Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[russ_watters]

How is the breaking down of society evidence that murder is immoral? Remember we have no morals yet, and are trying to determine the rules empirically... so you can't assume that breaking down of society is immoral...

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

 

[russ_watters]

If the pro-meat eaters are pro-cannibalism, then there is no inconsistency in their position. If they are against cannibalism, then there's an inconsistency in their position that needs to be addressed.

Not at all - canibals eat humans. Animals aren't human. You're operating on the assumption that everyone already agrees that humans and animals are the same and deserve the same rights - if we agreed with that, we'd all already be vegitarians!

 

[learningphysics]

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

Ah, but not everyone agrees with your basis for morality... My personal basis for morality is that moral actions lead to minimal pain and suffering...

 

[learningphysics]

Not at all - canibals eat humans. Animals aren't human. You're operating on the assumption that everyone already agrees that humans and animals are the same and deserve the same rights - if we agreed with that, we'd all already be vegitarians!

Ok. Why is it that humans have the right not be eaten, whereas other animals don't have that right?

 

[plusaf]

sure...

I'm not going to agree with Les that it will sit around for weeks or months, but a few days at internal body temperature is enough to make animal matter rot.

sure, outside a body, but not necessarily inside one!.

[illogical assertion.]

 

[plusaf]

russ...

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

if you replaced "moral" with "useful" or "sensible", and nothing changed, what would be the value of the word "moral" in those statements?

i'd like to suggest several things:

1) "rights" are things that humans agree are "rights"; there ain't no other source: a "Supreme Being", the Constitution, John Locke, or what-or whoever... it's all by agreement. if humans assert that certain things are "rights" and a bunch of other humans agree to that, then those things are "rights."

2) if certain actions improve the "general welfare" and don't degrade it, those things might be called "useful" or "sensible", and some of the heat might be taken off the emotionally charged word, "moral."

there might be times that killing animals, and even people, is "sensible" and "a good idea", but arguing morality is about the same "usefulness" as arguing which religion is "correct."

futile.

:)

 

[sheepdog]

without the arbitrary

All right, I cannot agree to this. The word "wrong" has to be qualified. Saying that 2+2=7 is not wrong in the same way that it is wrong to beat your spouse. Each is wrong within a certain system that says what is wrong and what is right. The former example is wrong within a formal system of numerical arithmetic. The latter is wrong within my ethical system. Neither is wrong within the other system {Edit: Actually, this one is wrong under two systems - my personal ethics, and US law}. I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong; that is, wrong without reference to a certain system of right and wrong.

Yes, this gets right at the heart of the matter. Very nicely said.

I'd like to focus on your statement, "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem.

First, just because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't true.

It should also be very clear that any system you choose is arbitrary. And what is arbitrary has no physical meaning or significance. We may choose coordinates arbitrarily but the physical laws are not altered by the choice of coordinates. They are arbitrary, the physical laws are not.

So what you are telling me is that you are answering the question, "When is it wrong to kill?" arbitrarily. What you are saying is that you may select an answer as you please. Oh, sure. You have reasons. Everyone has reasons. The same with the question, "What can we take from Nature." Your answer is, "Anything we want. I'll just cook up a system to suit the circumstances." Of course it is couched in the "system" of morality, but it is obvious that that system, or any other system you may devise, is of your choosing and you may choose arbitrarily. You made this explicitly clear when you said you could not conceive of an absolute basis for wrongness. If not absolute then it is relative. Relative to what? Well, only you can decide that. Are we together on this?

Now just take a moment and look closely at the questions, "When is it wrong to kill?" and "What should we take from Nature?" They are the same question. And these are not questions anyone should be answering arbitrarily. We see around us all the time, throughout the world, the consequences of applying arbitrary answers to these questions, and the consequences are horrendous.

The Nazis arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to cleanse the world of inferiors. The Turkes arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to exterminate the Armenians. Over and over again we see, generation after generation, what results from this. And now you are telling me you too find the best you can do is choose some system and live by that, answer these fundamental questions with yet another arbitrary system of meaningless thought.

That just isn't good enough. What has been cannot continue to repeat itself in endless wars and deadly application of "rights". Whether you can conceive of it or not, whether it suits your systems or not, we can and will find a better way. One that is not arbitrary. One that is absolute. Physical laws govern whether it is or is not wrong to kill, not some arbitrary system you dream up. Physical laws determine what we should or should not take from Nature. russ_waters is perfectly correct in saying that it can be determined empirically. The only problem is that the experiments are one-time-only, non-reversible paths to the future, no refund, no returns. We have to make good choices of which experiment to execute. It will be the only one.

What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary. Vegetarianism arises out of a consciousness that answers these questions without an intellectual system, in the absence of all arbitrary frames of reference. This is true morality. That morality cannot be separated from the bodies of the animals eaten, nor from the bodies eating them. They are the system of that morality. There is only one such system, and it is absolute.

 

[sheepdog]

amoral

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

This is exactly, precisely, how the Nazis explained their morality. And by these standards they were right in the short run, and might have been correct in the long run if the Americans, British and Russians had not rained on their parade.

I put it to you russ_watters, that there is no basis for judging morality, except that basis which you, or I, or someone else chooses arbitrarily. And if it becomes moral just because a lot of people agree that that is what moral is, welcome to the Inquisition.

History has proven morality to be a very destructive concept. This is why a moral vegetarian is an oxymoron.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Sure, but there aren't many ethical theories that hold action categories, in and of themselves, to be good or bad. Most theories stipulate that actions be taken in context. The ending of a life is not always a good or bad thing. ... If this is the paradigm shift you are hoping for, so be it, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

I was explaining why I felt the appeal to analogy with anything having to do with Hitler is not generally a good idea. ... Either way, I am perfectly willing to address your arguments, regardless of what I may personally think of them.

good! in that case, i'll assume hitler will not cause us any further problems. (besides, i have genuinely enjoyed our exchanges).

To be honest, I didn't consider the possibility that you just consider the ending of any life to be a bad thing. That being the case, why the heck are you going to such great lengths to demonstrate secondary effects of meat consumption such as ecosystem degradation and animal suffering?

i don't really understand what you are saying here, but i'll try to answer anyway. i have not made any statement to the effect that 'the ending of any life is a bad thing' - (i'm not sure that it is - neither has AR). what i have said is that not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill, regardless of whether the being not being killed is deserving of not being killed. ecosystem degradation has nothing to do with killing, but is a consequence of the meat industry (as is animal suffering).

To specifically address your genocide analogy, I didn't like it because it is obvious that the actions of those who would defend genocide are morally bad because they are defending the killing of persons that had the right to not be killed.

it seems you've forgotten what the 'genocide analogy' was about or you simply ignored it because it contained the word 'hitler'. here it is again:

posted by you:
Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that).

response by me (post #996):
this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.
we didn't know what would happen if hitler hadn't been stopped, but it seemed a good idea to stop him so that the things he was doing to damage humanity didn't happen anymore.
as you can perhaps see this time round, the issue has nothing to do with genocide or hitler - it only has to do with the idea that we can take an action based on our wanting to stop what is happening - rather than getting all apathetically or otherwise worked up because we don't know what the consequences of our action might be.

I am just trying to conceive of the possible systems under which your claims might be true ... Either that or demonstrate an inconsistency between the system under which one claim of yours may be true and other claims you have made. It's not an uncommon technique.

i'm sure it is not uncommon, but there may be life beyond 'technique'.
in any case, which claim of mine are you talking about?

If it was the ecological consequences, then you would only advocate the amelioration of these consequences - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it was about animal suffering, then you would only advocate the amelioration of animal suffereing - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it is as you say, and you just think the ending of any life is a bad thing, period . . . then just argue that. Why confuse the matter?

what exactly is so confusing? if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

I only discount ideas that are inconsistent with one another. I have nothing against any of your ideas by themselves.

so what is so inconsistent about the idea that if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

It's expensive to break an animal's neck?

the idea in robbins' book was actually a bullet to the brain, but it is not done because of the added expense.

I'm just saying that if the purpose of vegetarianism is to ameliorate animal suffering, it isn't necessary. All you have to do is kill in a humane manner and not inflict pain on the animal while it is still alive. ... Heck, you can even try being a scavenger and only eat meat that has died from a non-human cause.

amelioration of animal suffering is certainly foremost in the minds of some vegetarians (usually the 'ethicals'). some (such as the leader of the hare krishna movement) even suggested that meaters let the animals die a natural death and then eat them. however, you can see why this (and your scavenging solution) really wouldn't do for nutritional and environmental veggies.

I'm not interested in killing animals at all, unless they are a threat to me and I have no other choice. Heck, I even try my best not to kill insects and annelids ...

well that's decent of you of course, but one should wonder why to see if there is an inconsistency here or not.

No meat farming facility is supposed to inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed.

well that's a nice thought, but you might want to check into some of the realities rather than simply uphold the idea that they aren't supposedto inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. you might check sites like the ones derek1 has listed (there is shortage of them):

http://www.EggCruelty.com
http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp
http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

if you do so, perhaps you will not be so willing to simply argue in favor of 'humane killing' and actually take a closer look at the industry.

But the amount of research necessary to make sure no product I buy was ever produced or refined or shipped by a company that has either advertently or inadvertently promoted the suffering of a sentient being would be so daunting and time-consuming that conducting this research would keep me from ever buying anything.

come now loseyourname! is it really all that hard to do a bit of research? surely, it cannot take all that much time to find out about what happens in the industry when people have provided links for you (a lot of the research has already been done many, many times for anyone who cares to look). have you come to the conclusion that since you cannot do everything, you must do nothing?

How do I know that the vegetable farmer I am buying from doesn't use some of his profits to buy underage prostitutes? Granted, it's a bit of a stretch, but you can see what I'm getting at.

so do you want to keep stretching (with technique, of course LOL) or are you willing to do a bit of investigating? here's why i ask:

i am actually puzzled by an apparent 'inconsistency' in some of what you have said:

you don't seem to think that farm animals have rights, yet you want to kill them humanely. why is that?

you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with killing a creature unless they have a right to life (your prime example being a human, for whatever reason), yet you (like some other meaters here) 'try your best' not to kill insects and annelids. why is that?

why is there such a determination to kill animals that 'taste good' (because they don't have rights in your view), yet such insistence to terminate those lives 'humanely' or in the case of the bugs (who knows what they taste like!), not to kill them at all.

do you feel that you yourself benefit by the act of not killing (even those that you do not grant your right to life)?
have you covertly granted these creatures rights (but don't want any of your friends to find out)?
or could it be that you are writhing in the throes of that paradigm shift?

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, this gets right at the heart of the matter. Very nicely said.

I'd like to focus on your statement, "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem.

First, just because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't true.

It should also be very clear that any system you choose is arbitrary. And what is arbitrary has no physical meaning or significance.

I think you're getting wrong idea. I just said the word "wrong" has to refer to some action of conclusion being wrong given a certain set of rulels that declare what is right and what is wrong (again, 2+2=7 is not wrong morally or legally, but it is wrong arithmetically). The rules need not be abitrary, and I don't think they are. In fact, I don't think the rules of ethics are any more abitrary than the rules of mathematics, just much more difficult to derive. The problem with ethics is that we don't have a method of logic like mathematics does by which we can resolve disputes like the one we have here. We mostly just have appeals to intuition. Because the intuition of two different people - the conscience you were talking about earlier - do not always agree, how do we make a decision? Your conscience tells you that eating meat is wrong, my conscience does not.

There is really no way to tell which conscience is correct in its assessment of the matter. Most ethical systems rely on an appeal to intuition, but a further appeal to intuition isn't going to help the matter. We can apply the categorical imperative, as Russ suggests. If everyone ate meat (and did so without excess and did so compassionately - which is what I've suggested), what would result? Even here I'm not sure we're going to reach an agreement. Obviously, the world will not be much affected. Living organisms have always used other living organisms as a source of food, so continuing that practice will not results in any dire harm. But since you are an absolutist in this matter, that won't make a difference to you. Whether dire consequences result or not matters little, because any act of killing is wrong, according to you. The only think I can ask is this: Why is it that you feel any act of killing is wrong? Did you arrive at the conclusion through some method of reasoning, or is it just another matter of conscience?

 

[physicsisphirst]

What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary.

i think that is an interesting matter that you astutely reveal. it seems that there are some meaters who don't advocate cruelty (they won't even hurt a fly), yet they will defend their habit to the death!

it brings us back to dooga's question again (and again and again and again):

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)

i do think that it must require considerable flexibility and plyability (or straight-forward avoidance) to try to reconcile this issue. it seems there are 2 main approaches:

1) avoid the reality (don't look at links, don't find out what happens to the animals, deny that anything the otherside presents is true)
2) argue the argument (try to find or insist there are flaws in the otherside's reasoning even if it means fabricating the otherside's reasoning LOL)

if you work at 1), you are at an advantage for 2) (since actual information doesn't have to enter the picture).
if you put your effort into 2), you don't even need to bother about 1) because you can assume that you are dealing with people who are self-contradictory.

it becomes a game, but is somewhat unfortunate, imho.
as you wrote in post #1052:

Life is not just some stupid game, you know. This is for real.

and some would prefer not to know anything about the reality that others have to endure.

 

[physicsisphirst]

baloney!

will the vegans and vegetarians who keep claiming that stuff collects in the human digestive system PLEASE GET OFF IT!

it doesn't.

yes it does as does baloney.

 

[plusaf]

yes it does as does baloney.

LOL, prad!

i think the more accurate reference would be "sausage" than "baloney".

 

[physicsisphirst]

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

while i tend to agree with what you said about absolute morality and empirical derivation, i don't see how what you have written here supports it.

certain societies that encouraged directed violence (within or without) were stable, safe, grew and prospered as a result of that violence (eg empires of the past sparta, rome, spain, nazi). are you maintaining that the stability (albeit temporary) is proof that they were moral?

 

[physicsisphirst]

LOL, prad!

i think the more accurate reference would be "sausage" than "baloney".

welcome to the thread plusaf!
i am taking the liberty to post some info below regarding meat putrification in the intestines (just in case anyone is interested and to serve as a break from the moral discussions which really are more appropriate here).

in friendship,
prad

Because it can take up to five days for meat to be digested, putrification is common and is the prime source of growth of undesirable bacteria, which are the forerunners to disease. A plant-based diet is eliminated from the body within a 24-hour period, thereby preventing any potential accumulation.
http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/diet/vmeat.htm

Although many references point to the fact that vegetarians are at a greater risk of pernicious anemia, meat eaters may be in more danger. Digesting meat can take up to five days to complete, which causes putrification because of the delay. During this time, more meat has been consumed; and harmful bacteria begin to proliferate, crowding out the "friendly" bacteria needed for the formation and absorption of nutrients, including B12. Even when enough B12 is consumed, this type of environment cannot provide for it to reach its intended destination.
http://www.innvista.com/health/ailments/anemias/pernanem.htm

Eliminating meat from your diet is likely to eliminate distress from your belly. I know a person who cured his chronic indigestion just by giving up pork. For another fellow, it was quitting hot dogs that helped the most. The dead muscles of a dead animal are not a boon to digestion. Meat contains zero fiber, clogging the pipes and literally decaying in your digestive tract.
http://www.doctoryourself.com/digestion.html

The human intestine is long and coiled, much like that of apes, cows, and horses. This configuration makes digestion slow, allowing time to break down and absorb the nutrients from plant food sources. The intestine of a carnivore, like a cat, is short, straight, and tubular. This allows for very rapid digestion of flesh and excretion of the remnants quickly before they putrefy (rot).
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm

Carnivorous animals, including the lion, dog, wolf, cat, etc., have many unique characteristics which set them apart from all other members of the animal kingdom. They all possesses a very simple and short digestive system -- only three times the length of their bodies. This is because flesh decays very rapidly, and the products of this decay quickly poison the bloodstream if they remain too long in the body. So a short digestive tract was evolved for rapid expulsion of putrefactive bacteria from decomposing flesh, as well as stomachs with ten times as much hydrochloric acid as non-carnivorous animals (to digest fibrous tissue and bones).
http://www.jtcwd.com/vegie/plant_or_meat_eaters.html

Meat moves through the gastrointestinal system very slowly and in many cases undergoes putrification before leaving the body. This stagnant rotting flesh is high in toxins and these leach into the surrounding cells of the bowel wall.
http://essenes.net/whyv.html

 

[russ_watters]

I have a lot to respond to and I'll do that later, but for now, one thing brought up a few times:

certain societies that encouraged directed violence (within or without) were stable, safe, grew and prospered as a result of that violence (eg empires of the past sparta, rome, spain, nazi). are you maintaining that the stability (albeit temporary) is proof that they were moral? [emphasis added]

I think you just answered your own question with that logical contradiction.

Nazi Germany in particular was exceedingly unstable, and that was a direct result of Hitler's morality.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050110/full/050110-7.html

some wood for the fire, perhaps it was posted before but you'll forgive me not reading through 1100 posts

 

[Kurdt]

Picking up on an earlier point if humans have the right not to be eaten then tell the likes of the great white shark and the tiger and the crocodile and anything else that would have a go given a chance. We don't have the right we merely chose not to eat our own kind.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

And why are stable, safe, growing, and prospering the criteria to use?

 

[sheepdog]

absolutely

I don't think the rules of ethics are any more abitrary than the rules of mathematics

The rules of mathematics are also arbitrary. I can direct you to the literature on this point. And the rules of ethics are, just as you say, equally as arbitrary. Every system is arbitrary. True morality is absolute.

Because the intuition of two different people - the conscience you were talking about earlier - do not always agree, how do we make a decision? Your conscience tells you that eating meat is wrong, my conscience does not.

I make the decision within the context of the absolute. How do you make the decision?

But since you are an absolutist in this matter, that won't make a difference to you. Whether dire consequences result or not matters little, because any act of killing is wrong, according to you. The only think I can ask is this: Why is it that you feel any act of killing is wrong? Did you arrive at the conclusion through some method of reasoning, or is it just another matter of conscience?

To feel that "any act of killing is wrong" is only one more system in an endless parade of systems. I reject that system and all other systems completely. There is no substitute for the absolute.

 

[loseyourname]

i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

Yes! God yes! How can you have moral actions without a system of morality? Telling me "suffice it to say" tells me nothing. Why is it of benefit to us not to kill? And what can we kill and not kill? Can I kill a weed that is destroying my garden? Can I kill a man that is pointing a gun at my daughter? Can I kill a bacterium that is making me sick? I don't think humans have any intrinsic squeamishness about killing at all, unless the thing they are killing acts like them. The more anthropomorphic, the less willing we are to kill them. That's exactly why people have no issues with swatting a fly, but they get outraged when certain cultures eat dogs.

If you don't think we need an ethical system to deal with whether or not killing is good, well fine for you! Without a system, how exactly is it that you determine what is good and what is bad? Again, if it is just intuition, what do you do when your intuition doesn't agree with mine?

i don't really understand what you are saying here, but i'll try to answer anyway. i have not made any statement to the effect that 'the ending of any life is a bad thing' - (i'm not sure that it is - neither has AR). what i have said is that not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill, regardless of whether the being not being killed is deserving of not being killed. ecosystem degradation has nothing to do with killing, but is a consequence of the meat industry (as is animal suffering).

If all you are going to say is "not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill," you aren't going to get far. I don't base my concept of what is right by what is of benefit to me. Killing can be of benefit, too. It is of quite a bit of benefit to the man who kills his wife for the insurance, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. So this gives you no basis by which to say that eating meat is the wrong thing to do. It might not be of benefit to some, it might be of benefit to others. It is certainly of benefit to Inuits and Eskimos that have little else to eat.

posted by you:
Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that).

response by me (post #996):
this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.

Ok, cut it off right here, because before you got into Hitler, you were getting at something. What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?

so what is so inconsistent about the idea that if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

It is inconsistent to say that you simply want to alleviate ecosystem destruction or animal suffering and then not accept a solution that does these things while leaving the practice of eating meat intact. When you do not accept solutions unless they include not eating meat, it becomes clear that neither the alleviation of ecosystem destruction nor of animal suffering is your real aim. Your aim is simply to end the eating of meat, but you've run out of reasons to do so. Granted, it is still one way to bring about the results that you say you want to bring about. That's fine. But what reason is there to prefer this solution over other solutions? If someone else solves the problem a different way, what reason do you have to say that what they are doing is wrong?

well that's a nice thought, but you might want to check into some of the realities rather than simply uphold the idea that they aren't supposedto inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. you might check sites like the ones derek1 has listed (there is shortage of them):

I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. I don't doubt that it exists in some places, but I'll repeat what I said before. That is the case with any industry. Have you researched the activities of every seller of goods and services that you buy from to ensure that they do not contribute to the suffering of sentient beings? Finding them all out and boycotting them isn't a viable solution to me. I would rather promote and enforce existing laws and, should I find out that one particular company is guilty of infractions, then I will no longer buy from them. I'm certainly not going to boycott an entire industry. Decent farmers do not deserve to lose business because of the immoral actions of their competitors.

i am actually puzzled by an apparent 'inconsistency' in some of what you have said:

you don't seem to think that farm animals have rights, yet you want to kill them humanely. why is that?

I've said that I will recognize their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly. I will not grant them the right to not be killed.

you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with killing a creature unless they have a right to life (your prime example being a human, for whatever reason), yet you (like some other meaters here) 'try your best' not to kill insects and annelids. why is that?

I will not do it if there is no reason to do it. If they are in my way somehow (infesting my garden, eating the scraps from my floor, etc.) then I have no problem killing them. By the same token, if killing them will feed me and my family, then I will them. I just don't want to kill for no good reason.

why is there such a determination to kill animals that 'taste good' (because they don't have rights in your view), yet such insistence to terminate those lives 'humanely' or in the case of the bugs (who knows what they taste like!), not to kill them at all.

I have no problem with eating bugs, I just don't kill them for no reason. If you really need to ask why I would be more likely to kill an animal that can provide nourishment for me over one that cannot, I'm not sure why. I would think the answer is obvious.

do you feel that you yourself benefit by the act of not killing (even those that you do not grant your right to life)?
have you covertly granted these creatures rights (but don't want any of your friends to find out)?
or could it be that you are writhing in the throes of that paradigm shift?

Nope. In general, I don't do anything unless I have a good reason to do it. This doesn't just apply to the act of killing. If I have a reason to kill, I'll do it. I'm not opposed to the act itself.

 

[sheepdog]

systematic destruction

and some would prefer not to know anything about the reality that others have to endure.

It is a mentality that says, "I will live in my head, where I can make the world whatever I want it to be. My mental systems will be better and stronger than any systems ever devised. And there my systems will allow me to have from world whatever I want to have." Meat eating is but the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. All of Nature is drained and denuded to taters through the operation of these many, ceaseless mental systems. The waste and gross disrespect is stifling.

 

[russ_watters]

And why are stable, safe, growing, and prospering the criteria to use?

Because they all indicate the system "works." When Nazi Germany went down in flames, that's a "failure."

That said, you can set up any experiment in science to get any result you want - so I suppose if you want you could call instability, famine, and poverty your criteria and a system that "works" is one that causes these things. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems self-evident that not starving to death is, de facto, a good thing. Suffering is a bad thing (at least, I'd prefer not to suffer...). Similarly, it'd be pretty easy for me to successfully develop a model that doesn't accurately predict the orbits of the planets. But what would the point of that be?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.


And I missed this before:

i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say. Are you an anarchist? (but hey, at least it means you can't argue eating meat is immoral!)

In any case, the ethical theory tells you why an action is good. Otherwise, its just "I said so!" and anarchy is the result (and this discussion is pointless). An ethical code tells you what actions are good and unless you choose it arbitrarily (The Ten Commadments), why? is an important consideration.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, but not everyone agrees with your basis for morality... My personal basis for morality is that moral actions lead to minimal pain and suffering...

Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to.

Ok. Why is it that humans have the right not be eaten, whereas other animals don't have that right?

Whoever said that? Cannibalism is humans eating other humans. It is, in my view, perfectly acceptable for a lion to eat you. But if lions started eating (primarily) other lions, they'd hunt themselves into extinction. Similarly, cannibalism is detrimental to humans exactly because it is humans eating humans.

if you replaced "moral" with "useful" or "sensible", and nothing changed, what would be the value of the word "moral" in those statements?

Morality is the word who'se definition is "a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." When you take what is "useful" or "sensible" to make equations describing the motion of a cannon-ball, you get "physics." Similarly, when you take what is "useful" or "sensible" in the ideas of right and wrong conduct, you get "morals." Its simply the definition of the word.

1) "rights" are things that humans agree are "rights"; there ain't no other source: a "Supreme Being", the Constitution, John Locke, or what-or whoever... it's all by agreement. if humans assert that certain things are "rights" and a bunch of other humans agree to that, then those things are "rights."

But people don't always agree: what if I don't agree? How do we remedy that? Majority rule? Ever hear of "the Tyrany of the majority"...? No, morality must be predicated on something bigger and more fundamental than just a consensus.

2) if certain actions improve the "general welfare" and don't degrade it, those things might be called "useful" or "sensible", and some of the heat might be taken off the emotionally charged word, "moral."

There is no reason why the word needs to be emotionally charged. That's the definition of the word: that's what its for. Shall we call it "Bob" instead to remove this emotional content? (I've never heard anyone say that about the word "morality" before).

there might be times that killing animals, and even people, is "sensible" and "a good idea", but arguing morality is about the same "usefulness" as arguing which religion is "correct."

futile.

WHY? Maybe its due to what you are saying above: that morality is something just arbitrarily plucked out of the air. I can see the futility that would lead to, but can you see the anarchy that would lead to? It can't be that arbitrary. It just wouldn't "work."

I'd like to focus on your statement [loseyourname], "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem

It is, indeed... and your discussion that follows is exactly correct. The highlights:

The Nazis arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to cleanse the world of inferiors. The Turkes arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to exterminate the Armenians. Over and over again we see, generation after generation, what results from this. And now you are telling me you too find the best you can do is choose some system and live by that, answer these fundamental questions with yet another arbitrary system of meaningless thought.

That just isn't good enough. [emphasis added]

That is exactly why moral relativism fails - why arbitrary morality is invalid.

What has been cannot continue to repeat itself in endless wars and deadly application of "rights". Whether you can conceive of it or not, whether it suits your systems or not, we can and will find a better way. One that is not arbitrary. One that is absolute. Physical laws govern whether it is or is not wrong to kill, not some arbitrary system you dream up. Physical laws determine what we should or should not take from Nature. russ_waters is perfectly correct in saying that it can be determined empirically. The only problem is that the experiments are one-time-only, non-reversible paths to the future, no refund, no returns. We have to make good choices of which experiment to execute. It will be the only one.

Yes, I only alluded to this before, but this is, indeed, the problem with empirical investigation of rights: the experiments are all practical ones. When they fail, they fail badly and millions of people die as a result. That said, I think that morality, like science, is progressing and things like the UN, Wilson's 14 points, and the Marshall Plan, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are evidence of it in international politics. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - its not just de facto universal, it says universal because its a delcaration that human rights are truly universal (this idea was first put into politics in the U.S. Declaration of Independence). They are not arbitrary (which does not imply they can't be debated).

What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary. Vegetarianism arises out of a consciousness that answers these questions without an intellectual system, in the absence of all arbitrary frames of reference. This is true morality. That morality cannot be separated from the bodies of the animals eaten, nor from the bodies eating them. They are the system of that morality. There is only one such system, and it is absolute.

Now this part, I'm not sure I understand...

This is exactly, precisely, how the Nazis explained their morality. And by these standards they were right in the short run, and might have been correct in the long run if the Americans, British and Russians had not rained on their parade.

Considering how much we agreed on, I'm surprised you would say such a thing. But maybe its easily explainable - its historically inaccurate: Hitler's rule was chaotic from start to finish. It did not work and was not correct in any way, shape, or form. But even worse, Hitler's morality was not universal! It didn't apply to all humans, only his chosen few.

So not only did Hitler's theory fail, it wasn't even internally consistent.

I put it to you russ_watters, that there is no basis for judging morality, except that basis which you, or I, or someone else chooses arbitrarily. And if it becomes moral just because a lot of people agree that that is what moral is, welcome to the Inquisition.

History has proven morality to be a very destructive concept. This is why a moral vegetarian is an oxymoron.

Ok, its possible I misunderstood your earlier post: when you say all morality is arbitary, you're arguing against the very concept of morality? My take is that your argument is a good argument against arbitary morality, but not absolute morality or morality itself.

Arbitrary means without reason: morality based on what works has a reason and is therefore not arbitary.

it brings us back to dooga's question again (and again and again and again):

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)

i do think that it must require considerable flexibility and plyability (or straight-forward avoidance) to try to reconcile this issue. it seems there are 2 main approaches:

1) avoid the reality (don't look at links, don't find out what happens to the animals, deny that anything the otherside presents is true)
2) argue the argument (try to find or insist there are flaws in the otherside's reasoning even if it means fabricating the otherside's reasoning LOL)

Ever wonder how execution isn't considered cruel and unusual punishment and method of execution makes a difference? This question isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. Its quite simple, as a matter of fact: death and suffering are two different things (indeed, some people choose to die to avoid suffering). Which brings us to this:

Ok, cut it off right here, because before you got into Hitler, you were getting at something. What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?

Yes! This is why so many vegitarian arguments are straw-men (even unintentional) - they utterly fail to grasp/address this point.

 

[Monique]

The waste and gross disrespect is stifling.

Oh yes it is. I recently became a vegetarian and the food has never tasted so good before. I find the food culture with giant sized portions of fast food meat a wastefull disrespect to the source of the meal.

To say that animal suffering does not occur is being naive. Not all cows and chicken and pigs grow up on an outdoor farm where they have the pleasure of grazing their own food and having some water from the pond. Instead they grow up in factories and have to endure long trips in trucks and what not. If they do I'd like to know which agency watches over the animal wellfare and that guarantees that the meat lying in the store comes from life-stock slaughted next to the pasture they grazed on.

 

[Monique]

You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves.

So, loseyourname, if you have not given up eating meat.. what are you doing to alleviate animal suffering and ecosystem destruction?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So, loseyourname, if you have not given up eating meat.. what are you doing to alleviate animal suffering and ecosystem destruction?

This is not about loseyourname, it's about the general principle of not eating meat. Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems; vegan hikers and picnikers and new home buyers are as much at fault for ecosystem destruction as meat eaters who do those same things). None of this depends on any particular action by loseyourname.

 

[learningphysics]

Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to. Whoever said that? Cannibalism is humans eating other humans. It is, in my view, perfectly acceptable for a lion to eat you. But if lions started eating (primarily) other lions, they'd hunt themselves into extinction. Similarly, cannibalism is detrimental to humans exactly because it is humans eating humans.

I don't understand this. There are other species that eat their own, and they haven't become extinct. Humans could easily eat some of their own, and continue to reproduce keeping the species alive...

I never said lions were allowed to hunt deer. However, the analogy fails to hold anyway... Humans can live without eating meat, lions can't.

 

[learningphysics]

This is not about loseyourname, it's about the general principle of not eating meat. Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems; vegan hikers and picnikers and new home buyers are as much at fault for ecosystem destruction as meat eaters who do those same things). None of this depends on any particular action by loseyourname.

Yes, and eating of humans can be done without causing suffering to the humans.

 

[Alkatran]

I don't understand this. There are other species that eat their own, and they haven't become extinct. Humans could easily eat some of their own, and continue to reproduce keeping the species alive...

I never said lions were allowed to hunt deer. However, the analogy fails to hold anyway... Humans can live without eating meat, lions can't.

Ah but that's where you're wrong. Human society would fall apart if no one trusted anyone (which, guess what, is going to happen if we start to eat each other.)

If we started to eat each other we'd end up traveling back down the technological chain. Lions eating themselves isn't so much a problem because they're already that low on the chain.

The thing is: Do you really think humans are 'above' eating meat? Under what conditions would it be moral? (You and a puppy are stuck at the bottom of the well. If you eat the puppy you are rescued, if you don't you both die.)

 

[Monique]

Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems

Ok, so tell me: how do YOU ensure that the meat you eat if from an animal that has not suffered? How would you know?

And it's not all about the way of dying, it is also about the quality of life the animal has had. As a meat eater, what can you do to ensure the meat you eat has had a good quality of life?

 

[Alkatran]

Ok, so tell me: how do YOU ensure that the meat you eat if from an animal that has not suffered? How would you know?

And it's not all about the way of dying, it is also about the quality of life the animal has had. As a meat eater, what can you do to ensure the meat you eat has had a good quality of life?

Define "quality life". By your definition it seems to be better to kill the cows while their young, before they go through this hell. (veil!)

 

[Monique]

Veil have already gone through hell in order to have tender meat, traditionally they were kept in a very small space so their meat would not become tough. If you want to eat veil: you may in my opinion, just don't lock them up so that they can't move a muscle.

 

[Francis M]

As is usual in this kind of thread it seems that 1000 posts later (not even) we've degenerated into an argument of who is morally superior vegitarians, vegans, people who only eat white meat (psudo vegitarians) or meat eaters. Can I ask people that pose this question to stop doing it as nothing more than a set up for trying to prove who's morally superior.

Fact?- our digestive system design shows we're omnivors, we can eat both vegetable and animal matter?

Fact- most people do eat both.

Fact- some choose to not eat red meat, go further and not eat meat or go vegan and not consume animal products (i.e. including eggs, and milk).

The argument of what's less or more cruel is judgmental and predjudiced based on a persons view point and can never be solved.

But just to add fuel to the fire let this omnivor (me) get cynical here a moment and see if I can add a reality check into this argument.

The next time anyone starts this "I'm better than you because I'm ______ or do _____" garbage.

1. Ask yourself how many small animals that live in the fields are killed each time the harvesting machine goes by.

2. How less/more cruel is it to kill a fish or bird rather than a cow or pig.

3. How many pests (insects, rodents, ect..) are killed to protect those crops and the land they grow on.

4. How much pollution does farming create, and damage the ecosystem I keep hearing brought up in this thread.

The next time before anyone steps up on their morally superior soap box and starts coming at anyone else with their cause of the day and getting smug I suggest they take the blinders off and get a good look at themselves, and start looking at how they can support their position by somthing more than the presumption that their better in hteir own minds. My god the unmitigated gall of some of the people in this thread is sickening.

 

[Monique]

But don't you think animal welfare should be good?