This is an issue which has been at the back of my mind ever since discussing it with a vegan friend of mine. Before you jump to conclusions he was not one of the overzealous vegans who try to make you feel bad about eating meat, and the issue came up through ordinary conversation. Previously, I had strongly supported eating meat, largely influenced by the writings of internet satirist Maddox. His arguments are mostly against those vegans and vegetarians who believe they have the moral high ground over those who eat meat though, and on reflection don't actually provide a moral justification for actually eating meat. The only thing which comes close is the observation that all forms of harvesting lead to the death of animals and so both the meat eater and the vegetarian alike are just as guilty as one another. However while both may result in animals dying I find myself unable to accept that as justification for purposefully killing animals so that I may eat them. Because I can no longer justify myself morally, and because I have the expectation that others should behave in a moral way, I find this to be quite unsettling. I am not a vegetarian or a vegan because at this point it is impractical, and because I really enjoy eating meat- but I feel that I am being a hypocrite. So I am raising the question- is it morally acceptable to eat meat, and if it is, how can it be justified? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| I find myself in a similar position. I've "tried" to become a vegetarian on several occasions, but at the end of the day the commitment wasn't there, and I feel rather hypocritical on that account. My view is that it is wrong to take the life of another living being under any circumstance. I agree with biocentrism, although I do not actually act as if I do. Since, like myself, most humans act anthropocentrically, my more practical view is that we should not eat meat when meat substitutes are available. Thus, limited access to meat substitutes is the only acceptable justification for eating meat. One problem is that a lot of spoiled, first-world citizens confuse "limited access" with "slightly inconvenient". Another is that diffusing knowledge of meat substitute creation is near the bottom of the "to do" lists of developing countries. There are plenty of other problems, surely. A short digression: Regardless of method, a massive change in preferences needs to occur for the mistreatment of animals (in the food industry) to go away. People need to prefer meat substitutes over meat. Once consumer money goes there, producers will go there, innovation/invention will go there, government money will go there, and things will improve greatly for our animal friends. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| Honestly, I've never really thought about this subject under the lens of morality. I've always viewed meat eating as being acceptable since we are omnivores and we have evolved to eat both meat and plant life to help sustain us. At the same time, I won't say that I'm not biased since I love the taste of meat and seafood, especially fish. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
armeg said: Honestly, I've never really thought about this subject under the lens of morality. I've always viewed meat eating as being acceptable since we are omnivores and we have evolved to eat both meat and plant life to help sustain us. At the same time, I won't say that I'm not biased since I love the taste of meat and seafood, especially fish. Well the pleasure of eating meat is the main reason why I haven't become a vegetarian or a vegan yet. If I didn't enjoy food so much then it wouldn't really be a problem. The fact that we are able to eat meat doesn't really satisfy me as a justification for eating meat. There are many things that I could do but don't do because I consider them immoral. Though it does raise the question of nutrition because I've often heard it said that we get some vitamins from meat which we cannot get anywhere else, but having learned a bit more about how the meat and dairy industries use lobbying to promote themselves, I have become a bit skeptical about this. Certainly the vegans I have met who maintain proper diets do not strike me as being especially unhealthy. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: Well the pleasure of eating meat is the main reason why I haven't become a vegetarian or a vegan yet. If I didn't enjoy food so much then it wouldn't really be a problem. The fact that we are able to eat meat doesn't really satisfy me as a justification for eating meat. There are many things that I could do but don't do because I consider them immoral. Though it does raise the question of nutrition because I've often heard it said that we get some vitamins from meat which we cannot get anywhere else, but having learned a bit more about how the meat and dairy industries use lobbying to promote themselves, I have become a bit skeptical about this. Certainly the vegans I have met who maintain proper diets do not strike me as being especially unhealthy. As a meat-eater, I'm pretty sure that whole "there are vitamins in meat that you can't get anywhere else" thing isn't true. I'm pretty sure we can synthesize almost every essential vitamin we need. Your point that you don't do things because they are immoral because you can easily apply it to this situation. The entire idea of the morality of something is quite subjective and depends on the person. Obviously there are things out there that a large majority of people lean either way (towards immoral or moral) such as murder, but there are plenty of things out there where there is a lot more gray. To be honest, I think it's really up to the person whether they want to think of this being moral or not. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
armeg said: As a meat-eater, I'm pretty sure that whole "there are vitamins in meat that you can't get anywhere else" thing isn't true. I'm pretty sure we can synthesize almost every essential vitamin we need. Your point that you don't do things because they are immoral because you can easily apply it to this situation. The entire idea of the morality of something is quite subjective and depends on the person. Obviously there are things out there that a large majority of people lean either way (towards immoral or moral) such as murder, but there are plenty of things out there where there is a lot more gray. To be honest, I think it's really up to the person whether they want to think of this being moral or not. Well I am sure you'd agree that killing people is immoral; especially for the purposes of eating them or turning them into clothes, but you feel that this is acceptable in the case of animals. What is it about animals that makes the difference in treatment justifiable? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| I would imagine intelligence and awareness is the main justification being making an exception for eating certain animals. But of course, that doesn't really explain why in our culture, even the idea of eating a cat would make people cringe. Despite the fact they're about as aware as any other animal we eat. If not less, at times. I see no moral issues with eating meat itself, but rather the way they are farmed in the process. That said, as backwards as it may seem, as long as we continue to eat a species of animal, the longer that species is ultimately going to survive. In a way, this could be seen as justification of how we farm and eat them. Personally I'm not much of a meat eater. Although that's more so due to not finding anything I find tasty (nor really caring to try much food in the first place), rather than giving myself a label and making some stance. |
Trapalicious said: I would imagine intelligence and awareness is the main justification being making an exception for eating certain animals. But of course, that doesn't really explain why in our culture, even the idea of eating a cat would make people cringe. Despite the fact they're about as aware as any other animal we eat. If not less, at times. Millenia of domestication and husbandry has pretty much ingrained in us trough tradition which animals are "acceptable" to be consumed. Religion also plays a big part in this tradition like Hindus with cows and Muslims with pigs. If intelligence is being used to judge things, then can we consume people with serious mental disorders or who are brain dead? Also, there are animals which are extremely intelligent who are being consumed like dolphins and apes. I am meat eater though so I support carnivores. Top of the Food Chain, etc. |
| The Art of Eight |
| I suppose I could go for an idea I went for back in some animal testing thread ages ago that links to this: Trapalicious said: That said, as backwards as it may seem, as long as we continue to eat a species of animal, the longer that species is ultimately going to survive. In a way, this could be seen as justification of how we farm and eat them. If we did not eat these animals, they would not be spared, they simply wouldn't have lived in the first place. Is it then acceptable to suggest that eating meat is fine because although we end the life of an animal to eat it, the fact we were going to eat it allowed it's existence int he first place. Is it better to have a fairly short life with a untimely death, or is it better to have never lived at all? My answer is: It depends how they lived. That's why free range chicken is worthwhile, the chickens have a somewhat enjoyable albeit short life, is that not alright? Just as eating animals brings death to them, it also brings life to them in the first place, which is why I could justify that it is morally sound. |
InfiniteRyvius said: I suppose I could go for an idea I went for back in some animal testing thread ages ago that links to this: Trapalicious said: That said, as backwards as it may seem, as long as we continue to eat a species of animal, the longer that species is ultimately going to survive. In a way, this could be seen as justification of how we farm and eat them. If we did not eat these animals, they would not be spared, they simply wouldn't have lived in the first place. Is it then acceptable to suggest that eating meat is fine because although we end the life of an animal to eat it, the fact we were going to eat it allowed it's existence int he first place. Is it better to have a fairly short life with a untimely death, or is it better to have never lived at all? My answer is: It depends how they lived. That's why free range chicken is worthwhile, the chickens have a somewhat enjoyable albeit short life, is that not alright? Just as eating animals brings death to them, it also brings life to them in the first place, which is why I could justify that it is morally sound. my pa and I used to rear chickens, we let them roam around the garden eating worms and doing chicken things. We never ate them but we did consume their eggs. So, is eating eggs OK because the chicken never lived in the first place? (lol this is like abortion talk) |
| The Art of Eight |
dankickyou said: my pa and I used to rear chickens, we let them roam around the garden eating worms and doing chicken things. We never ate them but we did consume their eggs. So, is eating eggs OK because the chicken never lived in the first place? (lol this is like abortion talk) Yes, because you didn't kill them. What is there that is morally wrong about eating something that isn't alive? You're right, this is like an abortion debate. |
InfiniteRyvius said: I suppose I could go for an idea I went for back in some animal testing thread ages ago that links to this: If we did not eat these animals, they would not be spared, they simply wouldn't have lived in the first place... Is it better to have a fairly short life with a untimely death, or is it better to have never lived at all?...(in the circumstance of free-range etc) I could justify that it is morally sound. Oooh, if one-more-time were here he'd have your guts for garters! (How's that for utilisation of animals for human benefit?) Looking at the topic at hand though, I don't think it's right to look at the issue as one of morality or as an action that requires any justification. They are constructs, nothing more, created by humans to judge XYZXYZ rather than objectively stating something as right or wrong (yeah, I should sooo work for the OED, but I hope the point comes across). Morals should be considered in the development of laws etc designed for the protection of humans (think like murder, rape etc) because in my opinion at least all humans must be regarded as having a fundamental equality and thus must a) be treated equally by the law b) have a fundamental floor of protection. This is why I wouldn't support the farming/harvesting of humans for human consumption. :P You ask, Anno, what makes animals fundamentally different from humans so as to justify being harvested for meat but it's because they're a different species which makes them fundamentally different. No further analysis/discussion there ought to be necessary, really. It's not to do with consciousness or intelligence or anything specific, it just is. |
 |
| I eat meat because A) it tastes alright, and B) my biochemistry professors tell me I need to get the 8 essential amino acids that can't be made by our own bodies. I guess there's also vitamin A, which seem to be a dietary concern for vegans. But sure, we probably have synthesized pills for every essential nutrient. The thing is though, are they affordable, than just say, eggs? One of the most nutritional food there is? Are there other concerns from just deriving your essential nutrients from pills? Meat as a broad spectrum usually offers several nutrients in one bite, with complex interactions between nutrients that may or may not facilitate digestion and absorption. In the only nutrition class I took, there was data that suggest it's still best to eat meat for its organic nature. Biosynthetic food is still in its infant stages to provide the same complex interactions as organic food does. I want to keep eating meat, but I realize the current treatment on pasture animals is... pretty bad. I would never call killing an animal for food "evil" though. That's almost like saying any carnivores/omnivores killing a herbivore are evil animals. Sure, we have the ability to reason than driving instincts, but I still wouldn't call us evil for that. I suppose when we have equivalent biosynthetic food that provide the same nutrients + utilizes similar biochemical pathways as meat does, that's when they might have an argument for morality. After all, then we're just killing animals for the pleasure of taste in our mouths when the essential nutrients can be getting elsewhere. Killing anything for the sake of pleasure could be seen as unethical. PS: I applaud this thread, man. Could be in current events? With these many serious replies I could move it to facilitate more outside discussion. |
Karpman said: @Jack_Rav You say that it just is, but for what reason does the human only eat a select few of all the herbivores, why are there so many frowns when one eats a giraffe, but is it perfectly normal when that same person eats a sheep? Such positions are inherently irrational. I don't think anything else needs to be said. It's like how some animals are eaten in one part of the world, and domesticated in others. lpfManiak said: If an animal species was naturally more intelligent and powerful than us; if an alien, sapient race more powerful than humans went on our planet, your rationale would defend their right to slaughter our populations. Your white-coloured argument is almost embarrassingly crass so it almost not worth responding to that. But species is not irrelevant, I don't think - I don't really know what to say. I'm not saying that we shouldn't attempt to minimise the suffering of the animals we slaughter, but to call them equal and worth of equal protection is a step too far. I also would very much like for any superior alien overlords not to slaughter our populations, but they simply could do so. I wouldn't 'defend their right' to do so, because it's not a right; it would just be nature. -- Question, actually. What do people think about omnivorous animals eating other animals? |
|
| I don't see any point to eating meat, theres nothing about we need them for nutrients outside of what we can grow--there are vegetarians that have lived longer than you in the past off vegetables. morally since animals suffer I see it as pretty harsh everytime I eat meat in the utilitarian sense we just increase suffering with little benefit. |
| ~"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands." (Pirsig) |
Not_Biased said: There's nothing more untrue than the classic "individuals don't make a difference."The problem is that even if we stop eating meat, animals would still be killed because the vast majority eats meat. So I'll still eat meat because it won't change anything if I don't. Jack_Rav said: I think it is fine, due to their lack of intelligence. Question, actually. What do people think about omnivorous animals eating other animals? |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| Another side of this just occurred to me. It is well known that vegetarianism is an effective means of combatting climate change. This article doesn't really explain why, but it does explain why it's tough to truly convince people, enough to change their preferences. Climate change, in and of itself, unequivocally has a negative effect on humans, and the future effects could be disastrous. So then, if you consider harming other humans to be immoral, must you also consider eating meat to be immoral? I think, for most people, this question would be a matter of magnitudes. If someone could, somehow, calculate a ratio of, say, carbon dioxide emissions to # of human lives lost, people would decide what level of emissions they deem morally satisfactory. If you're one who considers human life to be of infinite value (a view that, in practice, almost no one actually holds), then you would not eat meat. Not_Biased said: Basic Economics says otherwise. Meat, like every other product, is produced on the basis of demand. By eating meat, you are contributing to aggregate demand. You are sending a signal to producers, telling them to keep killing animals to provide you with meat, because you will buy it. When you go to the market and see meat, the animals were already killed. So it doesn't make any difference if you eat it or not, if you don't, someone else will. It's not like you go to the slaughterhouse and tell them to kill an animal for you. If it were this way, then yes, people would make a difference. For example, suppose that some producer sells 100 cows worth of meat/year to 100 different consumers and that each consumer only wants 1 cow worth/year (maybe because that's all they can afford, maybe because that's simply enough meat; there are many reasons this is a relatively reasonable assumption). If, in any given year, 1 consumer becomes a vegetarian, what happens? Only 99 cows worth sell, and 1 cow worth wastes away at a loss. This represents a decrease in demand and, logically, the producer will respond by only killing and selling 99 cows next year. In this simple example, the vegetarian is effectively saving 1 cow/year, each year until they are no longer a potential member of that market. You're right, not buying meat does not bring back the animals that are already dead. But it does reduce future deaths. |
JoshJan 6, 2013 11:39 AM
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| I guess the problem here lies on defining and justifying morality, as a personal impulse. This matter has been brought by AnnoKano when he raised the question: what is the justification for killing and eating animals? What does it make different from us? This is insanely difficult to answer from a moral point of view; it is, however, ridiculously easy from a biological/scientific take. We simply eat other animals because we aren't able to recognize them as equal. This is not a matter of a belief, a "superiority" as the vegan discourse has always tried to defend, but the consequence of the natural trend to protect and perpetuate one's own genes. Of course it could be argued at this point that our mental development has made us grow complicated concepts about what is good or bad, therefore that argument of "natural trend" is not enough. However I see this as a sort of anthropocentric and doubtful idea. First and firemost, morality itself is by definition relative, arbitrary and the product of a social construction. We can't define it in absolute terms. And also, assuming that we are the only animals able to reach moral judgements is a very risky assumption actually. We simply don't know. And if such case was possible, as in nature the predating interactions are normally set, it would mean that there are alternative views of what is good or bad, and therefore assuming that ours is preferable would be totally unjustified. On the other hand, even if we assume that this moral consideration is part of our natural development (which could be a valid argument), it is kind of cherrypicking to choose this one and ignore other natural characteristics and social constructions that make us able to eat and digest meat, to farm and to hunt with weapons. There is not a biological justification for this sense of morality, and of course trying to justify morality by itself ("this is good because we have defined it as good") is simply not enough. I think Tachii also brings an interesting question. In the current situation of the food industry, we can't rely on synthetizing our own nutrients. Therefore we have to follow the basic rule: kill for food. Although it doesn't seem clear that we need animal source (vegans are perfectly able to live without these sources) to survive, in the end getting food still means killing a being. This of course is nothing more and nothing else than the old argument of "WHY DO YOU EAT CARROTS? THEY ARE LIVING BEINGS!!!1!!" that has always been brought to the vegetarian/vegan debate. It can be summed up as a basic idea: there is not a moral justification to consider animals as lives to respect while eating vegetables, mushrooms and other forms of life, or even sterilizing products. I don't think I have to explain why the arguments of suffering and intelligence are anthropocentric and morally unjustifiable. Of course, there are other reasons for not eating meat (its relation with the climate change process, the problems of overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions in the industrial farming), but since the basis of the problem for them is not the fact of eating meat but the current system of food production, I guess they are not part of this discussion, even if they are understandable and/or justifiable. In the end, I haven't done anything but exposing my doubts about the moral integrity of vegetarianism/veganism and trying to show some of its judgement flaws and hypocrisies. But this is not a justification for the contrary view. And here lies the main problem of this question: we can attack the others' sense of morality, but we can't justify ours. I eat meat, but I know that the possible moral reasons to do it are not in any way stronger than the moral reasons to not do it. I can also justify it through biological arguments, but this doesn't have anything to do with it being "right" or "wrong". |
jal90Jan 9, 2013 6:16 AM
| Utilitarianism on animal suffering Just take it a read, the man basically explains the utilitarianism view of why not to eat animals etc. |
| ~"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands." (Pirsig) |
More topics from this board
» General Literature DiscussionJosh - Jan 11, 2013 |
6 |
by TheOttocrat
»»
Mar 15, 2013 2:10 PM |
|
» Haiku - share us your creativityKarpman - Feb 4, 2013 |
3 |
by Javi-Hime
»»
Feb 11, 2013 2:06 PM |
|
» Gaming - aside from entertainment, does it do anything?Karpman - Jan 22, 2013 |
2 |
by Umbrya
»»
Jan 29, 2013 12:41 AM |
|
» Capitalism, Climate Change, and the Revival of City-StatesJosh - Jan 7, 2013 |
6 |
by Karpman
»»
Jan 16, 2013 7:12 AM |
|
» Israel vs. PalestineRegicide - Jan 6, 2013 |
3 |
by howlingfantods
»»
Jan 12, 2013 5:22 AM |