Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[physicsisphirst]

You know who else was a cardiologist?
Robert C. Atkins, M.D.

in proper context, your point being?

The point is that is is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.

eating meat is not natural physiologically (see post #900) and can produce serious health implications. i see that we have at least moved now from "eat meat" to "at least eat some animal products" - however, that's not necessary or necessarily natural either.

you can't be healthy on a vegan diet without resorting to artificial means. This would indicate that a vegan diet is not natural.

the only item you can even make a case for is b12 - and even then it is not conclusive. veg diets don't need to be supplemented with any other stuff either as some people seem to think - but as dooga says, who really cares (at least for the purposes of this thread)?

Do you think that these 40% would get MORE B12 by switching to a vegan diet?

probably. they'd be so scared about their b12 deficiency that they would rush out and buy a myriad of fortified foods, yeast and have shots to boot! on their meat diet, they are obviously under this illusion that they must be getting enough because they are consuming vast quantities of meat and they are perfectly safe from everyone at tufts. LOL LOL

(ok if it will further the cause of moving this thread back to morality, I'm willing to discuss the nutritional aspects elsewhere as indicated in an earlier post to you - edit: but since you indicate in post #948 that you do not wish to do so that's fine. however, i will restrict myself to the morality issue which i now accept as the intent of the thread.)

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

The point is that it is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.


edit: But, really, how "natural" is anything we eat anymore?

Natural is defined as something that occurs in the environment, and we are part of the environment. Cheese is not found on top of pasta, but many people choose to put it there. I would call anything we are capable of doing natural.

If you mean natural in terms of what is most efficient, I would advocate a vegetarian diet - a vegan diet - I do not know much about that.

 

[shrumeo]

in proper context, your point being?

My point is that two people may both be cardiologists yet have different opinions about diet. This may mean that cardiology is still a long way from being able to dictate to anyone what is the best diet.

eating meat is not natural physiologically (see post #900) and can produce serious health implications. i see that we have at least moved now from "eat meat" to "at least eat some animal products" - however, that's not necessary or necessarily natural either.

No, I'm sticking with "EAT MEAT."
I just said that to get all your proper nutrients you are going to have to eat something that at the very least came from an animal (unless of course we eat the manufactured stuff.)

It's funny, when I google "humans omnivores gastrointestinal"
I get page after page of anti-meat sites, with a few "neutral" sites mixed in.
http://www.bioscience.org/1999/v4/d/klurfeld/fulltext.htm

Unfortunately, many of the species studied are herbivores and results from those animals may not be applicable to the human situation; the relative size of various parts of the GI tract and microscopic anatomy of herbivores’ GI mucosa differs from those seen in carnivores and omnivores. Fortunately, the majority of experimental studies have been carried out using rats and swine, both of which are omnivores. However, even with these species there are significant differences from humans in gestation periods, developmental patterns, and intestinal anatomy. This does not mean that studies on other species are of no value but one must be aware of the limitations that must be remembered when making cross species comparisons.

So it seems that omnivores have different GI tracts among themselves.

Humans are the only mammalian species that develops sucrase early in gestation and late fetal levels of this enzyme equal those found in adults (2). Most other species express sucrase after birth and adult levels are usually achieved after weaning. Nutrient availability, peptide growth factors, and hormones in amniotic fluid (which is continuously swallowed by the fetus) can alter rates of GI growth in utero.

So humans have something unique here. Using your logic they must not be mammals after all!

http://www.uoguelph.ca/research/publications/Assets/HTML_MAGS/health/page22.html

Pigs are large omnivores, similar to humans in anatomy and physiology, so they're an ideal model for studying human diseases.

http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/78/2/393

Digesta retention is aided by a cecum in the hindgut of many omnivores and haustrations of the cecum and varying lengths of the colon in some species. The colon of pigs, humans, a few monkeys, and the chimpanzee is haustrated throughout its entire length.

The human GI tract has features common in omnivores.

Nonhuman primates also have a cecum, which is quite well developed in some lemurs and monkeys, but only a few of these species are predominantly herbivores.

Very few primate herbivores have a feature found in humans.

Gut contents represent a small percentage of the body water of most carnivores and only ~4% of the body water of humans, but the gastrointestinal tract of sheep contains 29% of its total body water, with much of this in the forestomach.

Humans do not share a trait with certain herbivores. (hooves too!)

The hindgut of omnivores with a well-developed large intestine also appears to require a minimal amount of plant fiber for normal function, as evidenced by the higher incidence of cancer and other diseases in the colon of humans on low-fiber diets.

They seem to imply that humans are omnivores.


Just because we have a GI tract capable of digesting vegetables means that we are naturally inclined to eat vegetables.
Just because our GI tract does not look like a bear's or a racoon's doesn't mean that we are not naturally omnivores.

the only item you can even make a case for is b12 - and even then it is not conclusive. veg diets don't need to be supplemented with any other stuff either as some people seem to think - but as dooga says, who really cares (at least for the purposes of this thread)?

Don't forget vitamin A. You only get retinol in plants. You have to make sure you eat other things for retinol to become vitamin A.

But you make B12 yourself in you colon. Most of it is not absorbed, but who knows. Maybe some people don't need to eat it at all.

probably. they'd be so scared about their b12 deficiency that they would rush out and buy a myriad of fortified foods, yeast and have shots to boot! on their meat diet, they are obviously under this illusion that they must be getting enough because they are consuming vast quantities of meat and they are perfectly safe from everyone at tufts. LOL LOL

They would probably get more B12 by eating nothing but veggies? NOT.
If they are eating a well-balanced diet that includes meat, then chances are, they are getting more than enough B12.

Vast quantities? A sea of beef?

(ok if it will further the cause of moving this thread back to morality, I'm willing to discuss the nutritional aspects elsewhere as indicated earlier. shrumeo, you and i can work this out on the other thread once i start it. i'll even go along with the b12 fortification stuff here - though not on the other thread.)

Sorry, I am only responding in this thread.
I honestly don't care enough to chase people around who are dishing out misinformation everywhere.
I'll just stick to this one.

 

[shrumeo]

Natural is defined as something that occurs in the environment, and we are part of the environment.

By whom? You?
That's not how I define natural.

Let's see what a dictionary says.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural
Sorry, doesn't say anything about requiring things to come from "the environment."

Anyway, I agree that we are part of nature. Now, am I part of the environment?
That doesn't leave room for much to NOT be the environment, does it?

Cheese is not found on top of pasta, but many people choose to put it there.

Hehe, you are right. When I drive past the waving fields of pasta in Iowa, there is definitely no cheese on top.
You have to drive through Wisconcin for that.

I would call anything we are capable of doing natural.

So hoarding animals into fur farms and torturing them for the entirety of their short lives is only natural.

If you mean natural in terms of what is most efficient, I would advocate a vegetarian diet - a vegan diet - I do not know much about that.

I seem to agree with you on all points here!

 

[physicsisphirst]

My point is that two people may both be cardiologists yet have different opinions about diet. This may mean that cardiology is still a long way from being able to dictate to anyone what is the best diet.

the issue didn't have anything to do with cardiology. russ simply thought i put the title in so that it sounded authoritative which wasn't so. as explained, i supplied his opponents credentials too (as well as the fact the latter was a veg).

So it seems that omnivores have different GI tracts among themselves ...

omnivore is a large group - but not really large enough to include humans (see post #900) unless you really stretch things a lot and introduce hoove arguments which is really quite a feet.

Sorry, I am only responding in this thread.

that's fine, we'll just stick to the moral issues here then.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Return to morality

Here are 3 issues that haven't really been answered at all, so i am listing them again:

What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights. Your run-of-the-mill adult cow is by all measure capable of suffering, self-consciousness, and rational thought to an extent which far exceeds that of the newborn infant or the profoundly develpmentally disabled human. If we are disposed to take these latter entities are possessors of rights, then consistency demands we extend rights to the former entities as well. If the reply to this consistency argument is that the psychological capacities mentioned are not criterial of moral considerability, then, praytell, what is? (post #883)

Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat? (post #901)

Just because humans decide that animals have lesser rights, doesn't make it so. How do you substantiate your position? (post #924)

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dissident Dan]

The point is that it is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.


edit: But, really, how "natural" is anything we eat anymore?

Hmm, I was going to to ask you if you think anyone's diet is "natural" but you rebutted yourself before I got the chance.

Secondly, why is a "natural" diet necessarily good or desirable?

Thirdly, the changes in the way that we get food have changed what nutrients we get on what types of diets. A vegan jungle ape might get all the B12 it needs from the dirt...but we don't eat dirt-covered food anymore. We sterilize it (at least plant food, anyway!). Today, we live in a situation vastly different from the situation our prehistoric ancestors found themselves in. None of us will come close to replicating their diet, and it hasn't been established that it would be beneficial to do so.

 

[JPD]

So then, you have no problem with cannibalism? Or at least it seems you think nobody should speak out against it, as that would be "telling people what they should and shouldn't eat"? If a cannibal decides to eat someone you know, you better not say anything as it is "none of your business".

Absolutely - what effect would speaking out against it have anyway? It won't stop it happening.

 

[JPD]

I don't believe for one second that you are going out into the woods and shooting one individual and bringing it home. You buy your meat from your local supermarket just like most other meat-eaters. If you actually did go out and hunt your own food, then you would have appended such to your response.
Please, dispense with the insincere indignation.

Could you explain how clear is my lack of awareness?

-Ray.

There are other possibilities - here your lack of awareness shows itself. You have assumed that I either (a) Buy my meat from a supermarket, or
(b) Go and kill animals.
In actuality, I purchase meat directly from the producers on our local farms.

 

[JPD]

but jpd people are always telling other people what they should and shouldn't do - you have just done it again by saying "DON'T TELL ME ..."

i'm not making a joke here - I'm saying that your concept of "don't tell me ..." seems to contain a rather large droplet of (unintended, I'm sure) hypocrisy.

i don't see what the big deal is anyway? laws and regulations tell people what they should and shouldn't do all the time. it's hardly something worth complaining about in the fashion you chose.

in friendship,
prad

You could be right - ultimately telling others what they should and shouldn't do has little or no effect. You will continue to not eat meat and I will continue to eat meat. It probably does come down to the fact that it is so delicious. I need no greater justification than that.

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm, I was going to to ask you if you think anyone's diet is "natural" but you rebutted yourself before I got the chance.

Secondly, why is a "natural" diet necessarily good or desirable?

While I agree it is unimportant, the labeling of food and the existence of the GM food debate suggest a great many people do consider "natural" to be relevant (and in this argument, it has been claimed that a vegitarian diet is more "natural"). I once went into a "Whole Foods" grocery store without realizing what it was...

 

[JPD]

While I agree it is unimportant, the labeling of food and the existence of the GM food debate suggest a great many people do consider "natural" to be relevant (and in this argument, it has been claimed that a vegitarian diet is more "natural"). I once went into a "Whole Foods" grocery store without realizing what it was...

Did the mould inform you?

 

[russ_watters]

Did the mould inform you?

No, but try to find some 1%, Pasteurized, homogenized milk and some processed cheese and Wheat Thins at a Whole Foods...

And since its "all natural" (read: lower quality), it costs twice as much too! I wanted to vomit.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Shumeo, this is an educated forum, you can't expect to be able to cut out what information suits you and not have people check where it originally came from.

The dictionary says "Of, relating to, or concerning nature." Nature is "The material world and its phenomena", and our environment (surroundings) is nature.

Hoarding animals isn't necessarily natural, I was making the point that what is found in nature is not necessarily right or most efficient. I never claimed to know about a vegan diet, and the trick you used to weaken my argument was inappropriate for this debate. This thread is supposed to a logical debate where both sides present multiple views and respect each other. There is no point in trying to solve this problem, it isn't like meat-eating has any chance of winning - a vegetarian is not going to suddenly say, "Yes, I will be cruel to animals once again" and start eating meat. In fact, the opposite happened and I became vegetarian partly because of this thread. People can rationalize meat-eating, but it can never be proven better than vegetarianism.

 

[Be Happy!]

That's not a fallacy at all - in fact, its the most important point on the list. Heck, you're living proof: the reason you call yourself a vegitarian has nothing to do with anatomy, but it has to do with the fact that you do, in actuality, not eat meat. Similarly, if you feed a dog only corn, you have made it a vegitarian (by force).

And again, this is all a smokescreen since now it appears you are trying to prove that humans shouldn't eat meat because they weren't designed to eat meat. Physiology isn't at all relevant to the conversation: we're back to the logical fallacy and utter absurdity of "if humans were meant to fly, they'd have wings!"

edit: now, perhaps this has relevance to the question of how far we can push our beliefs on to other animals, but as we have already discussed, morality and ethics have nothing to do with physiology: if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow. Either the cow has a right to life or it doesn't.

Russ,
I don't really understand why you fight SO hard to understand such simple arguements! Perhaps your desire to eat flesh is getting in the way of at least recognizing some of the sincere and noble reasons why people might want to not eat meat.

It really is simple, so if I may, here are all the reasons we should use our complex brain to CHOOSE (as we have a choice here) a diet that will be better for all life, our health and the planet.

In the US we slaughter 27 billion animals!

1) Whether you want to admit it or not, all farmed animals are capable of suffering. Farmed animals live horrible lives on factory farms and their death is quite painful as well. As I mentioned in a previous post, they live in filthy, crowded, and diseased conditions and are often slaughtered while they are still fully conscious. (pls see www.ChooseVegetarian.com[/url] for more details and if you would like to see these condition [url]www.MeetYourMeat.com[/URL] is a great site)

2) Imagine all the resources and energy it takes to raise animals for food! Over 70% of US land is used to grow crops to make animals fat! Half of all the water used goes to raise livestock...In cities where factory farms reside there are huge environmental catastrophies taking place. The recent book by the World Watch Institute ([url]http://www.worldwatch.org[/url])- The State of the World 2004, goes into much detail as to how animal agriculture is destroying the earth...oh and did I mention that the number one cause of rainforest destruction is cattle grazing to produce hamburgers! Once cattle have grazed, our precious rainforests become deserts forever!

3) No matter what you say, the vast majority of us do not hunt for our meat anymore though many people did thousands of years ago...mind you humans were cannibals too many thousands of years ago- but that's another point. As the China Study by Cornell University (which the New York Times called "The 'Grand Prix'...the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease...tantalizing findings" ([PLAIN]http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject/ )and many leading scientists and prominent doctors are reporting, eating meat (esp in the proportions that we do) is making us sick! (www.PCRM.org) Meat is pumped full of fat and cholesterol (not to mention antibiotics and growth hormones)- is there any wonder why every 40 sec someone falls down with a heart attack! Obesity and so many other diseases are rising in epidemic proportions...if you do a simple comparison of people in rural China for example- these people live on a plant based diet and do not suffer from the same diseases as us, they do have a few diseases yes, but *very* few and they are not as dangerous as ours.

I hope you see that we don't need to get into complicated justifications...and as I said before, vegetarianism is the best environmental, ethical and healthful decision for societal problems. Because ethics are only useful in my mind when we can apply them in our lives...the question (whilst putting all of our egos and desires aside) begs to ask itself- How are we to live to make this world a kinder and healthier place?

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
- Albert Einstein


Sangeeta Kumar

P.S: "...if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow..."

The "logic" you use (if you want to call it that) in the cow and lion argument is completely meaningless- how does one follow from the other? Please explain.

 

[Be Happy!]

Hi All!

For those of you interested in some delicious recipes for this holiday season (whether you are a vegetarian or not) here is a great site! http://www.vegcooking.com/


Sangeeta

 

[loseyourname]

P.S: "...if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow..."

The "logic" you use (if you want to call it that) in the cow and lion argument is completely meaningless- how does one follow from the other? Please explain.

He did explain it. He said that a cow either has a right to life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's right for anything to kill a cow. If a cow has a right to life, then it is wrong for anything to kill a cow, whether it be man or lion. We may not consider the lion morally culpable because lions are not generally considered to be moral agents, but that doesn't make its action right. By analogy, if a 3 year-old shoots her mother, we don't consider her morally culpable because she cannot tell right from wrong, but what she did is still wrong.

Why do I always find myself defending Russ? How come nobody ever seems to understand his arguments?

 

[learningphysics]

He said that a cow either has a right to life or it doesn't.

I doubt anyone else shares this belief. I don't think anyone or anything has an absolute "right to life". However, under certain circumstances, and at partiulcar moments in time, I'd say they had the right to life.

It's like saying: A person either has the right to smoke or doesn't. People have the right, in partiular circumstances, and in other circumstances they don't.

Anyway, no society in the world has this type of concept of an absolute right to life for humans. Under certain circumstances they say it's ok to kill a human (capital punishment, self defense etc...)

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Idealistically, it is wrong to kill a cow. This doesn't mean we should attempt to integrate all animals into society to protect them. Sometimes idealism conflicts with realism and a problem arises. Realistically, the animals might be doing the correct thing, because it is the only option avaliable - it is difficult to tell; however, humanity has evolved and is ready for a more logical vegetarian lifestyle.

 

[physicsisphirst]

He did explain it. He said that a cow either has a right to life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's right for anything to kill a cow. If a cow has a right to life, then it is wrong for anything to kill a cow, whether it be man or lion. We may not consider the lion morally culpable because lions are not generally considered to be moral agents, but that doesn't make its action right. By analogy, if a 3 year-old shoots her mother, we don't consider her morally culpable because she cannot tell right from wrong, but what she did is still wrong.

Why do I always find myself defending Russ?

what you wrote above was a defense??

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

You could be right - ultimately telling others what they should and shouldn't do has little or no effect. You will continue to not eat meat and I will continue to eat meat.

jpd, i think that is a fairly reasonable assessment to some extent in this particular situation.
before i went lacto-ovo veg in 1972, i don't think i would have budged just because someone told me i shouldn't eat meat (on the otherhand, back then, there weren't too many people around to tell me either). what i had to do was learn about it for myself and understand the nutritional rationale for it (i really didn't think much about the ethics in those days). it took another bit of nutritional research in 1990 to make the transition to strict veg, but again not because people were telling me what to do - though there was a lot more information by then - and there were other veg folks that i could talk to and even see in action. still, i had to convince myself and i think that's what's probably fairly important.

one of the benefits of discussing it in a forum such as this is that people get to understand (and in some situations hear about for the first time) the veg side from veg folks (who probably know what it's about a bit better that the meaters LOL) - and then make up their own minds (like dooga did, for instance).

in any case, i wish you a good holiday season and look forward to continuing the discussion in a day or so!

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

As promised

It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat.

First, I should note that, in many posts you do argue for a “healthy vegetarianism”. However, this is not at question. What is at question is, “Are you an ethical vegetarian?” The second question, is “Do you consider it morally wrong that any animal might eat meat?”

The answer to the first question is obviously, “Yes, you are an ethical vegetarian.” Although you almost explicitly deny this in post 898, and seem to deny it in post 786 (where you “are fine with” with my statement, “It is moral for an animal to eat meat” - a statement which you subsequently equivocate over in post 792), the fact is that you profess, promote, and approve the ethical vegetarian view.

You profess the ethical vegetarian view (that vegetarianism is the ethical choice) in posts 399, 409, 715, 718, 722, 742, 745, 746, 748, 751, 859, and 899. You do this based on the idea that all human beings have an ethical obligation to prevent animal suffering, and thus should not kill animals in order to eat them. Typical of your views on this are:

every being is entitled (deontological view, at any rate) to certain basic rights (eg right to be free from inflicted suffering)

and

the reason we lay this 'moral burden' on humans is because we recognize that other beings can suffer. it doesn't take a great deal of extrapolative power to understand that animals a) feel pain and b) probably have no more wish to feel pain than you or i do.

You promote the ethical vegetarian view by providing us with collections of ethical vegetarian quotes. You do this in posts 107 and 151.

You approve the ethical vegetarian position by systematically endorsing, (I would say, exclusively endorsing), those posts by participants who profess ethical vegetarian views. You do this in posts 812 (replying to Sangeeta), 835 (to Dooga Blackrazor), and 888 (Cogito).

So, there is no doubt that you are an ethical vegetarian. You say so, quite clearly, repeatedly, and in a variety of ways. It is not at all true, as you claim, that “the content of my posts have been for the most part that eating meat is bad for you purely on health grounds” (#898). Rather, a substantial part of your message (perhaps the majority of it) has been that vegetarianism is the ethical lifestyle.

As to the idea that “you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat”, this is demonstrated as follows: In post 743, you tell us that you have obliged your dogs to a vegetarian diet, and you analogize your relationship as one of moral authority like to that of a parent with a child. In post 763 you imply that a cheetah should be stopped from killing for food if there is “a large supply of veg catfood.” In this same post, you tell us that you prevent your cats from catching mice or birds (which you would still do even if you were allowed “to let cats stray”, right?). In post 859, you tell us that animals may not “eat as they please” (my words) because their prey has “certain basic rights” (your words) - and you morally equate the idea of animals eating as they please with cannibalism. In post 899, you countenance the idea of exterminating eagles and shooting lions in order to protect fish and deer from predation, only criticizing it on the grounds of unworkability. In the same post, you present us with an ideal of the world in which all humans do “our little bit” toward “reducing pain and suffering” in the whole animal kingdom, and an implicit goal of evolution that all nature should be released from the primitivity of predation. And frankly, I cannot see how one would believe that every animal has a right to be free from suffering and still not conclude that animals killing other animals is fundamentally wrong.

So, it is also clear that your ethical vegetarianism extends to animals – that your ideal is that no animal should ever kill and eat another animal – and that humans should be activists in enacting this vision.

Your core values and the essence of your position on meat eating have been evident from your very first posts in this thread. You seem to think that you have been an enigma. You have not. No-one has any doubt as to where you stand. In this regard, you have communicated yourself effectively – though you seem to have wished to appear mysterious.

What is baffling is the way you have toyed with me on the matter. Rather than being direct and honest about your views – views which every thread participant is well aware of – you have played a little game of hide and seek with me, obliging me to prove the obvious – like the two-year-old who hides by covering her eyes.

And what is the point of all this? Frankly, it strains charity to categorize your behavior toward me as respectful. I have gone a long way to extend an attitude of goodwill toward you – I am not at all unsympathetic toward ethical vegetarians – yet you have burdened my graces and encroached on the little bit of good will that we started with, all on what can only be called a pointless game. And for what? What does this accomplish?

The balance of your post is similarly troublesome. I will deal with it in a subsequent post.

P.S. Does anyone not know these things? I welcome the comments of anyone who thinks that I have mistakenly assessed physicsicphirst's position. I have been repeatedly accused of falsely attributing positions to people and “movements”. The above reasoning is the sort of method that I use to draw my conclusions (though better documented than is my won't on a forum). If anyone believes that I have falsely represented physicsisphirst's position, I welcome a reasoned response.

 

[OneEye]

Further considerations

As to your thorough but inaccurate post regarding my tendency to make false attributions:

The fact is that every one of your complaints was actually answered in the original post which you cite. Apparently, you examined these posts thoroughly enough to form a complaint but not thoroughly enough to recognize that your complaint lacked merit.

post #727 by oneeye
Collations of elephant tears usually overlook facts like this - are, in fact, writings which uniformly take one side of the question. They look more like propaganda than anything else.
what makes you say that? have you read the book? have you checked masson's credentials? does seeming to support AR automatically make someone a propagandist?

In my original post on this subtopic, I pointed out substantial differences between humans and animals which call this particular point into serious question. You have never dealt with those substantial differences. I did not simply make a claim, I made a series of observations and drew a conclusion. (And for the record, No, I have not read Masson's book, but I am well-familiar with these arguments, having once been a proponent of those same arguments. Yes, I know who Washoe and Koko were! I have close relatives who are still where I once was on the issue of the “humanity” of animals – but for myself, I have left that view behind.)

post #749
And here, you again make the disagreeable assumption of awareness in animals.
i can draw upon 3 decades of 'recent' research (Goodall, Savage-Rumbaugh, Bekoff for instance) or even go back into the 'past' (eg Darwin). you start with your claim that animals don't have awareness and maintain it without the slightest validation.

Again, you seem to have willfully missed the point, to wit: We cannot prove the existence of awareness in animals; evidence exists which draws a substantial distinction between humans and animals on the question of awareness; therefore, any definite conclusion must rest on presumption rather than evidence. I did not say that animals are unaware (though I believe this to be the case) – just that you are making an unwarranted assumption.

post #749
All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone.
you create the position, you attribute it to AR, you say that there is a contradiction (which didn't exist - this was your 4pt syllogism, btw) and then you expect us to just accept all this because you say it is 'completely obvious'.

Hmmm. Let's see: physicsisphirst post #792: “when stated differently (not the way you are doing it), they [my statements] can be considered to be correct for ethical vegetarians.” So apparently, you don't disagree that my assertions substantially represent the ethical vegetarian view (and, I would say, every existing animal rights construct). You just want me to use your particular turn of phrase – and that will make it valid? (But honestly, I doubt that any turn of phrase will suit you, so long as I am doing the writing.)

Post 749: You claim that my premisses are not animal rights premisses (so also in subsequent posts). Post 792: You admit that my premisses are, substantially, animal rights premisses – especially, of the ethical vegetarian kind. Hmmmm.

post #760
I have, several times, presented syllogisms to you which show the inherent contradiction in the animal rights position.
you again make a claim that your syllogism (this was the 4 pointer) is the AR position and that there is a contradiction without researching honestly whether you have accurately represented 'the animal rights' position or whether there was a contradiction (which doesn't exist posts #765, #769 - and you admitted that in the form you wrote it your syllogism was "useless for the discussion" post #771)

(1) My statements of the case are accurate representations of the animal rights position. You, yourself, have made a careful study of showing yourself to agree (or at least, not disagree) with every premiss I have put forward – because you know that I am making a true representation of the case – as you admit in post 792. (2) The reason that the 4-point syllogism had become useless for the discussion was because some participants were redefining the terms contrary to my use of them – a fact which you already knew, and were reacquainted with, if you read my post (771, which you cite) at all. This is why I restated the syllogism in a simpler, 3-point form which was harder to play word games with. The 4-point syllogism remains both an accurate rendition of the animal rights position, and a cogent demonstration of a contradiction inherent to the animal rights position.

post #784
Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent
again you speak for 'everyone'. your 3pt sillygism was neither cogent or demonstrative (as shown in post #779). later you admitted that your use of the word "an" when you really meant "any" caused confusion post #779)

My concession about the “an/any” distinction was intended to help you out of a jam. During the discussion, it became clear that you did not understand concepts of basic logic – as you demonstrated in your bobbling of a simple Barbara argument. You could not recognize or critique a simple modus ponens argument, and you did not know the difference between a valid argument and a true argument. This was a tremendous discredit to you (might even be considered a disqualification), but rather than exploiting your lack of knowledge and making a spectacle out of you, I chose to allow you to escape the embarrassment through your (extraordinary) “an/any” distinction. I now have reason to regret the fact that I gave you a gentleman's chance - especially since you are now misusing my good graces to criticize me.

In your post, you expend a great deal of effort in attempting to demonstrate the claim that I make baseless attributions. But I am not in the habit of posting unreasoned conclusions. The reasoning for my conclusions is always included with the conclusion. You may disagree with my reasoning, or with my conclusion, but you cannot honestly accuse me of unfounded allegations.

I must also say that I do not believe that you have treated my postings in a respectful or thoughtful manner. I am very careful to ascertain my position before posting it, and to thoroughly argue and substantiate my case. I do not post hastily or casually. May I respectfully request that you spend little more time in understanding my posts before critiquing them? All of your criticisms (above) could have been avoided had you considered what I posted with adequate care.

Finally, may I respectfully request that we move on from this line of discussion? It amounts only to an elaborate ad hominem tactic. If you find it too difficult or distasteful to engage me in reasonable discussion, I will understand. But if you intend to converse with me, I will greatly appreciate it if you do so in a reasonable manner: Please, either deal with me substantially, or don't deal with me at all.

 

[OneEye]

For the record

Just to make myself clear:

I am against cruelty to animals, and especially against the wanton destruction of animals. I do not let my wife kill bugs (except flies, mosquitos, and ticks) - not even spiders. I often take spiders pill bugs, millipedes, and crickets outside the house and set them free. But I do not consider killing and eating animals to be wanton destruction nor (if done properly) cruelty.

I have several relatives who are vegetarians. When I eat with ethical vegetarians, I eat what they are eating, and don't shove my meat eating in their faces. I am sensitive to their concerns and scruples.

I have several times considered switching to a vegetarian diet. However, I do not feel compelled by the ethical argument, and the health argument simply doesn't work for me at all (more on that later). But I have seriously considered whether I should switch to a vegetarian diet. And so far, I have concluded (after due gravity) that I need not and should not.

 

[OneEye]

A Constructive Argument for Eating Meat

Meat eaters usually engage vegetarian advocates in a rearguard action, arguing from an entrenched position of the tradition of eating meat. This usually looks like, “Well, what's wrong with eating meat?” – a question which proselytizing vegetarians are thrilled to hear, since they have their guns loaded to answer that specific question.

This small piece provides a constructive, positive, pro-meat rationale which restores balance in the discussion and removes the meat eater from the defensive position. Here is the constructive ethic for meat eaters:

The Ethical Question
Meat consumption is a natural phenomenon, and is a natural phenomenon among humans. Meat is part of the traditional diet for humans, effectively sustains human life (see The Health Question, below), and humans find meat to be a desirable food source. Within the animal kingdom, humans are physically most similar to primates, who are omnivorous (with a few carnivorous and herbivorous exceptions). And, as has been exhaustively observed, meat provides humans with certain crucial nutrients which are not easily acquired from any other natural source. So physiologically and ecologically, man seems to be designed for an omnivorous lifestyle, and so there is no natural argument against humans eating meat.

It is certainly true that all animals will die, most will die through predation, and all animals will be eaten in the end. (Even human corpses are consumed after they die.) So, it is apparently the design of nature that creatures should die and be eaten. In fact, many animals seem to serve the ecological purpose of being food for other animals – most notably, fish, birds, bovines, swine, and lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) fill this role. So if we look at animals from the perspective of their natural function rather than from the perspective of dubious and sentimental projections of personhood or awareness upon them, we conclude that the functional relationship between humans and these other animals places an expectation upon us that, as omnivores, we should eat those animal species which serve as prey animals in nature. So humans eating such creatures would simply seem to be a normal participation in the natural process.

The ethical evaluation which is to be drawn from this is that the claims of nature and ecology supersede the claims of any particular creature. This equation should come as no surprise to either Darwinists or Intelligent Design advocates, since this assessment of nature is obviously the basis of any ecological evaluation of the interrelated nature of the biosphere. (This idea, though simply stated, is powerful in its applications and implications, and deserves a serious consideration. For instance, this is also the fundamental equation of any utilitarian view of society - “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.”)

In addition, from a utilitarian perspective, it might reasonably be argued that since an animal is going to be eaten anyway, it ought more effectively to be eaten to satisfy human needs than to satisfy the needs of some less-aware creature, since greater human awareness means that greater enjoyment results from eating it. In addition, because of animal husbandry, several animal species have flourished under human handling which might otherwise have had much more limited success.

Further, any ethical indictment against humans eating meat must be based on a human obligation toward animals which is unprecedented in the animal kingdom. Further still, such an ethical consideration must be based on the idea that humans may not pursue their tastes because animals are to be accorded certain rights by humans. However, our moral obligations toward animals ought to be based in our observations of the natural ecology rather than in the projection of human sympathies onto non-human creatures (which, in itself, might be judged an unethical practice).

So, there is a strong argument from utility and nature that humans ought to eat meat. This of course does not endorse cruelty to animals, which is counterproductive – as, of course, is cannibalism. But any argument which says that humans should not eat meat runs counter to the course of nature and to the purposes of utility.

The real key to this logic is: Many animals have the ecological purpose of being food for other animals; the animal is going to be eaten anyway (and almost certainly killed first); and so the animal might as well be eaten by a human, who among all creatures will be able to experience the fullest sense of enjoyment from the animal's consumption.

The Health Question
Apparently, meat eating is healthy enough to have sustained the human race up 'til now. In addition, there are people groups whose diet is completely or almost completely composed of animal products (Khazaks, Bedouins, Inuit, Saami, and the like – quite a long list, actually). Ironically, these are people groups who live in marginal and unfriendly environments, and so any substantial health damage from consumption of animal proteins would surely have made their existence untenable. Further, there is no affirmative health information from strictly vegetarian cultures (e.g., Hindu and Theravadin cultures in India) – that is to say, these cultures do not demonstrate an overall improvement in longevity or disease characteristics.

Certainly, it is to be admitted that most Americans have profoundly unhealthy diets – but in my opinion, this is not the result of animal products in the diet, but the enormous amounts of sugar, corn syrup, and other “natural” sweeteners in the diet – along with a high concentration of serum sugar inducers, especially white flour. “Healthy” vegetarians are probably barking up the wrong tree when they critique meat products, since these are probably not the chief culprits in the unhealthy American diet – and since it seems no less likely that a vegetarian will engage in a fatty, sugary diet than will a meat eater (most Hostess products, for instance, meet lactovegetarian standards, but are deadly belly bombs that induce much more serious health effects than the average pork chop).

The Ecological Question
To my mind, this is probably the only substantial argument that vegetarians may have – that meat production is so much more taxing on the land than vegetable production that it makes economic and ecological sense to focus on grain production rather than on beef production. But this argument is far from being complete, mostly because of a lack of hard data and an absence of a serious grasp of agricultural facts (large tracts of American soil, for instance, are really not good for much more than ranching or producing animal feed). In any case, the ecological question is not an argument for vegetarianism per se, but only for a change in the meat-to-vegetable ratio in the average diet. One might conclude, perhaps, that meat should only be a luxury food. But this does not mean that meat should not be a food. So meat eaters should be concerned about the ecological question, but this almost certainly should not require them to stop eating meat. Rather, it only means that meat is likely to become more expensive over time, and so people of lesser means will probably driven toward a more vegetarian diet (thus turning vegetarianism into a tool of oppression to be used against the poor).

Conclusion
We see, then, that a strong ethical argument can be made for eating meat, and that neither health considerations nor environmental considerations militate against meat consumption.

 

[OneEye]

All right, last post for several days: I am still "on vacation" (between visits), but popped into complete a few assignments. Sorry for the logorhea.

I expect to be back late next week, but am not likely to be strongly involved in this thread much longer. I have a suspicion that I have "peaked" here. I will supply clarifications to what I have written when such clarifications are requested or appear necessary. But I don't imagine that I will profit anyone much by further argument of the issues in question - and I would rather spend time on the "Three Thoughts on Morality" thread.

As a postscript: Honestly, I don't care whether anyone is a vegetarian or not. As someone else on the thread said: The only thing that bothers me is the air of moral superiority that many (most?) vegetarians project. I forcefully reject the idea of the moral superiority of vegetarianism. But if someone wants to be a vegetarian, that's their business.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I have several times considered switching to a vegetarian diet. However, I do not feel compelled by the ethical argument, and the health argument simply doesn't work for me at all (more on that later).

if you are sufficiently committed to eating meat the health argument may not work for you.

that was an interesting effort trying to show i am an ethical veg. frankly, I'm flattered you would think so, since i have great respect for ethical vegetarians. however, you mistake my support for ethical veg with my being one (though i feel i have made considerable progress in this area over the recent years having looked into the ethics). i admire ethical veggies because they see something that i certainly wasn't able to when i became lacto-ovo veg in 1972 and strict veg in 1990 (as i wrote to jpd in post #966, i was motivated purely by the nutritional argument).

as for your wanting to be treated with respect, you have been despite your efforts to attribute your own creations to the AR position and despite continuing to make your characteristic sweeping statements like No-one has any doubt as to where you stand (post #967).

You profess the ethical vegetarian view (that vegetarianism is the ethical choice) in posts 399, 409, 715, 718, 722, 742, 745, 746, 748, 751, 859, and 899. You do this based on the idea that all human beings have an ethical obligation to prevent animal suffering, and thus should not kill animals in order to eat them.

additionally, you don't seem to read what i write too carefully as you select them for evidence: eg my posts #409, 715, 718, 722, 742, 745, 746, have nothing to do with vegetarianism; neither does post #748 where i had hoped you might at least try to read about the AR perspective rather than fabricating it with your imagination; post #751 was about animal awareness and your inability to recognize that no one had called you a speciesist; in post #859, i express a deontological view (which is different from a utilitarian view - not that it seems to matter to you); and finally, god only knows what you are trying to prove through post #899 where i simply comment on learningphysics' ideas and lay out the buddhist 4 fault concept of the nature of the mind.
all you've done is just pull out some post numbers and claim that i am an ethical vegetarian even though the content of my posts had nothing to do with vegetarianism (and in some cases little to do even with ethics)
what an absurdity!

it's only your 'logical' arguments and research that don't get too much respect (from me at least) since they really do have some problems and i have tried to show you why several times (even in this post).

however, i do think it is decent of you not to kill bugs and stuff - i don't either, just in case you wanted to know ;)
since neither of us eat bugs (i don't i know and hope I'm not being too presumptuous regarding you), does that make us ethical non-bugavarians?

Please, either deal with me substantially, or don't deal with me at all.

you have been dealt with and very substantially with several posts (even in this post), but as you admonish me, "May I respectfully request that you spend little more time in understanding my posts before critiquing them? All of your criticisms (above) could have been avoided had you considered what I posted with adequate care." (we seem to have this mutual difficulty LOL)
for instance, it would be a big help if you could use your "good graces" to understand that you cannot substitute "an" for "any" in an argument just because you feel like it and expect some people not to notice.

I expect to be back late next week, but am not likely to be strongly involved in this thread much longer. I have a suspicion that I have "peaked" here.

that's fine oneeye - enjoy your vacation and drop in from time to time when you get a chance.

in friendship,
prad

 

[lengould]

since neither of us eat bugs

Where does seafood fit in, (eg. insect equivalents from water such as lobster, shellfish, crabs)? If I am to exempt these from my diet on moral grounds, then mustn't I also follow th Jainist principle of protecting every insect as well?

I've watched vegan-ism etc. from the sidelines for a long time, and conclude is is simply something between a religion and a fad, ideally destined for the same fate as ALL others of that ilk.

 

[yedan]

Animals have to eat too

I voted no that we shouldn't eat meat. Let me preface that by saying I'm one of the worst offenders of meat eating, so it may seem that I'm throwing the proverbial stone in the glass house. But with all our advanced technology, if we could find a way to eliminate the need for meat, I'd go for it. I'll admit I'm guilty of just following the herd on this, and I've never gone vegetarian. I've tried the various soy products and they are nasty. So I'd like to find a "tasty" alternative to meat before I chuck in the meat towel.


Also, being somewhat familiar with some asian cultures, I will agree that we do lead a sedentary lifestyle. We don't exercise nearly as much as they do, and we consume larger portions. If you go to any asian country, their large is our small insomuch as portion sizes go.
Asians do eat meat, and then some. They just eat less of it, and exercise more. So we cannot blame meat for our weight problem.

I'm not sure how much of an impact we'd have on the environment if we went meat free, but I'm sure the world would be a little more crowded.

Most animals spend the bulk of their waking hours searching for food. Man has the ability to catch, grow, or kill his food almost at will or others such as butcher shops and food markets do it for him.
If man did not eat meat wouldn't the animimal population soon become so dense that we would be fighting for space to exist with them.?

 

[enigmatatki]

who cares. men were eating meat for the longest time and they still managed to propagate the entire world. sure too much meat is bad for you, but if eating meat didnt wipe out our race, who cares if some eat it or not?

if you're a vegetarian, don't eat meat. if you are a meat lover, eat meat. who cares? this matter is so trivial.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I just took a trip to the planetrium
they told me of the story of the vegetarian
Never ate meat after she found out it was cow
in her hamburger that she ate and found an eyebrow
It just isn't right to eat meat
Wouldn't just be a feat
never to eat it ever again
Never to eat pork or a hen
For men who eat meat they derserved to be castrated
But we can't touch them because they may have masterbated
This poem is horrible but it serves a point
Eating meat is the choice of your mind and mouth's joint

hehehe
that was absolutely horrible
oh well
I AM goign to eat a big steak with taco meat and nachos

LET THOSE WHO WANT TO EAT MEAT
and if your a vegiterian good for you... just don't tell me not to eat meat
or I will chop you up and grind you into my next hamberger

 

[sheepdog]

Wow, so you've come up with a way to scientifically test morality?

Of course. The future is the proof of the morality of our present choices. Everything has consequences.

 

[learningphysics]

Of course. The future is the proof of the morality of our present choices. Everything has consequences.

How do you decide which consequences are good and which are bad?

 

[sheepdog]

You decide

How do you decide which consequences are good and which are bad?

Well, that is, of course, up to you. Ghandi believed that a free India by non-violent means was a good consequence. Hitler believed that the extermination of the Jews was a good consequence. Make your choice -- you decide.

But consider this. Would the future look differently if people actively chose to refuse meat eating in overwhelming numbers, than it will look if we continue to choose to eat meat as we are? It certainly would be very different in very many ways, I think. Which future do you choose? You decide.

 

[loseyourname]

But consider this. Would the future look differently if people actively chose to refuse meat eating in overwhelming numbers, than it will look if we continue to choose to eat meat as we are? It certainly would be very different in very many ways, I think. Which future do you choose? You decide.

How far into the future are you looking? The very first thing that would happen is we'd end up with millions of domesticated feed animals that are unfit for the wild failing to integrate into the natural ecology wherever they are released, resulting in a great upsetting of the environment. We'd also have millions of unemployed farmworkers and bankrupt farmers. All of the bankruptcy would likely drive at least some of the rural banks themselves out of business and national/international banks, while remaining in business, would definitely feel the hurt. Commodities-trading would be turned on its head. So I guess if you think hurting the environment and destroying the economy for a couple of decades are good consequences, then you'll advocate that the entire human race cease to eat any meat.