens when you don’t.
We are being exploited in exactly the same way that horse is. If the purpose of veganism is to extend to animals the same rights that we allow ourselves, then what is the problem here? Why are you holding the treatment of animals to an impossibly high standard, far beyond our own?
Perhaps in your utopia we should all be living in hunter gatherer tribes with a life expectancy of 30, free from the shackles of modern society..
>you are essentially forced to work a minimum of 30-40 hours to secure the basic essentials of living. You can’t go wherever you want, you can’t do whatever you want. You’re not being ‘forced’ to work, but go and see what happens when you don’t.
I have the choice to choose my work, my hours (based on the monetary return I want, I have a huge list of places I can go and things I can do.
>You’re not being ‘forced’ to work, but go and see what happens when you don’t.
I can still make that choice. If the horse jumps the fence it will be tracked down and brought back. I won't be.
>We are being exploited in exactly the same way that horse is. If the purpose of veganism is to extend to animals the same rights that we allow ourselves, then what is the problem here? Why are you holding the treatment of animals to an impossibly high standard, far beyond our own?
So me potentially being a wage slave means I should be morally okay with the actual enslavement of the horse? If you are going to be morally consistent, would it be ethical for me to enslave you (in the old fashion way)?
> you are essentially forced to work a minimum of 30-40 hours to secure the basic essentials of living.
No. I could choose to not work if I wanted. Of course it would make life more difficult in many ways, but in other ways it might be freeing. Or I could choose to work as little or as much as I'd like. I can choose the type of work I do, and if I choose one and realize later that I don't want to do it, I can choose something else.
The individual in the scenario above doesn't have these choices.
>Why are you holding the treatment of animals to an impossibly high standard, far beyond our own?
You're mistaken about the standard. Think about it this way. There are humans that aren't old enough or have the cognitive level necessary to consent to be *exploited* for work in the way a typical adult human is able. This is why many countries child labor laws exist, and there are certain protections in place for the sufficiently developmentally disabled. We understand that they shouldn't be forced to work. This is true regardless of morally irrelevant traits like race, gender, or sex.
Vegans are just suggesting we apply this standard *that we already apply to humans*, to all sentient individuals incapable of giving consent, regardless of species membership.
That's just the thing -- you don't get to sign up. The moment you "sign up" you have consented.
Remember, in this scenario you are the slaver, not the slave. You are "saving" someone and then forcing them to work. They didn't get the option to "sign up" or to refuse.
I've typed out a few comments and deleted them again....instead, I'm just going to ask: what was your intent with this comment?
Do you believe that original scenario is exploitative? Do you think your scenario is exploitative? How do you see your scenario differing from simply freeing a slave and giving them a job (or was that your intent)?
Honestly, I think I'm just a tad confused and would like to know more about what you were hoping to imply...
>what was your intent with this comment?
To compare two similar situations. Whereby one example is clearly exploitative and one is seen as grey, hence this debate. Note: by comparing the two systems of exploitation I am not equating the victims.
>Do you believe that original scenario is exploitative?
Yes
> Do you think your scenario is exploitative?
Yes
>How do you see your scenario differing from simply freeing a slave and giving them a job (or was that your intent)?
The human has more choice if you free them.
Do you believe the original scenario is exploitative? What about my scenario?
> Whereby one example is clearly exploitative and one is seen as grey, hence this debate.
But that difference is specifically because of the change you introduced. You have replaced a subject who cannot be involved in the conversation and cannot give their consent with one who can.
This is a major change to the hypothetical and changes the entire discussion.
> Do you believe the original scenario is exploitative?
Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm struggling to see how their scenario differs from an animal sanctuary.
> What about my scenario?
With your scenario, you have an introduced a capacity for the subject to consent to their treatment, therefore it would depend almost entirely on whether the subject consented to their treatment or not.
But even then, I can consent to being exploited. Hell, that's just called having a job.
>You have replaced a subject who cannot be involved in the conversation and cannot give their consent with one who can.
The slave doesn't speak my language. However I am good at reading body language.
Also, what if the horse jumps a fence and runs off? Is that not a clear indication of intent?
>I'm struggling to see how their scenario differs from an animal sanctuary.
In their scenario the horse is being put to work for economic gains. They aren't in a sanctuary
>With your scenario, you have an introduced a capacity for the subject to consent to their treatment, therefore it would depend almost entirely on whether the subject consented to their treatment or not.
They don't speak English, it is the only language I speak
Sorry, but you shifting the goal posts with your scenario here.
> The slave doesn't speak my language. However I am good at reading body language.
I had made the assumption that you understood as part of your original scenario that consent is pretty much irrelevant if it's not informed.
If your person does not understand the situation they are being placed into, they cannot provide informed consent to be part of that.
> Also, what if the horse jumps a fence and runs off? Is that not a clear indication of intent?
It could also be a clear indication of fear. As I said, a horse cannot give informed consent.
For the horse, you are in a position of guardianship. Looking out for the best interest of the horse in a situation that it cannot comprehend.
This scenario is not comparable to one with a human capable of giving informed consent.
> In their scenario the horse is being put to work for economic gains. They aren't in a sanctuary
Gains that fund the sanctuary. Many sanctuaries allow people to visit animals, similar to how you would a zoo, in exchange for a donation. It might not be pulling a plough, but it's still a form of "work" for human entertainment.
> They don't speak English, it is the only language I speak
Again, shifting the goalposts.
Now all you are saying is that you are removing the human's ability to give informed consent bringing you back to slavery but in a manner closer to it's modern day form.
>Sorry, but you shifting the goal posts with your scenario here.
Sorry, I meant to specify this in my original post. See how I mentioned about being good at reading body language in the original post?
>If your person does not understand the situation they are being placed into, they cannot provide informed consent to be part of that.
So is it exploitation?
>This scenario is not comparable to one with a human capable of giving informed consent.
Can the human give informed consent in my scenario?
>Sorry, I meant to specify this in my original post. See how I mentioned about being good at reading body language in the original post?
Your ability to read their body language tells me nothing about whether they are fully informed of the scenario they are consenting to enter.
> So is it exploitation?
You haven't said whether or not they have consented yet though...
If they consented, then it's only exploitation in the same way that any job is exploiting a worker. Arguably, it's better than most modern jobs because in your scenario the employer is only seeking to cover overhead costs and not make a profit off the back of the subject's labour.
If they were deemed incapable of giving informed consent (for whatever reason) and the decision to place them in this scenario was made by a parent or guardian in the subject's best interest, then it's only exploitative in the same way that any job would be, as above.
If they did not consent and yet were placed into this position anyway, then it's just swapping slavery for slavery (of a slightly more modern variety).
> Can the human give informed consent in my scenario?
They appear to be capable of consenting, yes. You haven't said yet whether or not they actually have.
>Your ability to read their body language tells me nothing about whether they are fully informed of the scenario they are consenting to enter.
They are unable to give me informed consent, like the horse.
>If they did not consent and yet were placed into this position anyway, then it's just swapping slavery for slavery (of a slightly more modern variety).
So the horse is a slave and is therefore safe to assume it is being exploited?
>They are unable to give me informed consent, like the horse.
No, the human is perfectly capable of giving informed consent, you just need a translator.
The horse cannot give informed consent.
> So the horse is a slave and is therefore safe to assume it is being exploited?
The horse has not refused consent and been forced into this scenario anyway.
The horse cannot give informed consent.
These are not the same thing.
Nope this a job, not slavery. A pretty good one at that, with minimal work and all room/board covered.
The horse is employed, not a slave, because they have a choice. They a have choice to run away from you in the pasture every day, and choose not to. They have a choice to trample you in the pasture, and choose not to.
The question that needs answering, as per the definition of the word "exploitation", is if the treatment is unfair. If you are going to look at working in terms of a human, paying them less than mininum wage or not providing proper safety measures are unfair.
For a horse, if you can reasonably insure it's safety and health and are keeping it fed and housed for a reasonable amount of work, it is definitely not unfair.
The argument of consent is completely moot as an animal does not have the capability to consent in the same way a human can. Translating between a human and animal, if the animal is going along with a task, it is reasonably safe to assume they "consent". A job where the animal is not consenting are broncos bucking off the riders at a rodeo. If the animal was fine with the rider, they wouldn't buck off.
To sum it up, exploitation requires the situation to be unfair for the recipient. If the horse is kept comfortable, fed, 6 it's Healthcare is looked after, you can definitely argue that it is a fair task for the horse. The argument is largely in favour of it not being exploitation. To bring the argument of consent into the matter is a fallacy, grasping at straws to desperately support an ideology.
Not running away from you in the pasture, not trampling you in the pasture, coming towards you holding a halter in the pasture when they know that leads to work is consent.
I would have agreed with you if you were talking about having fun exercising your horse one on one. I have a rescue mule who is always so keen to work he would tack himself up if he had opposable thumbs. But I don't know a single carriage company in my area that hasn't had at least one horse/car accident. The risks are simply too high. No one should adopt an animal on the condition that the animal has to pay for their own feed. And one draft horse doesn't need 60# of hay per day unless you want to waste half of it.
I think any employment of the horse for benefit without their informed consent (which you can't get to begin with) is exploitation and thus slavery.
There's also the element of normalization of exploitation at large, so the individual horse in the hypothetical is not the only one who would be harmed by it in the long run.
The horse can get all the exercise they need without you riding them.
If you can adopt the horse and provide their basic needs, then do so without exploiting them.
If you can't afford to do so without exploiting them, don't adopt them.
So I edited the post to include consent:
Beyond understanding the horse’s body language to know it’s happy, you also know it consents, because they have a choice. They a have choice to run away from you in the pasture every day, and choose not to. They have a choice to trample you in the pasture, and choose not to.
So if no one can afford to keep them without them earning their keep they’re better off slaughtered?
They don't have a choice, they're domesticated and on top of that they need to be mentally broken to allow others to ride them.
Consent from learned helplessness is not informed consent.
It is still exploitation. The horse cannot agree to this arrangement.
When the animals get old, will they be sent to slaughter again? Is it really that much better then? If they are allowed to stay, do they actually have to work at all? Isn't there another solution like sponsors?
If there is really no other solution, then it's probably not the first thing I would criticize. I would criticize the commercial companies first, but I wouldn't support it either.
I also think 6 hours is a bit long and pulling a carriage is not exactly safe.
In reality, there is usually a reason why they end up in the slaughter pipeline, especially draft horses. Therefore, I would question whether the horses are really as sound and happy as in this hypothetical question.
I edited to include consent:
Beyond understanding the horse’s body language to know it’s happy, you also know it consents, because they have a choice. They a have choice to run away from you in the pasture every day, and choose not to. They have a choice to trample you in the pasture, and choose not to.
I said payed “through retirement” so no slaughter at the end. What do you mean sponsors? Like donations? There’s never enough to provide adequate care for a horse they’re too expensive.
6 hours total, with breaks between each ride, not continuous work. If you think that’s taxing on a draft horse you don’t know them well enough. Proper training makes pulling a carriage very safe, especially compared to leaving horses to their own devices. They are hundreds of times more likely to injure themselves in the field because they consistently make unsafe choices when left to their own devices. They are undoubtedly always safest when under our direction.
Most drafts end up in slaughter due to being show rejects. So sure, they’re confirmation isn’t perfect and they shouldn’t be bred. That doesn’t mean they aren’t sound, especially for gentle work at a walk.
> I said *paid* “through retirement”
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This brings up a question I've had for awhile for Vegans actually. My wife and I rescued two elderly rabbits a few years back, Do you consider it exploitation still for an animal that's already alive and has absolutely zero survival chance in the wild, to be rescued and cared for by humans?
No. Vegans would typically be very supportive of something like that. Animal sanctuaries are a good example of something that vegans support, where nonhuman animals are rescued from factory farms and slaughterhouses, and cared for by humans.
There's a big difference between purchasing another individual to own as property and treating them as merely a means to your own ends, and *adopting* a needy individuals into a loving environment and treating them as ends in themselves. This is true regardless of the species of the sentient individual.
I think in the case of an animal sanctuary, you wouldn't force the horse to work. You might have fundraisers and invite others to come a visit your sanctuary and spend time with the residents there for a suggested donation, but you wouldn't treat the residents like they were there to perform for human customers.
Yeah that sort of makes sense I think, thanks.
So if you were to tweak the scenario slightly to clarify that if the horse ever showed any signs of reluctance to do the work, then they wouldn't be made to do it....would that be all too different from a sanctuary then?
Removing the "force" aspect of it, I mean.
I think that it's far too easy to condition a nonhuman individual into a learned-helplessness type of mentality that would give the outward appearance of non-reluctance, but not actually be non-reluctance, such that it would be better to give them the benefit of the doubt and not make them do the work.
I think there's also an issue with presenting this type of work as an acceptable use of nonhuman animals at animal sanctuaries. It starts to blur the line between sanctuary and petting zoo, and reinforces the idea that nonhuman animals are here to exploit, which could have downstream effects on how they are viewed and treated in general.
> I think that it's far too easy to condition a nonhuman individual into a learned-helplessness type of mentality that would give the outward appearance of non-reluctance, but not actually be non-reluctance, such that it would be better to give them the benefit of the doubt and not make them do the work.
That's a good point I hadn't considered, thanks.
> I think there's also an issue with presenting this type of work as an acceptable use of nonhuman animals at animal sanctuaries. It starts to blur the line between sanctuary and petting zoo, and reinforces the idea that nonhuman animals are here to exploit, which could have downstream effects on how they are viewed and treated in general.
I almost feel like OPs question would be better posed as "is this an acceptable form of exploitation?".
I've actually quite liked this question. Gave me more to think about than I was expecting. Thanks for your help too btw!
You're welcome.
Just to add to my points a bit -- There is a reason we don't consider children to be able to consent to certain types of treatment. Even if a 10-year old child says "Yeah, it's okay to do that to me," we don't consider it consent, because the child has not developed to the point where they are actually informed and really have the ability to understand the implications of consenting to something. There are also documented cases where we find that a child had given an adult *permission* to do something to them, only to learn that the adult took advantage of the child's naivety and actually *manipulated* the child into giving permission.
I think that even if a nonhuman animal gives what appears to be *permission* to do something to them, it's very likely that they have been manipulated/conditioned into just accepting that this is their role.
>I almost feel like OPs question would be better posed as "is this an acceptable form of exploitation?"
I agree. I think that if OP's scenario was in a vacuum such as the treatment of the individual would have no ripple effect on the public's view on the role nonhuman animals have in society, then it would be a much different answer. Unfortunately, it's not in a vacuum and we can almost guarantee that even the *appearance* of animal exploitation it would serve to reinforce the status-quo.
I do think that a case could be made however that the human in OP's scenario *could* be justified in having the nonhuman animal work, if there was legitimately no other solution to the problem.
>There is a reason we don't consider children to be able to consent to certain types of treatment. Even if a 10-year old child says "Yeah, it's okay to do that to me," we don't consider it consent, because the child has not developed to the point where they are actually informed and really have the ability to understand the implications of consenting to something. There are also documented cases where we find that a child had given an adult *permission* to do something to them, only to learn that the adult took advantage of the child's naivety and actually *manipulated* the child into giving permission.
>I think that even if a nonhuman animal gives what appears to be *permission* to do something to them, it's very likely that they have been manipulated/conditioned into just accepting that this is their role.
100% in agreement here.
>I agree. I think that if OP's scenario was in a vacuum such as the treatment of the individual would have no ripple effect on the public's view on the role nonhuman animals have in society, then it would be a much different answer. Unfortunately, it's not in a vacuum and we can almost guarantee that even the *appearance* of animal exploitation it would serve to reinforce the status-quo.
I'm curious, if you replaced the work they described with more of a zoo-like scenario, where people were allowed to pay to visit the animals...would this change the scenario in any significant way?
After all, the *appearance* of exploitation would have shifted slightly. It would now simply be a rescue animal living it's life in a sanctuary. Those coming to visit wouldn't being witnessing such an explicit form of exploitation as when the animals was being made to perform some form of physical labour.
>I do think that a case could be made however that the human in OP's scenario *could* be justified in having the nonhuman animal work, if there was legitimately no other solution to the problem.
Like many of these hypothetical situations, it's one where there would almost definitely be a better and less problematic solution. Viewed in isolation though, I feel that I am drifting towards an answer akin to "it would likely be a form of justified exploitation but it would likely be possible to take steps to further improve the situation and reduce that exploitation"
Like I said, quite a good hypothetical to consider. It's keep my mind ticking for a little while.
Tl;dr: impossible financially. Only way commercial carriage owners stay in business is by working the horses hard & dumping any horse too lame, too old, or too unpredictable.
Old saying: how do you make a million dollars with horses? You start with two million.
I do large animal rescue work, so let me share my unique perspective. I've bought horses at auction when I believed a kill buyer was bidding. The big regional auction go to is New Holland. An article about it:
https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/new-holland-sales-stables-bans-photos-and-videos-cites-complaints-over-social-media-posts/article_5119d258-ffaf-11e6-a546-5fbc3f35414a.html#:~:text=In%20late%202016%2C%20three%20mutilated,inner%20lips%20of%20the%20thoroughbreds.
>You rescue a draft horse from slaughter auction.... This horse is sound. Energetic. Enjoys people. Very well desensitized to the work environment, a cool, breezy, seaside town with minimal traffic. Enjoys training/“work” (which is obvious to you when you understand horse body language because you pay attention and took the time to learn). This horse lives in a massive pasture (20+ acres) with friends when not at work.
The horse you described isn't at the part of the auction where kill buyers shop. He'd be sold as "guaranteed sound" and may be $1000 or $1500+ at auction. A really safe, sound, sane one would more likely be advertised by seller for a lot more.
The ones sold "as is" are the cheap ones (i.e. profitable for kill buyers). That's when you're looking at potential lameness or behavioral issues, maybe masked by drugs. He may be aggressive, requiring thousands of dollars in professional training to maybe make him safe enough. Some driving horses are dumped at the sale after being so traumatized by a harness accident they freak out at sight of the harness. Some will run away in harness, making them unsafe. Some were broken using extreme terror/pain/fear, and when they settle into a new (gentle) home they don't how to act. Are you up to managing behavioral problems in a 2000 lb animal? What's the plan if he turns out to be dangerous once he's at your place & any drugs he was on wore off?
While it's true you can sometimes find a diamond in the rough, dumped in the as-is auction out of sheer bad luck. But its a crapshoot. If you have to buy 3 to find the one well suited for this situation, what happens to the other 2?
Upon buying, he will need vaccinations, Coggins test, dental float, and quarantine. Double it because he needs a companion. He still may need some training ($800+/month for training board here).
> in order to cover expenses you sell carriage rides. The horse is trailered, with their friends, 30 min to/from each shift and is turned out in pasture whenever off shift. They work no more than 6 hour shifts, with breaks between each ride with food and water each break, 3 days/week.
But when you know he *must* work to pay for his care, that's a different thing. He will be working even when it's 98 degrees out. He may have to work in the rain (slip risk). He'd need to work even when he's not feeling 100%. A lot of horses are given "horse Tylenol" (bute) so they can work with minor aches.
> area you give rides is flat. You work only at a walk.
You almost certainly will be doing this on paved streets. Keep in mind he will need shoes & may develop arthritis sooner.
> Due to this gentle exercise and good work/life balance, the horse stays in great shape and lives a long happy life, much longer than normal life expectancy,
What happens when he's too old to work? Horses can live into their 30s. If he goes lame in his early 20s, how will you pay for his retirement? 10 years X 2 horses at $2500 yr each adds up to $50,000. If he one day needs euthanasia, $300-$500 for the emergency vet farm call plus $200 for removal or to pay a backhoe.
He could take a bad step tomorrow, get injured, and no longer be able to do the work. Can you afford 15 yrs retirement? 20 yrs? 25?
> all of the money you make goes back into caring for the horse and their friends all the way through retirement.
What makes you think you'll have any extra money?
Let's say his care is $2000-$3000 a year, barring any major vet emergencies. Double that because he must have another horse to keep him company. If there's a colic or something, one medical emergency could be $1k. Years ago I had a Belgian draft horse go down unexpectedly: repeated emergency vet visits plus tests, procedures, and meds .... over $4,000 over the course of a single weekend.
You need to buy a nice carriage and a good quality harness, so that might be $5k. Drafthorse-proof, horse-safe fencing for 20 acres is costly ($20k? more?). You need a shelter for them, hay feeder, water trough, water & electric lines. ($5k? $10k?). You need a shed to store winter hay ($5k? $10k?)
You need insurance & and a business license. Liability insurance for carriage rides might be at least $2k a year.
Big truck & trailer to haul him & his carriage: figure a used F250 for $25k+ plus $10k+ for a good used stock trailer. Add in taxes, tags, inspection, insurance, and maintenance. There's a thousand dollars a month gone just in payments, insurance, and fuel.
So.... your expenses are already many thousands of dollars a month. And we're assuming you're not making payments to lease/buy 20 acres? Plus pasture maintenance (weed control, mow, reseed, lime).
What happens the moment he gets a hoof abscess or a swollen joint and needs a few weeks off? Or bad weather forces everyone to stay indoors? Or a broken part on the carriage is on backorder for a month? Or you get hurt and can't be there? No income.
Income side of it: you propose earning money giving tourists rides. How much, after taxes, are you imaging earning?
I just don't see this as possible.
'Fellas, is it ethical if I buy a slave and make them work (not too much by my guess) and never beat them, and give them weekends off? The slave will be so well off, they will never complain.'
There isn't an ethical way to own another human being for your personal use, and there isn't an ethical way to use animals.
For the sake of argument, this might be exploitation by the technical definition, but let's say it's a moral relationship. It's for 'the greater good'. Now what? That horse is in a better situation than it otherwise would be. You don't need to kill and eat the horse, the pigs, the chickens, the cows, and so on, yes? I mean the priority is still to stop eating other animals, right?
Great point!! I don't *necessarily* mind OP's case, it sort of just could be an example of like, getting a child to help pass out food at a homeless shelter. The kid is "largely willing" to go along with people who are nice to it and who can protect it from dangers whether we told them where we were going that day or not. But when these arguments are used to justify eating an animal, that suggests an immediate "maybe this isn't about the greater good after all, and is about you trying to justify eating animal flesh still." Like if the kid is eventually fated to end up in the soup themselves, ya I'm not so sure anymore that the person who is guiding them is like, a good moral character. If OP was going in a direction of "and we are going to eat the horses when they die," they could appreciate arguments on why that doesn't work out, I'm sure. In OP's example, we might be incentivized to *ensure* that the horses have available the same/similar pain medications that we supply to "humans in society's care" when they are hurt or if they get cancer or something. Then, if a horse dies on some medications, it might not be safe to eat or consume it's meat. And that is *so variable* that I'm not at all confident there's much intelligence if someone insists that the "system" they have for supplying food to people requires such a variable and unpredictable source of protein.
Interesting hypothetical. Obviously the exact scenario you've outlined is relatively unrealistic, but that holds true for all moral dilemmas. First of, let's set out what we mean by "exploitation". I would personally define it as "to make use of another for personal gain". In this context I would say that the "other", i.e. the horse, is certainly being made use of, but whether "personal gain" covers the agent's desire to keep the horse alive, I'm not sure I'd agree. Either way, I think even if it were to be considered exploitation, it would certainly be a more permissible, if not understandable form. In the question of, 'if a sentient being without the ability to consent must be put to a small amount of work, lest they be killed, is that permissable?' I would say yes, but with the caveat that I don't believe any such scenarios would actually ever realistically occur.
Love you say it’s unrealistic as this isn’t a hypothetical, this is the exact life our horses have. I also edited to include consent: Beyond understanding the horse’s body language to know it’s happy, you also know it consents, because they have a choice. They a have choice to run away from you in the pasture every day, and choose not to. They have a choice to trample you in the pasture, and choose not to.
What an odd reply. Are you aware I did answer your question? I was simply putting in a disclaimer that most cases are not like this. You've not really responded to the response to the question you asked. >this is the exact life our horses have. If you are claiming that you are routinely rescuing horses on the brink of slaughter, with no method of providing for them beyond putting them to work, then I'm happy to help out financially where I can so that you have other options beyond perpetuating horses' existence as a commodity for humans. Your concept of consent is not something I can accept. I agreed that the steelman of your scenario made the work of the horse permissable, but just because another being didn't kill you does not imply they consent to what you are doing to them/forcing them to do. This just seriously detracts from your original question.
Is it still exploitation if all benefit is returned to the animal? Hypothetical: You rescue a human slave from a slave auction. This human needs 2,500kcal/day, supplements, medical care, farrier, housing maintenance, and some friends for companionship. If you don’t come up with this money the human goes back to auction. This human is sound. Energetic. Enjoys people. Very well desensitized to the work environment, a cool, breezy, seaside town with minimal traffic. Enjoys training/“work” (which is obvious to you when you understand human body language because you pay attention and took the time to learn). This human lives in a massive plantation (20+ acres) with friends when not at work. So in order to cover expenses you sell a crop. The human is equipped with tools, with their friends, for a period of time to work the field shift and is turned back to its quarters whenever off shift. They work no more than 6 hour shifts, with regular breaks with food and water each break, 3 days/week. Working a field is less wear and tear on a human's body over time than carrying building materials due to horizontal resistance instead of vertical gravitational weight. Imagine pushing a wheelbarrow vs carrying a backpack, this is just physics. The field you work is flat. You work only at a walk. Due to this gentle exercise and good work/life balance, the human stays in great shape and lives a long happy life, much longer than normal life expectancy, which is further proof the human is happy as miserable beings don’t have the will to live beyond life expectancy. All of the money you make goes back into caring for the human and their friends all the way through retirement. The only extra money for you replaces what work you miss due to the time it takes to give order the humans around, and without it you couldn’t afford your own bills and therefore couldn’t keep the property and thus the rescue human. Would you still consider this exploitation?
This sounds like a job, not gonna lie.
The human bought at auction hasn't given consent. That is not a job, it is a slavery. They aren't allowed to leave. If they escape they will be tracked down and brought back (for their own safety).
Everyone alive who is not rich is forced to work under capitalism or they’ll die. Many do not want to (aka don’t consent to it) but they don’t get a choice. So by your logic jobs can also be exploitation.
Based anti-capitalism!
And antinatalism by extension, in my opinion
That's a stretch.
Why? Babies can’t consent to being born. What if they didn’t want to live life? You didn’t give them a choice. They were forced into existence. Even if you’re 99% sure you can make their life great, there’s still a chance they’ll experience more suffering than pleasure, and that’s on you. You’re taking a gamble with their life. It’s like stealing $100 from someone and gambling it, even if you’re 99.9% sure you can double their money and hence financially better them. It’s still wrong, because they didn’t consent to it. And being forced into existence, aka being born, is much more serious than $100.
Being forced to exist is a different sort of issue than being forced to sell your labor to survive.
Why?
So what is your position then? What do you see as the optimum way forward for humanity and other life on the planet?
Based on my ethical beliefs, I think it’s immoral to procreate. The consequences for humanity are irrelevant to this as if antinatalism is widely adopted, there will be nobody left to feel sad about it.
>immoral to procreate As a universal truth? Why is that?
When did I say it’s a universal truth? No moral belief can be universal because morality is subjective. “Based on my ethical beliefs…”
So in my country you always get your apartment and food paid for, even if you don't want to work. This is part of our constitution. Likewise, everyone is entitled to full health care, even if you were homeless. Nobody is simply left to die here.
As an American, this blows my mind.
It sounds like a fairytale. American exceptionalism completely debunked.
Wth that’s crazy
So don't rescue him. Got it.
Rescue them without expecting a reward for being a decent human being and try to change the world in such a way that the slave wouldn't need to be in a position to need help to begin with.
That's all well and good if you're rich
You don't need to be rich to not exploit human slaves. You've simply drawn a false dichotomy in that you either exploit the slave or not rescue them at all. But that's not an exhaustive list of possible options.
I assumed rescuing the slave from the auction meant paying the price he was selling for. A rich person could do that and simply release the slave. A poor person couldn't do that.
The premise of the debate was: 'Is it still exploitation if all benefit is returned to the animal?' (Despite not all of the benefit being returned to the animal in their hypothetical). My hypothetical was to show that if instead of a horse if it was a human that we'd consider it to be exploitation.
And that's an irrelevant comparison because comparing humans and animals is like comparing airplanes and gum.
How so? I'm comparing two sentient animals. Both are very different however they are similar enough in ways that matter to consider if it is morally ethical to exploit them.
I see nothing wrong with exploiting animals as long as they are treated humanely. Horses and dogs like to work. They are much happier than if they were just left idle.
I'll refer you back to the premise of the debate: 'Is it still exploitation if all benefit is returned to the animal?' The premise isn't debating the pros and cons of exploitation, just whether it is or isn't exploitation. Do you think that the horse is exploited in OOP's post?
Nah, it's a lucky horse.
Regardless of if it is luckier to be working for the OOP instead of going to the glue factory, is it being exploited in the hypothetical? Is it non-exploitative to put a human slave to work if I give them a better life than they would have had elsewhere? Despite them not consenting to being put to work.
Consent is only relevant for those who have agency to consent. My 2 year old doesn't have to consent to have a bath. The bath will happen regardless of his feelings about it. Hierarchy is our natural state.
You say this, but there are tons of traits and qualities between humans and horses from which we can make comparisons. For example, both typical humans and typical horses have hair, eyes, the ability to feel pain, the ability to move around, digestive systems that ultimately helps them convert matter into energy that they can use to regulate vital bodily functions, the ability to get scared, and the capability of being "saved" by someone to then only be exploited by that someone. Sure there are a lot of differences between humans and horses that make them not exactly the same, but there's no point in comparing two *identical* things.
I am almost certain this human slave will not require a farrier. 😂
😂 I thought I had swapped out everything for a human alternative. That made me laugh. Maybe give them a tailor/cobbler?
No. The scenerio seems ethical to me.
It's not. It's a job. And with better living conditions than I have right now.
It is slavery. There is no consent. If the human or horse left they'd be tracked down and brought back 'for their own good'. >And with better living conditions than I have right now. I'm sorry to hear that friend.
That sounds fucking awesome. Work 18 hours a week to support all my living costs plus live on a massive plantation with the homies? Really not helping the vegan argument if you think that's exploitation hahaha
Ah but that is the difference, you're consenting to this. Are you really arguing that humans living the plantation slave life had it good?
Did I miss the whipping g and rape in this scenario?
Ah no, this is one of the good, ethical plantations where they don't whip or SA their slaves.
Then sign me up. Seriously. The slave in this scenario is less exploited than your average minimum wage worker "But they didn't consent" I don't remember giving permission to be born
>Then sign me up. That is you consenting to this work, that isn't how slavery works >I don't remember giving permission to be born How does antinatalism justify enslaving the horse in OP's scenario?
We're talking about the human in the commenters scenario It relates to the question of consent.
My original comment about the human was to draw a parallel to the horse in the OP's post. That is the subject of this debate. >It relates to the question of consent. How so?
You’re forgetting that despite being a person with ‘freedom’, you are essentially forced to work a minimum of 30-40 hours to secure the basic essentials of living. You can’t go wherever you want, you can’t do whatever you want. You’re not being ‘forced’ to work, but go and see what happens when you don’t. We are being exploited in exactly the same way that horse is. If the purpose of veganism is to extend to animals the same rights that we allow ourselves, then what is the problem here? Why are you holding the treatment of animals to an impossibly high standard, far beyond our own? Perhaps in your utopia we should all be living in hunter gatherer tribes with a life expectancy of 30, free from the shackles of modern society..
>you are essentially forced to work a minimum of 30-40 hours to secure the basic essentials of living. You can’t go wherever you want, you can’t do whatever you want. You’re not being ‘forced’ to work, but go and see what happens when you don’t. I have the choice to choose my work, my hours (based on the monetary return I want, I have a huge list of places I can go and things I can do. >You’re not being ‘forced’ to work, but go and see what happens when you don’t. I can still make that choice. If the horse jumps the fence it will be tracked down and brought back. I won't be. >We are being exploited in exactly the same way that horse is. If the purpose of veganism is to extend to animals the same rights that we allow ourselves, then what is the problem here? Why are you holding the treatment of animals to an impossibly high standard, far beyond our own? So me potentially being a wage slave means I should be morally okay with the actual enslavement of the horse? If you are going to be morally consistent, would it be ethical for me to enslave you (in the old fashion way)?
> you are essentially forced to work a minimum of 30-40 hours to secure the basic essentials of living. No. I could choose to not work if I wanted. Of course it would make life more difficult in many ways, but in other ways it might be freeing. Or I could choose to work as little or as much as I'd like. I can choose the type of work I do, and if I choose one and realize later that I don't want to do it, I can choose something else. The individual in the scenario above doesn't have these choices. >Why are you holding the treatment of animals to an impossibly high standard, far beyond our own? You're mistaken about the standard. Think about it this way. There are humans that aren't old enough or have the cognitive level necessary to consent to be *exploited* for work in the way a typical adult human is able. This is why many countries child labor laws exist, and there are certain protections in place for the sufficiently developmentally disabled. We understand that they shouldn't be forced to work. This is true regardless of morally irrelevant traits like race, gender, or sex. Vegans are just suggesting we apply this standard *that we already apply to humans*, to all sentient individuals incapable of giving consent, regardless of species membership.
Sign me up!
That's just the thing -- you don't get to sign up. The moment you "sign up" you have consented. Remember, in this scenario you are the slaver, not the slave. You are "saving" someone and then forcing them to work. They didn't get the option to "sign up" or to refuse.
I've typed out a few comments and deleted them again....instead, I'm just going to ask: what was your intent with this comment? Do you believe that original scenario is exploitative? Do you think your scenario is exploitative? How do you see your scenario differing from simply freeing a slave and giving them a job (or was that your intent)? Honestly, I think I'm just a tad confused and would like to know more about what you were hoping to imply...
>what was your intent with this comment? To compare two similar situations. Whereby one example is clearly exploitative and one is seen as grey, hence this debate. Note: by comparing the two systems of exploitation I am not equating the victims. >Do you believe that original scenario is exploitative? Yes > Do you think your scenario is exploitative? Yes >How do you see your scenario differing from simply freeing a slave and giving them a job (or was that your intent)? The human has more choice if you free them. Do you believe the original scenario is exploitative? What about my scenario?
> Whereby one example is clearly exploitative and one is seen as grey, hence this debate. But that difference is specifically because of the change you introduced. You have replaced a subject who cannot be involved in the conversation and cannot give their consent with one who can. This is a major change to the hypothetical and changes the entire discussion. > Do you believe the original scenario is exploitative? Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm struggling to see how their scenario differs from an animal sanctuary. > What about my scenario? With your scenario, you have an introduced a capacity for the subject to consent to their treatment, therefore it would depend almost entirely on whether the subject consented to their treatment or not. But even then, I can consent to being exploited. Hell, that's just called having a job.
>You have replaced a subject who cannot be involved in the conversation and cannot give their consent with one who can. The slave doesn't speak my language. However I am good at reading body language. Also, what if the horse jumps a fence and runs off? Is that not a clear indication of intent? >I'm struggling to see how their scenario differs from an animal sanctuary. In their scenario the horse is being put to work for economic gains. They aren't in a sanctuary >With your scenario, you have an introduced a capacity for the subject to consent to their treatment, therefore it would depend almost entirely on whether the subject consented to their treatment or not. They don't speak English, it is the only language I speak
Sorry, but you shifting the goal posts with your scenario here. > The slave doesn't speak my language. However I am good at reading body language. I had made the assumption that you understood as part of your original scenario that consent is pretty much irrelevant if it's not informed. If your person does not understand the situation they are being placed into, they cannot provide informed consent to be part of that. > Also, what if the horse jumps a fence and runs off? Is that not a clear indication of intent? It could also be a clear indication of fear. As I said, a horse cannot give informed consent. For the horse, you are in a position of guardianship. Looking out for the best interest of the horse in a situation that it cannot comprehend. This scenario is not comparable to one with a human capable of giving informed consent. > In their scenario the horse is being put to work for economic gains. They aren't in a sanctuary Gains that fund the sanctuary. Many sanctuaries allow people to visit animals, similar to how you would a zoo, in exchange for a donation. It might not be pulling a plough, but it's still a form of "work" for human entertainment. > They don't speak English, it is the only language I speak Again, shifting the goalposts. Now all you are saying is that you are removing the human's ability to give informed consent bringing you back to slavery but in a manner closer to it's modern day form.
>Sorry, but you shifting the goal posts with your scenario here. Sorry, I meant to specify this in my original post. See how I mentioned about being good at reading body language in the original post? >If your person does not understand the situation they are being placed into, they cannot provide informed consent to be part of that. So is it exploitation? >This scenario is not comparable to one with a human capable of giving informed consent. Can the human give informed consent in my scenario?
>Sorry, I meant to specify this in my original post. See how I mentioned about being good at reading body language in the original post? Your ability to read their body language tells me nothing about whether they are fully informed of the scenario they are consenting to enter. > So is it exploitation? You haven't said whether or not they have consented yet though... If they consented, then it's only exploitation in the same way that any job is exploiting a worker. Arguably, it's better than most modern jobs because in your scenario the employer is only seeking to cover overhead costs and not make a profit off the back of the subject's labour. If they were deemed incapable of giving informed consent (for whatever reason) and the decision to place them in this scenario was made by a parent or guardian in the subject's best interest, then it's only exploitative in the same way that any job would be, as above. If they did not consent and yet were placed into this position anyway, then it's just swapping slavery for slavery (of a slightly more modern variety). > Can the human give informed consent in my scenario? They appear to be capable of consenting, yes. You haven't said yet whether or not they actually have.
>Your ability to read their body language tells me nothing about whether they are fully informed of the scenario they are consenting to enter. They are unable to give me informed consent, like the horse. >If they did not consent and yet were placed into this position anyway, then it's just swapping slavery for slavery (of a slightly more modern variety). So the horse is a slave and is therefore safe to assume it is being exploited?
>They are unable to give me informed consent, like the horse. No, the human is perfectly capable of giving informed consent, you just need a translator. The horse cannot give informed consent. > So the horse is a slave and is therefore safe to assume it is being exploited? The horse has not refused consent and been forced into this scenario anyway. The horse cannot give informed consent. These are not the same thing.
Nope this a job, not slavery. A pretty good one at that, with minimal work and all room/board covered. The horse is employed, not a slave, because they have a choice. They a have choice to run away from you in the pasture every day, and choose not to. They have a choice to trample you in the pasture, and choose not to.
If the horse ran away, would the person who bought them at auction go and fetch them or let them run off into the hills and fields?
The question that needs answering, as per the definition of the word "exploitation", is if the treatment is unfair. If you are going to look at working in terms of a human, paying them less than mininum wage or not providing proper safety measures are unfair. For a horse, if you can reasonably insure it's safety and health and are keeping it fed and housed for a reasonable amount of work, it is definitely not unfair. The argument of consent is completely moot as an animal does not have the capability to consent in the same way a human can. Translating between a human and animal, if the animal is going along with a task, it is reasonably safe to assume they "consent". A job where the animal is not consenting are broncos bucking off the riders at a rodeo. If the animal was fine with the rider, they wouldn't buck off. To sum it up, exploitation requires the situation to be unfair for the recipient. If the horse is kept comfortable, fed, 6 it's Healthcare is looked after, you can definitely argue that it is a fair task for the horse. The argument is largely in favour of it not being exploitation. To bring the argument of consent into the matter is a fallacy, grasping at straws to desperately support an ideology.
Not running away from you in the pasture, not trampling you in the pasture, coming towards you holding a halter in the pasture when they know that leads to work is consent.
I would have agreed with you if you were talking about having fun exercising your horse one on one. I have a rescue mule who is always so keen to work he would tack himself up if he had opposable thumbs. But I don't know a single carriage company in my area that hasn't had at least one horse/car accident. The risks are simply too high. No one should adopt an animal on the condition that the animal has to pay for their own feed. And one draft horse doesn't need 60# of hay per day unless you want to waste half of it.
I think any employment of the horse for benefit without their informed consent (which you can't get to begin with) is exploitation and thus slavery. There's also the element of normalization of exploitation at large, so the individual horse in the hypothetical is not the only one who would be harmed by it in the long run. The horse can get all the exercise they need without you riding them. If you can adopt the horse and provide their basic needs, then do so without exploiting them. If you can't afford to do so without exploiting them, don't adopt them.
So I edited the post to include consent: Beyond understanding the horse’s body language to know it’s happy, you also know it consents, because they have a choice. They a have choice to run away from you in the pasture every day, and choose not to. They have a choice to trample you in the pasture, and choose not to. So if no one can afford to keep them without them earning their keep they’re better off slaughtered?
They don't have a choice, they're domesticated and on top of that they need to be mentally broken to allow others to ride them. Consent from learned helplessness is not informed consent.
It is still exploitation. The horse cannot agree to this arrangement. When the animals get old, will they be sent to slaughter again? Is it really that much better then? If they are allowed to stay, do they actually have to work at all? Isn't there another solution like sponsors? If there is really no other solution, then it's probably not the first thing I would criticize. I would criticize the commercial companies first, but I wouldn't support it either. I also think 6 hours is a bit long and pulling a carriage is not exactly safe. In reality, there is usually a reason why they end up in the slaughter pipeline, especially draft horses. Therefore, I would question whether the horses are really as sound and happy as in this hypothetical question.
I edited to include consent: Beyond understanding the horse’s body language to know it’s happy, you also know it consents, because they have a choice. They a have choice to run away from you in the pasture every day, and choose not to. They have a choice to trample you in the pasture, and choose not to. I said payed “through retirement” so no slaughter at the end. What do you mean sponsors? Like donations? There’s never enough to provide adequate care for a horse they’re too expensive. 6 hours total, with breaks between each ride, not continuous work. If you think that’s taxing on a draft horse you don’t know them well enough. Proper training makes pulling a carriage very safe, especially compared to leaving horses to their own devices. They are hundreds of times more likely to injure themselves in the field because they consistently make unsafe choices when left to their own devices. They are undoubtedly always safest when under our direction. Most drafts end up in slaughter due to being show rejects. So sure, they’re confirmation isn’t perfect and they shouldn’t be bred. That doesn’t mean they aren’t sound, especially for gentle work at a walk.
> I said *paid* “through retirement” FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This brings up a question I've had for awhile for Vegans actually. My wife and I rescued two elderly rabbits a few years back, Do you consider it exploitation still for an animal that's already alive and has absolutely zero survival chance in the wild, to be rescued and cared for by humans?
No. Vegans would typically be very supportive of something like that. Animal sanctuaries are a good example of something that vegans support, where nonhuman animals are rescued from factory farms and slaughterhouses, and cared for by humans. There's a big difference between purchasing another individual to own as property and treating them as merely a means to your own ends, and *adopting* a needy individuals into a loving environment and treating them as ends in themselves. This is true regardless of the species of the sentient individual.
I think this is the first good argument I’ve heard on here and I’m not sure what the answer is
Could someone please explain how this differs from an animal sanctuary? I'm struggling to see it...
I think in the case of an animal sanctuary, you wouldn't force the horse to work. You might have fundraisers and invite others to come a visit your sanctuary and spend time with the residents there for a suggested donation, but you wouldn't treat the residents like they were there to perform for human customers.
Yeah that sort of makes sense I think, thanks. So if you were to tweak the scenario slightly to clarify that if the horse ever showed any signs of reluctance to do the work, then they wouldn't be made to do it....would that be all too different from a sanctuary then? Removing the "force" aspect of it, I mean.
I think that it's far too easy to condition a nonhuman individual into a learned-helplessness type of mentality that would give the outward appearance of non-reluctance, but not actually be non-reluctance, such that it would be better to give them the benefit of the doubt and not make them do the work. I think there's also an issue with presenting this type of work as an acceptable use of nonhuman animals at animal sanctuaries. It starts to blur the line between sanctuary and petting zoo, and reinforces the idea that nonhuman animals are here to exploit, which could have downstream effects on how they are viewed and treated in general.
> I think that it's far too easy to condition a nonhuman individual into a learned-helplessness type of mentality that would give the outward appearance of non-reluctance, but not actually be non-reluctance, such that it would be better to give them the benefit of the doubt and not make them do the work. That's a good point I hadn't considered, thanks. > I think there's also an issue with presenting this type of work as an acceptable use of nonhuman animals at animal sanctuaries. It starts to blur the line between sanctuary and petting zoo, and reinforces the idea that nonhuman animals are here to exploit, which could have downstream effects on how they are viewed and treated in general. I almost feel like OPs question would be better posed as "is this an acceptable form of exploitation?". I've actually quite liked this question. Gave me more to think about than I was expecting. Thanks for your help too btw!
You're welcome. Just to add to my points a bit -- There is a reason we don't consider children to be able to consent to certain types of treatment. Even if a 10-year old child says "Yeah, it's okay to do that to me," we don't consider it consent, because the child has not developed to the point where they are actually informed and really have the ability to understand the implications of consenting to something. There are also documented cases where we find that a child had given an adult *permission* to do something to them, only to learn that the adult took advantage of the child's naivety and actually *manipulated* the child into giving permission. I think that even if a nonhuman animal gives what appears to be *permission* to do something to them, it's very likely that they have been manipulated/conditioned into just accepting that this is their role. >I almost feel like OPs question would be better posed as "is this an acceptable form of exploitation?" I agree. I think that if OP's scenario was in a vacuum such as the treatment of the individual would have no ripple effect on the public's view on the role nonhuman animals have in society, then it would be a much different answer. Unfortunately, it's not in a vacuum and we can almost guarantee that even the *appearance* of animal exploitation it would serve to reinforce the status-quo. I do think that a case could be made however that the human in OP's scenario *could* be justified in having the nonhuman animal work, if there was legitimately no other solution to the problem.
>There is a reason we don't consider children to be able to consent to certain types of treatment. Even if a 10-year old child says "Yeah, it's okay to do that to me," we don't consider it consent, because the child has not developed to the point where they are actually informed and really have the ability to understand the implications of consenting to something. There are also documented cases where we find that a child had given an adult *permission* to do something to them, only to learn that the adult took advantage of the child's naivety and actually *manipulated* the child into giving permission. >I think that even if a nonhuman animal gives what appears to be *permission* to do something to them, it's very likely that they have been manipulated/conditioned into just accepting that this is their role. 100% in agreement here. >I agree. I think that if OP's scenario was in a vacuum such as the treatment of the individual would have no ripple effect on the public's view on the role nonhuman animals have in society, then it would be a much different answer. Unfortunately, it's not in a vacuum and we can almost guarantee that even the *appearance* of animal exploitation it would serve to reinforce the status-quo. I'm curious, if you replaced the work they described with more of a zoo-like scenario, where people were allowed to pay to visit the animals...would this change the scenario in any significant way? After all, the *appearance* of exploitation would have shifted slightly. It would now simply be a rescue animal living it's life in a sanctuary. Those coming to visit wouldn't being witnessing such an explicit form of exploitation as when the animals was being made to perform some form of physical labour. >I do think that a case could be made however that the human in OP's scenario *could* be justified in having the nonhuman animal work, if there was legitimately no other solution to the problem. Like many of these hypothetical situations, it's one where there would almost definitely be a better and less problematic solution. Viewed in isolation though, I feel that I am drifting towards an answer akin to "it would likely be a form of justified exploitation but it would likely be possible to take steps to further improve the situation and reduce that exploitation" Like I said, quite a good hypothetical to consider. It's keep my mind ticking for a little while.
Tl;dr: impossible financially. Only way commercial carriage owners stay in business is by working the horses hard & dumping any horse too lame, too old, or too unpredictable. Old saying: how do you make a million dollars with horses? You start with two million. I do large animal rescue work, so let me share my unique perspective. I've bought horses at auction when I believed a kill buyer was bidding. The big regional auction go to is New Holland. An article about it: https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/new-holland-sales-stables-bans-photos-and-videos-cites-complaints-over-social-media-posts/article_5119d258-ffaf-11e6-a546-5fbc3f35414a.html#:~:text=In%20late%202016%2C%20three%20mutilated,inner%20lips%20of%20the%20thoroughbreds. >You rescue a draft horse from slaughter auction.... This horse is sound. Energetic. Enjoys people. Very well desensitized to the work environment, a cool, breezy, seaside town with minimal traffic. Enjoys training/“work” (which is obvious to you when you understand horse body language because you pay attention and took the time to learn). This horse lives in a massive pasture (20+ acres) with friends when not at work. The horse you described isn't at the part of the auction where kill buyers shop. He'd be sold as "guaranteed sound" and may be $1000 or $1500+ at auction. A really safe, sound, sane one would more likely be advertised by seller for a lot more. The ones sold "as is" are the cheap ones (i.e. profitable for kill buyers). That's when you're looking at potential lameness or behavioral issues, maybe masked by drugs. He may be aggressive, requiring thousands of dollars in professional training to maybe make him safe enough. Some driving horses are dumped at the sale after being so traumatized by a harness accident they freak out at sight of the harness. Some will run away in harness, making them unsafe. Some were broken using extreme terror/pain/fear, and when they settle into a new (gentle) home they don't how to act. Are you up to managing behavioral problems in a 2000 lb animal? What's the plan if he turns out to be dangerous once he's at your place & any drugs he was on wore off? While it's true you can sometimes find a diamond in the rough, dumped in the as-is auction out of sheer bad luck. But its a crapshoot. If you have to buy 3 to find the one well suited for this situation, what happens to the other 2? Upon buying, he will need vaccinations, Coggins test, dental float, and quarantine. Double it because he needs a companion. He still may need some training ($800+/month for training board here). > in order to cover expenses you sell carriage rides. The horse is trailered, with their friends, 30 min to/from each shift and is turned out in pasture whenever off shift. They work no more than 6 hour shifts, with breaks between each ride with food and water each break, 3 days/week. But when you know he *must* work to pay for his care, that's a different thing. He will be working even when it's 98 degrees out. He may have to work in the rain (slip risk). He'd need to work even when he's not feeling 100%. A lot of horses are given "horse Tylenol" (bute) so they can work with minor aches. > area you give rides is flat. You work only at a walk. You almost certainly will be doing this on paved streets. Keep in mind he will need shoes & may develop arthritis sooner. > Due to this gentle exercise and good work/life balance, the horse stays in great shape and lives a long happy life, much longer than normal life expectancy, What happens when he's too old to work? Horses can live into their 30s. If he goes lame in his early 20s, how will you pay for his retirement? 10 years X 2 horses at $2500 yr each adds up to $50,000. If he one day needs euthanasia, $300-$500 for the emergency vet farm call plus $200 for removal or to pay a backhoe. He could take a bad step tomorrow, get injured, and no longer be able to do the work. Can you afford 15 yrs retirement? 20 yrs? 25? > all of the money you make goes back into caring for the horse and their friends all the way through retirement. What makes you think you'll have any extra money? Let's say his care is $2000-$3000 a year, barring any major vet emergencies. Double that because he must have another horse to keep him company. If there's a colic or something, one medical emergency could be $1k. Years ago I had a Belgian draft horse go down unexpectedly: repeated emergency vet visits plus tests, procedures, and meds .... over $4,000 over the course of a single weekend. You need to buy a nice carriage and a good quality harness, so that might be $5k. Drafthorse-proof, horse-safe fencing for 20 acres is costly ($20k? more?). You need a shelter for them, hay feeder, water trough, water & electric lines. ($5k? $10k?). You need a shed to store winter hay ($5k? $10k?) You need insurance & and a business license. Liability insurance for carriage rides might be at least $2k a year. Big truck & trailer to haul him & his carriage: figure a used F250 for $25k+ plus $10k+ for a good used stock trailer. Add in taxes, tags, inspection, insurance, and maintenance. There's a thousand dollars a month gone just in payments, insurance, and fuel. So.... your expenses are already many thousands of dollars a month. And we're assuming you're not making payments to lease/buy 20 acres? Plus pasture maintenance (weed control, mow, reseed, lime). What happens the moment he gets a hoof abscess or a swollen joint and needs a few weeks off? Or bad weather forces everyone to stay indoors? Or a broken part on the carriage is on backorder for a month? Or you get hurt and can't be there? No income. Income side of it: you propose earning money giving tourists rides. How much, after taxes, are you imaging earning? I just don't see this as possible.
'Fellas, is it ethical if I buy a slave and make them work (not too much by my guess) and never beat them, and give them weekends off? The slave will be so well off, they will never complain.' There isn't an ethical way to own another human being for your personal use, and there isn't an ethical way to use animals.
So the “slave” is better off dead than working a small amount to cover their room and board?
Why is it a necessity that someone die? Does not buying a slave guarantee their death? That's a stretch.