Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[susanest]

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on Earth stopped eating meat.

How do you imagine that disruption of the food chain would be a bad thing? Isn't the "food chain" just a way of describing what we see as our current situation?

Personally, I think there is much room for improvement... and eating meat appears to be a terribly bad habit in so many ways. I recommend you read The Food Revolution by John Robbins.

John Robbins, who was an heir to the Baskins-Robbins fortune but rejected all that, points out that our "knowledge" of such matters is primarily what the meat and dairy industries have been promoting through their multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns and their close personal relationship with our "government".

The eating of animal products is associated with heart disease, cancers and other deadly health problems. Also it's an extremely inefficient way of feeding the population. We are feeding cows, for example, with resources that could be helping to alleviate malnutrition suffered by millions of humans on this planet.

 

[learningphysics]

Where did this come from? How did you arrive at this point? I'm new to the thread so maybe I missed some posts where you described your journey from a person without a position to one with this position?

I ask, DD, because it just looks like something you decided was right. And we have seen that anybody can decide anything they like is right or wrong. I admit that I have espoused a similar position in the past. Though it has merits it simply isn't complete by itself.

The principle difficulty I have with this position is that it assumes that we know what suffering is. And so, from this position, it is possible to hold that it is not right to destroy or injure something that you know experiences and therefore can suffer, but it is alright to injure or destroy something that you do not know can experience and therefore suffer. So it divides everything into 2 separate camps that can be treated very differently.

But there are no camps. I cannot injure or destroy anything, whether sentient or not, without effecting something else, sooner or later. Further I cannot have perfect knowledge of what suffers and what does not. So I see that any injury or destruction, even if only to non-sentients, is transmitted widely and must ultimately negatively impact sentients.

Hence the only complete policy is to respect all of Nature. Though I will admit it may be debatable, eating synthetic human flesh does not pass muster in my book because it is an injury to us, destructive of our place in the world, just as eating synthetic animals or synthetic anything is, to one extent or another.

How exactly is it destructive to eat synthetic dead beings?

Let's consider another scenario. Suppose that neurosciences progressed so that scientists learned that through genetic engineering they could breed sheep that had their pain/pleasure centers reversed. Conditions that previously caused sheep to suffer would now cause them exquisite pleasure. There is no theoretical obstacle to such a re-engineering of the nervous system of sheep. Would you now also reverse your position and insist that lambs be raised in factory farms? Would this be an acceptable solution to you?

We have the power to created as twisted a caricature of Nature as we please to satisfy any arbitrary position we may choose. That is exactly the danger we face by taking such arbitrary positions in my view.

How is it an arbitrary position? The goodness of pleasure, and the badness of pain seems to me the most basic intuition.

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you saying that the way things are done in nature (among non-humans), is the best way, and the way that minimizes pain and maximizes pleasure?

 

[loseyourname]

so my point still remains that you don't need any fancy ethical theories here - just a simple understanding that you will not kill unless you have a need to.

I need a system if I'm to claim that what I'm doing is the right thing to do.

the benefit to you presumably is that you consider killing without sufficient reason to be cruel or immoral or something like that and by not killing unnecessarily you benefit yourself by not being cruel or immoral or something like that. are we in agreement with this?

No, we are not. I don't not kill because it is of benefit for me not to kill. I simply don't do anything, at all, unless there is a good reason to do it. Okay, maybe I'll make weird facial jestures or break into song, but that's about it. This isn't about being cruel or immoral, which I thought I specified by saying that I don't even kill non-sentient beings unless I have a good reason to do so.

However, I'd like to state that you are pretty obviously trying to make this about me and what I do. That is not what is being argued here. The question is "Should we eat meat?" Not "Does Adam eat meat?" Why don't we put aside the posters personal actions and stick to what should be done and why it should be done.

if you want to consider what i have just written an ethical system, go ahead. if you don't, it doesn't matter to me, because i think you have stated your criteria fairly clearly - you will not kill unless you have a sufficient reason to (like those bugs destroying your garden or those people attacking you etc). once again, is this sufficient for us to agree on, without insisting on some formal and complex ethical system?

No, it isn't. This is sufficient for explaining my personal actions in most cases, but that's about it. It has nothing to do with the morality of the actions. I pretty explicitly stated my criteria for when I will consider killing to be wrong and when I will consider it to not be wrong in an earlier post.

i think to some extent you do. you are willing to kill bugs that destroy your garden. i think you are killing those bugs not so much for the benefit of your garden (and its "right to life"), but because you want to keep your garden.

Again, you are confusing my personal actions with what should be done. A lot of times my actions are in accordance with my personal system of ethics. Sometimes they aren't. But this is what you get when you make this a personal issue of how I do or don't behave, which is not what this should be about.

Ridding my garden of pests is not an ethical matter to me; it's a pragmatic matter. The action is amoral - it has no moral worth of any kind, either good or bad.

yes we know that you have these ingenious ways of killing humanely and you hopefully want to do away with factory farming to remove both the suffering and the ecodamage. but if we didn't eat meat we wouldn't have these problems caused by the industries in the first place, right?

Have I ever disputed this? You've presented one solution to a limited problem. You have not presented the only solution, nor have you presented your reasons this should be done, ethically speaking. Perhaps you think you have presented the best solution. Why is that?

well i don't really see why you think I'm not accepting these alternate solutions. if you want to eat meat, do as suggested by that guy in my earlier post. wait till the animal dies, then eat. make sure that there are only a few animals on small farms and you'll do the ecosystem a favor too.

At what point do you suggest we stop the ecosystem destruction? How much must we give up? Building a city disrupts an ecosystem more than any farm. Should we abandon our cities as well?

I don't ask this in jest, either. I think this is a serious question that is not being addressed by anyone in here. It seems to be implicit that vegetarianism is necessary because of the ecological benefits, but if things are necessary simply because they are of ecological benefit, should we not then do all things that fit this criterion? This would include not only giving up meat, but also giving up telecommunication, mass transit, synthetic fibers. Furthermore, it really says nothing about the eating of meat. It only speaks to factory farming that is harmful to the environment. Humans ate meat for thousands of years without doing any harm to the environment. Do you think this was the wrong thing to do? If so, then harm to the environment must not be your reason.

There is a tradeoff between conservation and human industry, necessarily. At what point is ecological integrity preserved? If I eat only one steak per week? Per month? If I eat only fish? If I investigate the operational habits of every seller that I buy from to be certain that they are doing all they can to conserve?

do you arrive at this conclusion through a process of elimination or wishful thinking?

I pretty explicitly stated the process by which I arrived at my conclusion. I do this with all of my conclusions as a matter of courtesy in posts to the philosophy forums. That is how a proper philosophical discussion is carried out.

well you haven't exactly solved the problem, you have only suggested some solutions along the lines of the killing (you really haven't dealt with the eco-issue, at least not in these recent exchanges). i have also offered a solution by which both the eco-problem and the suffering will be terminated. are your arguments against my solution essentially:
1) there are other solutions
2) there is a secret agenda to stop all killing

Did I ever say I solved the problem? Again, this is not about me and what I have or have not done. This is about what is the right thing to do and why it is the right thing to do. Perhaps in context in which I live, giving up all or at least most meat would be the right thing for me to do. But is this what you are arguing? Or are you arguing that the eating of any meat is always wrong in any context? You seem to waver back and forth from one position to the other.

i don't think you understand that we are not talking about charlotte's web here. we are talking about factory farms. if you would actually research some of this rather than spin 'logical arguments', you would see that your not having 'seen any mistreatment' is hardly something to base an opinion on.

the problem we have here is that you won't look, therefore you can avoid the reality.

I think you don't understand that this doesn't matter to this discussion. All of these links might provide perfectly fine reasons why I shouldn't be eating meat from these sources. It isn't a reason to say that eating meat itself is wrong, or even that eating meat that has been killed by humans is wrong. For all you know, I still live on a farm and only eat meat that my own family raised.

yes, yes that's fine. however, this at least answers the question i was asking - you at least grant them the "their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly". now, exactly on what basis do you feel that animals have a "right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly".

Pretty much the same basis as Dan. When I suffer, it feels awfully bad to me and so I extrapolate to the conclusion that suffering in general is a bad thing and is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary (for instance, in military training or childbirth). On that basis, I will grant the right of all sentient beings to not suffer unless absolutely necessary. Of course, there is some question as to which organisms are sentient and which are not. The minimum qualifications are probably at least the structural portions of the brain identified with pain perception in humans. This qualification is met by all mammals and birds and most reptiles.

 

[russ_watters]

(strangely enough there are some people who will actually like to argue that the animals want to be tortured and slaughtered, but that's just another of those exceptional bizarrities.)

I must admit to not having read every post in this thread, but I can't recall ever hearing anyone say any such thing. It seems rather absurd, in fact. Do you know offhand of a post you can cite?

what is sought isn't a 'fix' (even though that may be of benefit initially) - but 'right' action (oh oh - i can hear the endless burblings in the background to the tune of "what is right?" LOL).

Well, it is quite strange to hear someone who has argued against the very concept of morality argue that something can be "right."

Vegetarianism is not just about not eating meat. It is about respecting Nature in every way.

This is something I've long suspected, but now I know (yes, DD, I realize not every veggie shares this position). I can feel the hairs rising up on the back of my neck.

How is it an arbitrary position? The goodness of pleasure, and the badness of pain seems to me the most basic intuition.

Sure, but is it as simple as that? Ie, more pain is automatically bad, more pleasure automatically good? A strict mathematical relationship? Certainly, you can see the potential complications that things like love and drugs can add to the question of pleasure vs pain, right? Heck, a large fraction of all art is based on the difficulty in reconciling the two.

Not to rehash this piece of the discussion unless necessary, but it is my opinion (DD mentioned his) that humans' (relatively) uniqe ability to understand the conflict between pleasure and pain is one of the main reasons we have the right to life and other species don't.

 

[sheepdog]

alternatives

How exactly is it destructive to eat synthetic dead beings?

An excellent question! Without meaning to be flippant at all, my answer is, "It is destructive in the same way anything that is destructive is destructive." That is, there is only one kind of destructive. It isn't that this is destructive this way and that is destructive that way.

It's much easier to answer this question if one focuses on the contrary, "What can I be absolutely certain is not destructive?" If you answer that question then what is destructive becomes obvious.

How is it an arbitrary position? The goodness of pleasure, and the badness of pain seems to me the most basic intuition. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you saying that the way things are done in nature (among non-humans), is the best way, and the way that minimizes pain and maximizes pleasure?

I hear ya' and I'm very sympathetic to what you are saying. But I would ask you again, if scientists reversed the pain/pleasure centers of sheep, would you be then as vehement about putting lambs into factory farms as you are now about getting them out? I think if you consider seriously how you would feel about that situation you will see my point, which is that there isn't a single quality or character that can be used to define all problems and all solutions. The problems are problems of the whole and must be considered in their complete contexts.

You ask if I think the way things are done in Nature are the best way? But we are as much a part of Nature as are non-humans. So I cannot say we should do as the non-humans. We are humans. What we do we must do as humans.

But what should humans do? Do we just choose whatever we want? With reasons or without, it doesn't matter. If you choose to do something without reason, you choose -- it is your choice. If you choose to do something with reason, you choose the reason -- it is still your choice. Acting this way one may do anything. Is doing anything what humans should do? Whatever you please, with or without reason, without limit, anything goes, have at it?

That is one alternative. That we may have anything we want -- anything. But there is another alternative. That alternative takes into account that there is an order to the world and seeks to respond to that order. In this alternative you may not choose. The choices are made for you.

 

[learningphysics]

But I would ask you again, if scientists reversed the pain/pleasure centers of sheep, would you be then as vehement about putting lambs into factory farms as you are now about getting them out? I think if you consider seriously how you would feel about that situation you will see my point, which is that there isn't a single quality or character that can be used to define all problems and all solutions. The problems are problems of the whole and must be considered in their complete contexts.

If they did reverse pain pleasure centers (and let's say generally, happiness suffering centers) then I'd have no problem with factory farms. However, if scientists were able to perform such a feat, then I believe the ethical thing might be to eliminate pain centers altogether.

Yes, I agree problems of the whole need to be considered... but exactly is a problem? When is something a problem? It seems to me only when something/someone is hurt (in some way... long term short term...)

I believe pain/pleasure, happiness/suffering and perhaps life/death (not sure about these two), are the only things of inherent value or disvalue.

Can you describe this order you mentioned that humans can respond to?

A more basic question. When is something good, and when is something bad?

 

[Seafang]

Well this thread has strayed well from the original "should we eat meat?".
Some see it as a moral issue which it isn't. Others see it as a question of anatomical structure, which it isn't.
Some see it as a health issue; that evil meat rots in your digestive system. Just what do you suppose the digestive process is, if it isn't to cause the degeneration of the material into its basic compounds from which the required energy and nutrition can be absorbed.

If YOUR gut is filled with dangerous organisms that will make you sick, that is a separate problem in itself. Mine isn't, so I don't have to worry about my food poisoning me. There's a whole industry built around the silly notion that our insides are filthy. They aren't; they are a thriving community of symbiotic organisms that all co-operate in the total system of our survival and their own.

Eating meat (of herbivores) gives us access to the energy and materials of plants which we can't digest and they can. But we typically don't eat predators except for the fishy kind.

For me eating beans is a no-no because it gives me gas; mostly methane, so I already know it is an inefficient food for me because that is a waste of chemical energy.

Non-survival is about as immoral as it can get; particularly when the means of survival exist all around us to be used. If some of it is meat so be it.

If we stopped eating meat, it would not be good for the animals. Most of the large animals on Earth would become extinct; because they only exist because we eat them and raise them for food.

I grew up in a country that has 20 domestic farm animals for every single man woman and child in the country; the most of any place on earth, and it is also one of the healthiest countries on earth; people don't die from rotting flesh in their gut.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I saw something on being pro-choice. You can be pro-choice and still justifiably vegetarian. A fetus hasn't been integrated into society and is not in a position to contribute to society; what is not part of society has no value to society. Furthermore, pro-choice isn't necessarily the support of abortion, since some people are pro-choice out of respect for the women's rights over those of an unborn child.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well this thread has strayed well from the original "should we eat meat?".
Some see it as a moral issue which it isn't. Others see it as a question of anatomical structure, which it isn't.
Some see it as a health issue; that evil meat rots in your digestive system. Just what do you suppose the digestive process is, if it isn't to cause the degeneration of the material into its basic compounds from which the required energy and nutrition can be absorbed.

There are plenty of studies which show a correlation between meat consumption and colorectal cancer. Study after study has shown vegetarians to have better circulatory systems and less cancer.

Eating meat (of herbivores) gives us access to the energy and materials of plants which we can't digest and they can. But we typically don't eat predators except for the fishy kind.

For me eating beans is a no-no because it gives me gas; mostly methane, so I already know it is an inefficient food for me because that is a waste of chemical energy.

Non-survival is about as immoral as it can get; particularly when the means of survival exist all around us to be used. If some of it is meat so be it.

Non-survival? From a societal survival point-of-view (as well as from a personal survival point-of-view), eating meat is ridiculous because it is ridiculously inefficient. You speak of the animals giving access to energy and materials we can't digest. The fact is that we grow plants to feed to animals. This is terribly inefficient. We could just use all those resources to grow plants to directly feed ourselves.

If we stopped eating meat, it would not be good for the animals. Most of the large animals on Earth would become extinct; because they only exist because we eat them and raise them for food.

I doubt that they would become extinct, as some people would still keep a few of them. Even if they do, why would that be a bad thing? Why would they need to be kept around? To suffer?

 

[loseyourname]

There are plenty of studies which show a correlation between meat consumption and colorectal cancer. Study after study has shown vegetarians to have better circulatory systems and less cancer.

There are reasons for that have nothing to do with meat itself. The correlation with colon cancer has a lot to do with the quality of the meat, such as hormones that have been added to it and such. The negative correlation with the vegetarian diet has a lot to do with antioxidants in the vegetables being eaten, as well as with dietary supplementation. Vegetarians in general are more careful about their diet because, if they aren't, there can be serious consequences from eating a strictly vegetarian diet. This same positive effect can simply be achieved by eating more vegetables and better supplements while still eating meat.

Non-survival? From a societal survival point-of-view (as well as from a personal survival point-of-view), eating meat is ridiculous because it is ridiculously inefficient. You speak of the animals giving access to energy and materials we can't digest. The fact is that we grow plants to feed to animals. This is terribly inefficient. We could just use all those resources to grow plants to directly feed ourselves.

Eating meat isn't necessarily an inefficient use of energy. Many of the forms of meat farming used are, but the act of eating meat itself needn't be. For instance, eating beef that is corn-fed, although it is generally of higher quality, is wasteful because of more corn needs to be grown to support the cattle than would be needed to feed the people eating the cattle. However, if we just eat cattle that grazes on natural pastures, there is no real inefficiency as the cattle are in effect a natural resource themselves, plus not a lot of effort is needed to maintain a pasture. The same thing goes with eating fish. If the fish are farm-raised, we have an inefficiency. If, however, we simply eat fish that have been caught at sea (and don't overdo it), we really aren't harming anything.

Still, this is the one argument for vegetarianism I am actually sympathetic to. I do make an effort to eat mostly seafood that is caught at sea for this very reason. That and the evidence for experiential capacity in most fishes is scant.

 

[physicsisphirst]

However, I'd like to state that you are pretty obviously trying to make this about me and what I do.

not really. i only asked questions along those lines because you made some statements about what you yourself do and don't do (eg not kill bugs). presumably, your reasons for the way you act have something to do with whatever ethical theories you subscribe to. that was all i was interested in.

Why don't we put aside the posters personal actions and stick to what should be done and why it should be done.

let's be clear on this concern of yours - i am not interested in your personal actions, only the reasons for them.

No, it isn't. This is sufficient for explaining my personal actions in most cases, but that's about it. It has nothing to do with the morality of the actions.

ok now i don't understand. you are executing personal actions, but are saying these actions have nothing to do with the morality of the actions. does this mean that you execute actions regardless of whether you consider (by whatever ethical system) them to be moral? i would think that generally people try to act morally - or at least, try to provide a really good reason if they feel they are not acting morally.

I pretty explicitly stated my criteria for when I will consider killing to be wrong and when I will consider it to not be wrong in an earlier post.

i believe you said that you wouldn't kill unless there was a good reason to eg you were threatened or you wanted to eat a living creature. is this not correct?

Again, you are confusing my personal actions with what should be done. A lot of times my actions are in accordance with my personal system of ethics. Sometimes they aren't. But this is what you get when you make this a personal issue of how I do or don't behave, which is not what this should be about.

again, all I'm interested in knowing is whether you provide a moral basis for your actions (i am not really interested in what those actions are). however, i don't think this is a trivial point. generally, i think that people do act 'morally' according to some standard they set - even if they change their conception of what is moral for a particular situation.

Have I ever disputed this? You've presented one solution to a limited problem. You have not presented the only solution, nor have you presented your reasons this should be done, ethically speaking. Perhaps you think you have presented the best solution. Why is that?

i suppose you haven't directly disputed that elimination of meat consumption would also eliminate animal suffering and ecodestruction caused by meat eating because it can't be done since the former (meat consumption) causes the latter (animal suffering and ecodestruction caused by meat eating). however, you don't seem too keen on the idea:

1) regarding the animal suffering, you don't seem to think that the animals suffer in the first place because you feel that because you have lived on farms and haven't seen mistreatment, it is really a bit of a non-issue: I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. post #1141

2) regarding the ecodestruction, you seemed to think the ecodamage through meat farming is on par with vegetable farming as though if you stopped the first, the second would be just as problematic:
There is nothing intrinsic in the act of farming meat products that demands that it be more harmful to the environment than vegetable farming. post #992

At what point do you suggest we stop the ecosystem destruction? How much must we give up? Building a city disrupts an ecosystem more than any farm. Should we abandon our cities as well?

don't you think some form of population control is a good idea? besides, doesn't it make sense to eliminate what we know causes harm to whatever extent is reasonable? your justification for continuing on the way it is seems to be based on:

1) animals don't really suffer because of the meat industry
2) the vegetable industry will do just as much damage as the meat industry
3) since i can't stop building cities, there's no point in stopping ecodestruction due to the meat industry

Furthermore, it really says nothing about the eating of meat. It only speaks to factory farming that is harmful to the environment. Humans ate meat for thousands of years without doing any harm to the environment.

this is very true. now if you could get us back to eating meat the way our ancestors used to, then we wouldn't need to discuss the ecofactor anymore would we? however, since you are not taking any steps to do this (in fact, you have said that you cannot even find out whether the meat you buy is from an 'ethical' source because you can't track everything down), and no doubt feel that the effort is futile anyway, it is reasonable to assume that we will not go back to eating meat the way you say our ancestors used to. hence, we do have a very legimate issue to deal with regarding the ecodamage caused by meat consumption.

There is a tradeoff between conservation and human industry, necessarily. At what point is ecological integrity preserved? ... If I investigate the operational habits of every seller that I buy from to be certain that they are doing all they can to conserve?

well don't you think this is a good idea? if people said we will not buy from you unless you get your goods in an ethical and ecofriendly fashion, don't you think this will help the situation? i think people have been doing this for over 3 decades.

Did I ever say I solved the problem?

you most certainly haven't, but neither have you given much credence to the solution presented.

Perhaps in context in which I live, giving up all or at least most meat would be the right thing for me to do. But is this what you are arguing? Or are you arguing that the eating of any meat is always wrong in any context? You seem to waver back and forth from one position to the other.

i don't know why you are saying this. i have already suggested that
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. post #1129

however, if we stopped eating meat you wouldn't have to be worried about the immense animal suffering that is a direct result of the meat industry.

I think you don't understand that this doesn't matter to this discussion. All of these links might provide perfectly fine reasons why I shouldn't be eating meat from these sources. It isn't a reason to say that eating meat itself is wrong, or even that eating meat that has been killed by humans is wrong. For all you know, I still live on a farm and only eat meat that my own family raised.

yes, but loseyourname, this isn't about you (as you are quick to point out). it is about what does happen out there - away from your farm. if you want to argue that the act of eating meat isn't morally wrong, this thread doesn't really need to exist. however, the reality is that because people eat meat the way they do it causes horrific animal suffering. to simply deny or trivialize this matter is missing the ethical issue completely.

Pretty much the same basis as Dan. When I suffer, it feels awfully bad to me and so I extrapolate to the conclusion that suffering in general is a bad thing and is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary (for instance, in military training or childbirth). On that basis, I will grant the right of all sentient beings to not suffer unless absolutely necessary. Of course, there is some question as to which organisms are sentient and which are not. The minimum qualifications are probably at least the structural portions of the brain identified with pain perception in humans. This qualification is met by all mammals and birds and most reptiles.

ok now we finally have something we can agree on, i hope. by virtue of our ability to extrapolate (some would call it empathize), we can conclude that suffering is a bad thing and that all sentient beings have, in your own words from post #1141, the

right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly

this, of course, overwrites your statement in post #1012 which ran to the tune of Animals do not have rights.

now i am in agreement with you on your statement that animals have the right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly and since you made the statement and have even provided a rationale for it (the extrapolation bit), can we conclude that this is a good idea or possibly even an ethical idea?

 

[sheepdog]

no problems

If they did reverse pain pleasure centers (and let's say generally, happiness suffering centers) then I'd have no problem with factory farms. However, if scientists were able to perform such a feat, then I believe the ethical thing might be to eliminate pain centers altogether.

Well, OK, if we need to go down this road. Suppose sheep were bred with pain/pleasure reversed. Obviously the pain centers could not be eliminated because pleasure is only experienced in contrast to pain. They necessarily go together. So now we have sheep that are only happy when raised in painful factory farms. So you switch positions and advocate that they be kept in these factory farms and taken off of the open pastures. Furthermore, I assume you would begin to eat lamb, and perhaps a lot of lamb, because obviously, if there isn't a market for these animals then they won't get raised in factory farms and that would limit the quantity of pleasure. So you would begin eating lamb and advocating the consumption of lamb in order to increase the overall amount of pleasure. And since there would not be another food of this kind, a food that produced more pleasure the more it was eaten, you would therefore advocate that people eat nothing except lamb or as close as a healthy diet would allow, in order to further maximize pleasure.

OK, fine. Now we are eating lambs, lots and lots of lambs. But progress continues and pretty soon the scientists have noticed that there is a big bush meat trade in Africa, much of it going to Europe. The problem is it's hard to hunt wild apes and they don't provide much meat. So they use genetic engineering to create a man-chimpanzee chimera. It's more managable than a chimpanzee, easily bred and produces as much or more meat. But you get wind and start complaining that this is cruel, so they do the same thing they did to the sheep. Now the man-chimps only get pleasure from their cruel treatment. I assume you would now become as whole-heartedly enthusiastic about eating this meat?

I don't think we need to follow this story any farther, do you? What you are telling us is that the scientists can cause you to eat whatever they like by giving you what you want. What you want is to maximize pleasure. Well, no problem, the scientists are more than happy to accommodate. Just be sure to eat it up.

Yes, I agree problems of the whole need to be considered... but exactly is a problem? When is something a problem? It seems to me only when something/someone is hurt (in some way... long term short term...) I believe pain/pleasure, happiness/suffering and perhaps life/death (not sure about these two), are the only things of inherent value or disvalue.

I agree with what I think you are saying here. But I'm not seeing anything that leads me to believe that you can think beyond what the scientists feed you, so to speak. So far so long as the scientists fix all the pain/pleasure factors to your satisfaction your good.

Can you describe this order you mentioned that humans can respond to?

Say what is any moment of your life. The sun rises and sets, the tides ebb and flow. The only disorder there is is imagined.

A more basic question. When is something good, and when is something bad?

No, the question is, "What are you absolutely certain, without any shadow of a doubt, unshakably positive, that it is NOT in any sense destructive (not bad)?" Then everything else IS destructive (bad). It's not a when, it's a what. What thing is absolutely NOT destructive. Name one thing, just one, that you know for sure. Come on. It's not that hard.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I must admit to not having read every post in this thread, but I can't recall ever hearing anyone say any such thing. It seems rather absurd, in fact. Do you know offhand of a post you can cite?

it is absurd and i certainly haven't seen anything that bizarre here, but i have come across it more than once in the past. one such instance during the 90s (i think) was in a book called "Living as if the God in All Life Mattered" by a meater gone veg gone meater. she said things like the animals gladly sacrifice themselves for the sake of humans. i got the book because the title intrigued me, but most of the content proved to be rather strange stuff!

Well, it is quite strange to hear someone who has argued against the very concept of morality argue that something can be "right."

what on Earth are you talking about, russ?

and just what is this all about:

Quote:
Originally Posted by phisicsisphirst
How is it an arbitrary position? The goodness of pleasure, and the badness of pain seems to me the most basic intuition.

there is no phisicsisphirst and physicsisphirst certainly didn't say this. so what is going on here? well, i'll tell you! you quoted learningphysics in post #1192 and then for some inexplicable reason chose to misssssspelllllll not only his name but also mine


despite this, i am very interested in your other idea regarding violent societies where you seem to think that the violent societies i named in post #1134 were not stable (even though they were so temporarily). i would like to know what you consider to be a society that is stable and if you think that violent societies are not stable, then is it possible that you think that non-violent ones are stable?

 

[physicsisphirst]

Well this thread has strayed well from the original "should we eat meat?".
Some see it as a moral issue which it isn't. Others see it as a question of anatomical structure, which it isn't.

actually it is all three of these and more!
but we should probably stick to the moral issue here since this thread is in value theory. however, if you want to explore some of the other ideas you have posted and are interested in the 'otherside', please just ask.

Non-survival is about as immoral as it can get; particularly when the means of survival exist all around us to be used. If some of it is meat so be it.

no one needs to eat meat to survive. vegetarians have been around for an extremely long time.

If we stopped eating meat, it would not be good for the animals. Most of the large animals on Earth would become extinct; because they only exist because we eat them and raise them for food.

not really. we could still keep a few of them around as pets if you wish. what would be good for the animals you are referring to is that they wouldn't be produced by forced artificial insemination, castrated without anaesthetic, kept in filthy factory-farms and killed quite brutally and painfully.

people don't die from rotting flesh in their gut.

well not right away, but why would anyone want to have it rotting away there in the first place?

 

[physicsisphirst]

There are reasons for that have nothing to do with meat itself. The correlation with colon cancer has a lot to do with the quality of the meat, such as hormones that have been added to it and such. The negative correlation with the vegetarian diet has a lot to do with antioxidants in the vegetables being eaten, as well as with dietary supplementation. Vegetarians in general are more careful about their diet because, if they aren't, there can be serious consequences from eating a strictly vegetarian diet.

there are no consequences that are a result of eating a strictly vegetarian diet - but if one is really worried you can always use all the supplements that have been around since the 50s for meaters.

also, the hormones aren't really the only problem with colon cancer.
for instance, some of it seems to have to do with high-levels of fat (such as found in meat LOL):

Even though some individuals are at higher risk because of genetic predisposition, the occurrence of this cancer appears to involve multiple genetic factors and multiple environmental factors, such as exposure to carcinogens or high levels of dietary fat.
http://www.klsdesign.com/anti-ox/healthy-mind-colorectal.html#colorectal

much of it seems to center around the production of N-Nitroso compounds (from a study presented in Lyon at the European Conference on Nutrition and Cancer in 2001):

The more red meat eaten, the higher the concentration of N-Nitroso
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSDNT000/333/8015/326282.html

here is some more fun stuff that likes to put the blame on red meat:

It's not exactly news. Many studies suggest that people who eat the most meat get the most cancer. Now a huge, 20-year study from the American Cancer Society confirms these findings.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144062,00.html

and another one:

Eating a lot of red meat and processed meats such as salami and pastrami over a long period of time can increase your risk of colon cancer, researchers report.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41398

and again:

People who eat a lot of red meat or processed meats may be raising their risk for colon cancer. Although this link has been shown before, a new study by American Cancer Society researchers helps explain the relationship ... Colon cancer is the third most common cause of cancer cases and deaths in both men and women in the US, striking more than 145,000 people and killing more than 56,000 each year.

well this stuff is all from non-veg sources. so let's see what a vegetarian site has to say:

It has been suggested that secondary bile acids are carcinogens which may play an important role in colon cancer. These are derived by bacterial metabolism from primary bile acids made in the liver and secreted into the intestine. Vegetarians have lower levels of secondary bile acids than non-vegetarians (Turjiman, 1984). The differences in bacterial populations between the intestines of vegetarians and non-vegetarians may also be important. Bacterial flora in vegetarians has been shown to possesses reduced ability to transform bile acids into potential carcinogens (Johansson, 1990).

The role of dietary fibre in prevention of colon cancer may also be important. This was first noted in 1971 when it was suggested the high incidence of colon cancer in Western countries was linked to low fibre diets. Other dietary components associated with high fibre foods, such as folate, have also been implicated as having protective effects.
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/health3.html

this seems to correlate consistently with all the stuff about fiber and butyrate in the first article.

now this is an interesting thing from Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine:

JAMA Study on Meat and Cancer Demands Action
4. The meat industry should be held financially responsible for a measure of the colon cancer incidence in the meat-eating population, as the tobacco industry has been for its contribution to lung cancer.
http://www.pcrm.org/cgi-bin/lists/mail.cgi?flavor=archive&id=20050111103016&list=news

it seems that this nutritional stuff may involve some ethics after all ...

 

[loseyourname]

All that's true. If your diet contains too much red meat, it can be harmful. Any good diet should consist of moderation.

Don't even try to tell me there are no potential problems with a vegetarian diet, though. Just last semester one of my classmates nearly died of shock shortly after going veggie because he wasn't properly supplementing his diet. Our professor was quick to warn all of us that certain dietary needs that are filled by meat need to be supplemented when going veggie, and I'm going to trust a professional medical researcher who had worked for several decades at Harvard and USC before I'll trust you. In fact, my girlfriend's mother was specifically instructed by her doctor to start eating fish (she had previously been a vegetarian) because of her cancer. That isn't to say that a vegetarian diet is inherently unhealthy. You can get all of the nutrients you need from non-animal sources, but you have to be careful and should at the very least consult with a dietary specialist before making the switch, in particular if you have special dietary needs. The rigor with which a vegetarian diet must be maintained is a large part of the reason that vegetarians are more likely to be healthy (provided they are careful and do it right) than non-vegetarians, who will often eat anything essentially because they can get away with it with little short-term consequences. It isn't that non-animal foods are intrinsically more healthy than animal foods.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Don't even try to tell me there are no potential problems with a vegetarian diet, though. Just last semester one of my classmates nearly died of shock shortly after going veggie because he wasn't properly supplementing his diet. ... I'm going to trust a professional medical researcher who had worked for several decades at Harvard and USC before I'll trust you.

i'm not asking you to 'trust' me, loseyourname. however, it is completely incorrect to say that a veg diet needs supplementation as though it is somehow deficient in comparison to the meaters diet. if you want to find out about veg diets, you should ask people who are involved with veg diets such as pcrm.org or vegsource.org

You can get all of the nutrients you need from non-animal sources, but you have to be careful and should at the very least consult with a dietary specialist.

you make it sound like such a major transition! it really isn't. you just eat a varied diet without the animal proteins.

The rigor with which a vegetarian diet must be maintained is a large part of the reason that vegetarians are more likely to be healthy (provided they are careful and do it right) than non-vegetarians, who will often eat anything essentially because they can get away with it with little short-term consequences.

veg people get sick too if they try to live on tofu and pasta. veg diets do not need any careful monitoring or food combining or great amounts of consternation.

It isn't that non-animal foods are intrinsically more healthy than animal foods.

non-animal foods are intrinsically more healthy than animal foods because the human body doesn't handle animal proteins very well because it doesn't have the equipment to do so see post #900. that is why people who consume animal proteins suffer from heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence, arthritis, excema, asthma etc etc etc etc.

and don't trust me on any of this ... go do your own research and decide whatever you want to. it is the only way you'll be convinced.

 

[plusaf]

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

(snipped...)

thank you, prad... it has been quite enlightening to be here, and i'll try to let go and get back into the morality side, though I'm pretty sure i will be of the opinion that there's no moral foundation for arguing, but that' just mnsho

but as for your first reference, check http://www.innvista.com/about.htm... after reviewing their "credentials," i lost respect for their "opinions masquerading as science" pretty quickly.

riddle me this: how long is the human intestinal tract (large and small intestines, in series, total and together)?

how fast would food be traveling down that "gastronomic highway" to make it from your teeth to your tush in 24 hours... do the math. i think there would be skid marks throughout your body if those guys were anywhere near correct!



peace, hugs and good science...
+af

 

[loseyourname]

i believe you said that you wouldn't kill unless there was a good reason to eg you were threatened or you wanted to eat a living creature. is this not correct?

Presumably you missed this, so I'll repost it:

First, I'll give some examples. Then I will give the abstraction - simply because I cannot give you an exhaustive list of wrong instances, but I can give you the set of circumstances under which the action is wrong.

Examples:

• The little girl buying ice cream that gets caught in gangwar crossfire.
• Death-row inmates.
• Laci Peterson.
• Dave in Mystic River.

Now the set of circumstances under which I will consider killing to be morally wrong:

• First off, the organism killed must have the right to not be killed. Whether or not I want to call this right "innate" isn't too important of a distinction to me. It seems difficult to say that any right is "innate." We have rights because we are given rights. I do think that we should give these rights; that is, it is the right thing to do. Still, I will shy from calling them "innate" or "self-evident" or anything like that.
• This right must not have been forfeited. Circumstance of forfeiture include: posing a direct threat to the life of an innocent person, being engaged in military conflict, etc.
• The killing must be intentional.

Everything now seems to hinge on what qualifies an organism to be given this right not to be killed. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain. Being a human that is not brain-dead obviously qualifies you. What would it take to qualify a non-human animal for this right? Consciousness, the ability to conceive of a self separate from its environment, the ability to recognize and fear death (not simply flee because of evolutionary programming), as well as other considerations. This is obviously anthropomorphic, it's the best I can do. I can't think of any better set of qualifications.

again, all I'm interested in knowing is whether you provide a moral basis for your actions (i am not really interested in what those actions are). however, i don't think this is a trivial point. generally, i think that people do act 'morally' according to some standard they set - even if they change their conception of what is moral for a particular situation.

It depends on the action. An insect is not sentient and so I don't consider the killing of an insect to have any moral worth, either good or bad. Morality only comes into the picture when my actions effect either myself or another sentient being. The killing of insect serves a purely industrial function - to rid my house of pests. You might say I have a moral obligation to provide my family with a home free from pests, but that's about it. Beyond that, there isn't much morality to discuss in this particular situation.

When presented with a moral choice, I will consider morality. But not all choices are moral choices (should I choose the tortilla or potato soup tonight?) and, in these cases, I will not be making any moral considerations.

1) regarding the animal suffering, you don't seem to think that the animals suffer in the first place because you feel that because you have lived on farms and haven't seen mistreatment, it is really a bit of a non-issue: I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. post #1141

Wrong. I know darn well that animals suffer. I also know that there are likely to be some humans suffering in sweatshops due to certain products I buy from international companies. If I find out that is the case, I will gladly boycott that company. What I will not do is boycott an entire industry simply because some of the suppliers of goods in that industry are violating my ethical standards. You seem to think that because some farms mistreat their animals, we should boycott all providers of farm-bred meat. I contend that doing so is not fair to the providers that do not mistreat their animals. I will gladly do what I can to find out which providers are the good ones and which are the bad ones, but I'm not going to boycott the entire industry.

2) regarding the ecodestruction, you seemed to think the ecodamage through meat farming is on par with vegetable farming as though if you stopped the first, the second would be just as problematic:
There is nothing intrinsic in the act of farming meat products that demands that it be more harmful to the environment than vegetable farming. post #992

My statement is correct. There is nothing intrinsic in the act of raising farm animals for consumption that makes it more harmful to the environment than any other form of farming. If we're talking about cattle raised in Brazil on cleared rainforest, then you have a case. If you're talking about the hog farmers in North Carolina that allow feces to seep into estuaries and breed dangerous microorganisms, then you have a case. But this is again a reason to boycott these providers and enact laws that will keep them from doing this if possible. It is not a reason to boycott the entire industry.

The same thing goes with certain vegetable farmers. The fertilizers used here in California on some of the citrus groves and vineyards seep into groundwater, rivers, and lakes, eutrophicating them and often choking off the animal life in these bodies of water. The Salton Sea is in particular danger and, by extension, the 160 species of birds whose only feeding ground for thousands of miles is the Salton Sea at this point could easily die off if the problem isn't fixed. Does this mean that I should stop eating all oranges and grapes? Or does it mean that I should do what I have already done, and lobby local politicans to enact stricter land usage laws and educate my peers about this problem?

1) animals don't really suffer because of the meat industry

Nope. Never said that.

2) the vegetable industry will do just as much damage as the meat industry

Nope. Never said that.

3) since i can't stop building cities, there's no point in stopping ecodestruction due to the meat industry

Nope. Never said that.

My case hinges on the method we employ to solve a given problem. The complete boycotting of certain industries is not a viable option to me. Cleaning those industries up, enacting and enforcing stricter laws, and boycotting individual providers that do harm is. By the same token, I can't do much about the building of cities. What I can do is fight to ensure that certain parcels of land remain protected and I can educate people to the damage of urban sprawl, in particular down here in southern California, something I have been doing for years. I can make the case to stop the expansion and I can move away myself, something that I am actually doing next week. Again, I don't want to make this about me, but all of these actions are options. You speak as if you have the only solution and you don't.

however, since you are not taking any steps to do this (in fact, you have said that you cannot even find out whether the meat you buy is from an 'ethical' source because you can't track everything down).

First off, I am taking steps to do this. I don't want to go completely back to the hunter/gatherer days, even if that would be healthiest ecologically, but I have done plenty, probably more than you, to clean things up. I'm not going to list my personal accomplishments, because they have nothing to do with this. This is supposed to be a discussion of what can and cannot be done and what the right thing to do is - not a discussion of what anyone person actually does. I could very well be a vegetarian for all you know and still make the case that eating meat is a perfectly ethical option if you do it right.

i don't know why you are saying this. i have already suggested that 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. post #1129

You still haven't answered the question. What are you making the case for? That

1) In the context in which we live, given the condition in which farm animals exist and the ecological damage done by the industry, it is best not to eat meat.

or

2) It is always wrong to eat meat, no matter the context.

Answer simply with a "1" or a "2" please. It will do wonders toward helping me understand exactly what it is you are advocating.

however, if we stopped eating meat you wouldn't have to be worried about the immense animal suffering that is a direct result of the meat industry.

And if we stopped wearing shoes, we needn't worry about the conditions of factory workers in China. If we stopped building houses, we needn't worry about the destruction of natural resources in suburban sprawl. If we stopped driving cars, we needn't worry about all of the pollution they cause and the civil unrest in many parts of the world due to oil. If we stopped using water to irrigate vegetable farms in arid regions, we needn't worry about the water shortages that tear my part of the Pacific states apart. Am I to believe that you will now stop wearing shoes, move out of the city, stop driving and stop eating vegetables? Or do you think there are other ways to address these problems?

ok now we finally have something we can agree on, i hope. by virtue of our ability to extrapolate (some would call it empathize), we can conclude that suffering is a bad thing and that all sentient beings have, in your own words from post #1141, the

right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly

this, of course, overwrites your statement in post #1012 which ran to the tune of Animals do not have rights.

Are you honestly still miscontruing these statements? I admit that they look awfully contradictory when you take them out of context like that, but allow me to put them back in. Animals do not have rights generally speaking. Rights are a legal construct that are granted arbitrarily by bodies (such as governments) that have the ability to do so. Our government has decided to grant the right not to suffer needlessly to certain animals, such as pets and such. I think this is a good thing and that the protection should be extended to all animals that are clearly sentient - the ones I listed above. What I meant by my original statement (which I explained earlier, but I guess you aren't so quick to quote that) was that animals do not have the same rights as humans - they do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nor do they have property rights or the right to assemble peacefully or any of those other ones.

now i am in agreement with you on your statement that animals have the right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly and since you made the statement and have even provided a rationale for it (the extrapolation bit), can we conclude that this is a good idea or possibly even an ethical idea?

Considering that I have already said many times that I think this is a good, ethical idea, yes, I will remain consistent and continue to believe that this is a good, ethical idea.

 

[Francis M]

SOrry for any confusion between the Francis M and Francis M2. THey're both me. M2 is from my home account because I couldn't find a way to access my one account to this forum from home as well as work so I went through the register process from my home computer.

physicsphirst

are you trying to argue that absolutely everything living has one of those right to life contracts and therefore nothing should kill it? this is similar to what russ presented way back in post #932:

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.

(loseyourname tried 'defending' russ on this in post #962.)

are you applying their reasoning to vegetables?

Absolutly not to any of the above. If I sounded that way I didn't mean to and thank you for the welcome.
What I'm saying/asking, is that if we eventually get rid of the factory farms (which I agree are inefficiant and should be gotten rid of) and treat these animals great before they're as painlessly as possible killed(euthanization?)then one of the moral legs of the issue (i.e these animals are treated badly from birth and are killed painfully) is gone? and we're left with simply is it immoral to kill these animals to begin with to feed ourselves? Also do we apply this selectivly or across the board to all animals?
We're also left with the health issues directly related to eating meat (which I agree there are). I can see that there is a health issue related to eating large amounts of red meat, high fat content meats, and processed meats in general. But there the argument (from most doctors and nutritionists) is to temper our meat intake. I'm also sorry if I got or came across emotionally, and believe me I'm not in any way knocking the people that have done research on this and are trying to change the way things are done now.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Presumably you missed this, so I'll repost it:

ya i didn't see it because you had posted it to sheepdog in post #1111.

Everything now seems to hinge on what qualifies an organism to be given this right not to be killed. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain.

well at least that's a start. but everything doesn't hinge on whether the organism is given this right not to be killed. some of it seems to hinge on our certainty as well.

This is obviously anthropomorphic, it's the best I can do. I can't think of any better set of qualifications.

well it can be called anthropomorphic, but that doesn't necessarily disqualify it. the anthropomorphism of today, may well become the rule of tomorrow. besides, i think what you wrote regarding 'qualifications' is quite sufficient for our present purposes.

Wrong. I know darn well that animals suffer. I also know that there are likely to be some humans suffering in sweatshops due to certain products I buy from international companies. If I find out that is the case, I will gladly boycott that company.

well that's a start. so what was so terribly wrong about finding out whether the meat comes from an 'ethical' source?

You seem to think that because some farms mistreat their animals, we should boycott all providers of farm-bred meat. I contend that doing so is not fair to the providers that do not mistreat their animals. I will gladly do what I can to find out which providers are the good ones and which are the bad ones

well that's great. but i don't understand why you kicked up such a fuss about it in post #1106: It is difficult to research the operating habits of every company that one buys from ... 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.
the reason this point is important is because it is not just some farms that mistreat the animals - it is the overwhelming majority. therefore, the very least any carnivore can do, provided they feel that animal suffering is wrong, is to investigate where their meat comes from.

My statement is correct. There is nothing intrinsic in the act of raising farm animals for consumption that makes it more harmful to the environment than any other form of farming.

the statement may be correct, but it is also rather useless considering we are talking about present day meat production.

If we're talking about cattle raised in Brazil on cleared rainforest, then you have a case. If you're talking about the hog farmers in North Carolina that allow feces to seep into estuaries and breed dangerous microorganisms, then you have a case. But this is again a reason to boycott these providers and enact laws that will keep them from doing this if possible. It is not a reason to boycott the entire industry.

no of course not! there is always roadkill, carrion, euthanized pets - there is plenty for everyone to eat. I'm glad that you accept that we at least have a case for brazil and north carolina.

The fertilizers used here in California on some of the citrus groves and vineyards seep into groundwater, rivers, and lakes, eutrophicating them and often choking off the animal life in these bodies of water. ... Does this mean that I should stop eating all oranges and grapes? Or does it mean that I should do what I have already done, and lobby local politicans to enact stricter land usage laws and educate my peers about this problem?

i live near vineyards and i see that they are ecologically responsible, therefore should i conclude that only some vineyards abuse the environment? should i decide that 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 destruction of the environment would be so daunting and time-consuming that conducting this research would keep me from ever buying anything? well this isn't about me or about you - but it seems to be about what we post.

Nope. Never said that.
Nope. Never said that.
Nope. Never said that.

in each of the cases, you have said the following
1) To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment.
2) There is nothing intrinsic in the act of farming meat products that demands that it be more harmful to the environment than vegetable farming.
3) Building a city disrupts an ecosystem more than any farm. Should we abandon our cities as well?

1) suggests that because you haven't seen mistreatment and because you think only some farms are cruel, this really isn't a big issue.
2) is that 'correct' statement of yours, but it does attempt to trivialize a rather enormous problem.
3) uses deflected justification ie because i can't do anything about other problems in the world, we should be consistent and do nothing about the particular problem we are talking about.

My case hinges on the method we employ to solve a given problem.

perhaps, but your method has amounted to saying that because we can't solve everything, we shouldn't solve the problem we are talking about. however, there seems to be more interest in this particular post in dealing with these matters.

The complete boycotting of certain industries is not a viable option to me. Cleaning those industries up, enacting and enforcing stricter laws, and boycotting individual providers that do harm is.

great!

What I can do is fight to ensure that certain parcels of land remain protected and I can educate people to the damage of urban sprawl, in particular down here in southern California, something I have been doing for years.

wonderful!

I can make the case to stop the expansion and I can move away myself, something that I am actually doing next week.

i don't see what the point of moving away really is.

Again, I don't want to make this about me, but all of these actions are options.

i don't mind if you make this all about yourself. i can become interested in learning about those people i communicate with in forums, but only if they really want to talk about themselves.

You speak as if you have the only solution and you don't.

Nope. Never said that. (only mild plagarism intended LOL)
however, i did present a pretty good solution. ending meat consumption will end the animal suffering and ecodamage that results from meat consumption.

First off, I am taking steps to do this ... but I have done plenty, probably more than you, to clean things up.

well i can see how you would come to that conclusion. it would be reasonable to conclude that due to the length of our exchanges, i wouldn't have time to be involved in too much ecoaction LOL.

I could very well be a vegetarian for all you know and still make the case that eating meat is a perfectly ethical option if you do it right.

alternatively, if you really look into the ethics, you might still become a vegetarian. (it's too late for me though)

You still haven't answered the question. What are you making the case for? That

1) In the context in which we live, given the condition in which farm animals exist and the ecological damage done by the industry, it is best not to eat meat.

or

2) It is always wrong to eat meat, no matter the context.

Answer simply with a "1" or a "2" please. It will do wonders toward helping me understand exactly what it is you are advocating.

1
(2 is a bit silly isn't it given the carrion option? i also don't really know exactly what you mean by "best", but it probably doesn't matter in the context of our discussion so far)

And if we stopped wearing shoes, we needn't worry about the conditions of factory workers in China. If we stopped building houses, we needn't worry about the destruction of natural resources in suburban sprawl. If we stopped driving cars, we needn't worry about all of the pollution they cause and the civil unrest in many parts of the world due to oil. If we stopped using water to irrigate vegetable farms in arid regions, we needn't worry about the water shortages that tear my part of the Pacific states apart.

and if we stopped justification by deflection, we wouldn't need to be arguing post after post, would we?

Am I to believe that you will now stop wearing shoes, move out of the city, stop driving and stop eating vegetables? Or do you think there are other ways to address these problems?

well i get my shoes at the salvation army, i do live in the country, i rarely drive and almost always via some sort of carpooling, i only eat organic veggies usually from local sources. however, what does this have to do with it? are you still saying that because you don't solve problem B by boycott, it means you can't solve problem A by boycott? why do we insist on this all or nothing scenario? what's wrong with starting with some boycotts and working towards others?

Are you honestly still miscontruing these statements? I admit that they look awfully contradictory when you take them out of context like that, but allow me to put them back in.

well let's at least put them back in the way you wrote it:

A person is an entity with rights. Animals do not have rights. post #1012

what was i to conclude from that (as well as your answer to my questions in your post #1147)? however, your present post does clarify your present position.

yes, I will remain consistent and continue to believe that this is a good, ethical idea.

excellent! we are at least agreed that animals have the right to be free from needless suffering.

i think we can move on to the issue of animal rights soon. i too thought that rights were something granted, however, I'm not so sure anymore. i will elaborate in another post in the next little while.

 

[physicsisphirst]

thank you, prad... it has been quite enlightening to be here, and i'll try to let go and get back into the morality side, though I'm pretty sure i will be of the opinion that there's no moral foundation for arguing, but that' just mnsho

that's no problem! it will give us something to talk about!
this is a good thread with nice people generally who usually make an effort to respond with sincere effort regardless of the position they hold. i hope you will enjoy your stay here.

riddle me this: how long is the human intestinal tract (large and small intestines, in series, total and together)?

The small intestine measures approximately 23 feet in length and contains the duodenum, jejunum and the ileum. The large intestine measures approximately 5 feet in length and contains the cecum, colon, rectum and the anal canal.
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cach...asures+approximately+23+feet+in+length"&hl=en

The small intestine is about 6 meters (20 feet) long. It is coiled in the center of the abdominal cavity ...
The large intestine has a larger width but is only 1.5 meters (5 feet) long. The large intestine is divided into 6 parts: cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum.

http://www.mamashealth.com/organs/intestine.asp

Whatever you eat has to be properly digested and then move its way through a long, approximately 35 feet in length, intestinal lining to finally exit the rectum. So don?t you think the most important area to keep clean in your body would be that 35 feet of food storage wasteland?
http://www.colon-cleanse-constipation.com/constipation-bowel-movement.html

humans' are 10 to 11 times the length of their bodies (our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to the base of the spine and averages 2 to 3 feet in length).
http://groups.msn.com/CrazyVegan/humanherbivore.msnw

how fast would food be traveling down that "gastronomic highway" to make it from your teeth to your tush in 24 hours... do the math. i think there would be skid marks throughout your body if those guys were anywhere near correct!

so given that the above sources are correct and the combined length is at least 30 feet, veg food would move on average 1.25 feet/hr (of course, it spends more time in certain places than others). i don't really see this as a problem, but perhaps i am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. do you think that moving through the gastronomic highway (great phrase btw!) at 1.25 feet/hr is too fast?

 

[physicsisphirst]

SOrry for any confusion between the Francis M and Francis M2. THey're both me. M2 is from my home account because I couldn't find a way to access my one account to this forum from home as well as work so I went through the register process from my home computer.

i understand completely and appreciate your clarification.

Absolutly not to any of the above. If I sounded that way I didn't mean to and thank you for the welcome.

and you are welcome for your thank you!
i'm relieved that you were not trying to apply that particular "right to life" argument to vegetables.

What I'm saying/asking, is that if we eventually get rid of the factory farms (which I agree are inefficiant and should be gotten rid of) and treat these animals great before they're as painlessly as possible killed(euthanization?)then one of the moral legs of the issue (i.e these animals are treated badly from birth and are killed painfully) is gone? and we're left with simply is it immoral to kill these animals to begin with to feed ourselves?

this is a good question and I'm not sure there will be widespread agreement here. for instance, those who espouse the utilitarian viewpoint of "minimizing suffering" may say that it is quite acceptable because nothing suffers (i think dissident dan and learningphysics indicated that). those who hold a more deontological outlook might say that it is wrong to eat the animal before it dies naturally, so they would not accept euthanasia as a viable alternative.

what i found really interesting was sheepdog's arguments regarding Vegetarianism is not just about not eating meat. It is about respecting Nature in every way. take a look at his posts #1178 and #1188, really fascinating ideas there (as well as in the subsequent exchanges between him and learningphysics).

Also do we apply this selectivly or across the board to all animals?

i do not quite understand what you are asking here.

We're also left with the health issues directly related to eating meat (which I agree there are). I can see that there is a health issue related to eating large amounts of red meat, high fat content meats, and processed meats in general. But there the argument (from most doctors and nutritionists) is to temper our meat intake.

ya there has been a lot of research over the decades that do say that meat ain't good for you. vegetarians have been a growing breed. it is interesting that the ratio of poll shows a 1:2 ratio for veg vs non-veg (exactly 124:248 as i look right now). when i became veg for nutritional reasons in 1972, i'd be lucky to find 1 veg amongst 100.

I'm also sorry if I got or came across emotionally, and believe me I'm not in any way knocking the people that have done research on this and are trying to change the way things are done now.

it is most decent and courteous of you to say these things and a pleasure to have you on this thread.
hope you enjoy it here and i greatly look forward to talking with you!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Every time someone points out that the carcinogenic effects of meat are only shown for massive meat diets, the vegans reply "Yeah, we always knew meat was bad for you". Try to carry on a discussion, please, not a spin.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Every time someone points out that the carcinogenic effects of meat are only shown for massive meat diets, the vegans reply "Yeah, we always knew meat was bad for you". Try to carry on a discussion, please, not a spin.

i think the reason some veg (not so much the ethical or the enviro veggies) say "Yeah, we always knew meat was bad for you", is because they read about the links meat-eating seems to have to Heart Disease, Hypertension, Diabetes, Osteoporosis, Cancer etc.

these links are demonstrated often through extensive studies with fair cross-sections of people and not soley massive meat-eaters.

there does seem to be a fairly direct correlation between the quantity of meat intake and how badly you get zapped for it. for example, in the earlier link to the news release on the 20 yr American Cancer Society findings the conclusion drawn was:

"The bottom line is that the people who were eating the most red meat had higher colon cancer risk than those eating the least," McCullough tells WebMD [McCullogh is the senior epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta and was presumably involved in the research in some way.]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144062,00.html

 

[learningphysics]

Well, OK, if we need to go down this road. Suppose sheep were bred with pain/pleasure reversed. Obviously the pain centers could not be eliminated because pleasure is only experienced in contrast to pain. They necessarily go together.

If this is a part of biology, then I'll believe you. But as a philosophical point, I strongly disagree with the idea that pain can only be experienced in contrast to pleasure.

Also, I'm not advocating reversing pain centers. My answer was meant to be that, IF somehow the pain centers were reversed, then I'd have no problem with the factory farms.

But I'd be strongly against reversing pain centers in the first place, as that puts the sheep in a situation where there happiness depends on human beings... I'd rather they have a more secure source of happiness. What if humans changed their mind, and stopped their cruel treatment of sheep leaving them unhappy?

So they use genetic engineering to create a man-chimpanzee chimera. It's more managable than a chimpanzee, easily bred and produces as much or more meat. But you get wind and start complaining that this is cruel, so they do the same thing they did to the sheep. Now the man-chimps only get pleasure from their cruel treatment. I assume you would now become as whole-heartedly enthusiastic about eating this meat?

Again, this puts humans in a position of responsibility that they probably cannot handle... If humanity changes its mind about the man-chimps, they'll be left miserable.

It's not that hard.

I don't know what you are referring to. One thing that isn't destructive? Everything seems destructive in some sense...

 

[sheepdog]

sadly mystified

If this is a part of biology, then I'll believe you. But as a philosophical point, I strongly disagree with the idea that pain can only be experienced in contrast to pleasure.

Well, perhaps this particular argument belongs in another thread.

Also, I'm not advocating reversing pain centers. My answer was meant to be that, IF somehow the pain centers were reversed, then I'd have no problem with the factory farms.

But I'd be strongly against reversing pain centers in the first place, as that puts the sheep in a situation where there happiness depends on human beings... I'd rather they have a more secure source of happiness. What if humans changed their mind, and stopped their cruel treatment of sheep leaving them unhappy?

Excellent! This is the first inkling I've seen that you give weight to something other than mere pleasure/pain. Unfortunately you have also contradicted yourself, it seems. Because in the first paragraph you state that you would have no problem with factory farms given a pain/pleasure reversal, and in the second you would have a problem with factory farms ("their cruel treatment") given a pain/pleasure reversal. Which is it? And what the heck is "a more secure source of happiness"?

Again, this puts humans in a position of responsibility that they probably cannot handle... If humanity changes its mind about the man-chimps, they'll be left miserable.

I'm, again, in agreement with you here, but you seem to be vasilating. "... probably cannot handle ..." What does this mean? Do you mean that there are situations in which the happiness of another species depends upon us and we CAN handle the responsibility and then there are situations of that sort when we CANNOT handle the responsibility? I'm completely mystified by this judgement of our ability to handle some strange happiness responsibility.

I don't know what you are referring to. One thing that isn't destructive? Everything seems destructive in some sense...

I must say I find this response to be profoundly sad. There you are sitting in front of your computer, the final culmination of a trillion, trillion years of the universe working to bring you into existence and yet you cannot, in all that time, in all those generations of ancestors who died that you should be sitting where you are, you cannot find one small moment of certain goodness, of certain non-destructiveness. I cannot understand someone who could look into his mother's eyes, or his father's eyes, and say, "I don't know anything you ever did for me that I am certain was not destructive." I am overwhelmed by the abject misery this represents and can feel only the greatest pity.

 

[JonahHex]

How would you answer the question "Should we recycle plastic bottles" It's a question that relates to everybody and ultimately comes back to you.

I answer it the same way. I make the choice; you make the choice.

Earlier I was asked why I'm posting negatively about the thread instead of reading it and joining the discussion. I have, in fact, read most of the 80+ pages of the thread and most of it is self-righteous vegetarians bleeding hypocricy and meat eaters responding defensively for reasons I fail to understand.

In nature there is nothing precious about life. The vegetarians have no problems distinguishing between life forms that are precious to them and those that, conveniently for them, are not...they have to eat after all. However, all of the rationalization in the world doesn't alter the fact that they kill to survive, nor that they don't have a problem with a grasshopper being blasted with a weapon of mass destruction (nerve poison) in order to preserve the lettuce they intend to eat for lunch.

Fundementally this thread boils down to 80 pages of mental masterbation: veggies being pious and carnies defensively rebutting allegations.

I have as much respect for life as God, who has arranged for every living thing to die, with very, very few pleasant modes for accomplishing it. Plants get eaten alive and so do most animals. The suffering that humans impose upon their food is basically trivial compared to that imposed by other animal eating species. 1 in a 1000 baby sea turtles makes it from their egg on the shore to the sea; there are a myriad of other examples.

The argument that we're "better than that" is straight out of the middle ages when man was considered to be separate from nature.

"Absolute morality." Uh huh. That translates to "I'm right. You're wrong." What does morality have to do with eating meat? Why is shooting a cow in the head immoral, but poisoning millions of grasshoppers moral?

This thread should have been 2 posts long:
1. "Should we eat meat?"
2. "You should eat whatever you want. What I eat is none of your business."

 

[physicsisphirst]

I answer it the same way. I make the choice; you make the choice.

so i don't get what you are complaining about then.
if a veg makes a choice to protest against others eating meat, what's wrong with that? that veg has made a choice and since you apparently don't want to infringe on another's choice (for whatever reason), just what are you complaining about?

I have, in fact, read most of the 80+ pages of the thread and most of it is self-righteous vegetarians bleeding hypocricy and meat eaters responding defensively for reasons I fail to understand.

that hardly seems to be an accurate representation of the content of the thread. if anyone has just bled hypocrisy, it is you for saying that we are free to choose and then getting all upset because some veggies choose to critique the eating habits of some others and some meaters choose to respond defensively about those eating habits.

The argument that we're "better than that" is straight out of the middle ages when man was considered to be separate from nature.

well are you saying that we are not better than that?
does being 'not separate from nature' mean we must resort to barbaric behaviours?

"Absolute morality." Uh huh. That translates to "I'm right. You're wrong."

now why are you upset with this? it was a bold concept put forth by russ_watters (one of your fellow meaters actually) in post #1114:

is morality absolute or relative? I believe it is absolue and I believe there are serious flaws in relativism

it is an excellent post, imho, and proceeds to argue the shortcomings of relativism. then it continues by suggesting a parallel between morality and physics:

It is my view that morality, like physics, can be arrived at empierically. Science is largely predicated on the assumption that there are absolute laws that govern how the universe works and if we are smart enough we might find them (paraphrase, Hawking) ... So what about morality? Why can't we start with the same assumption (in my view, a reasonable assumption, but even if you don't buy it, try it anyway and see how it works) and attempt to find moral laws emperically?

what a fascinating idea!
why are you so upset about it?

This thread should have been 2 posts long: ...

well no one forced you to read the other 1217 posts.

however, since you claim that you have read them, for the most part, and seem to be hanging around a bit, can you clarify what your thesis actually is? does it boil down to complaining about this "I'm right. You're wrong." thing? or is it your intention to endorse and enforce it by insisting that you are right and the rest of the thread is wrong?

 

[learningphysics]

Well, perhaps this particular argument belongs in another thread. Excellent! This is the first inkling I've seen that you give weight to something other than mere pleasure/pain. Unfortunately you have also contradicted yourself, it seems. Because in the first paragraph you state that you would have no problem with factory farms given a pain/pleasure reversal, and in the second you would have a problem with factory farms ("their cruel treatment") given a pain/pleasure reversal.

No, what I'm saying is that if the pain reversals were already done, and let's say irreversible... in this position, I'd have no problem with factory farms. I'm considering that somehow it was already done, without my knowledge, and without my consent. In this position, the pain centers are already reversed. So I'd have no problem with the factory farms.

Doing the pain reversal in the first place... I'm against that. If I was to decide whether or not pain reversals were to be done, I'd say no.

Do you mean that there are situations in which the happiness of another species depends upon us and we CAN handle the responsibility and then there are situations of that sort when we CANNOT handle the responsibility?

The situation described was one where we CREATED the responsibility ourselves. For example we can engineer a species that produces some kind of vaccine humans find beneficial. Unfortunately the species is constantly in pain. So humans need to constantly inject a drug, so that the animal can be free of pain. Is it a good idea to create such a species? I'd say no, because humans would be in charge of injecting the drug, and they may mess up, make mistakes etc.

We shouldn't create NEW situations where we make others utterly dependent on us, when we don't have the resources and skills to take care of them.

If animals are already dependent on us (and we can't make them independent), then we should do our best to fulfill our responsibility even though we may make mistakes. But we shouldn't create NEW dependencies...

There you are sitting in front of your computer, the final culmination of a trillion, trillion years of the universe working to bring you into existence and yet you cannot, in all that time, in all those generations of ancestors who died that you should be sitting where you are, you cannot find one small moment of certain goodness, of certain non-destructiveness. I cannot understand someone who could look into his mother's eyes, or his father's eyes, and say, "I don't know anything you ever did for me that I am certain was not destructive." I am overwhelmed by the abject misery this represents and can feel only the greatest pity.

Why are you being so dramatic? I'm curious what this completely non-destructive thing is.

 

[JonahHex]

however, since you claim that you have read them, for the most part, and seem to be hanging around a bit, can you clarify what your thesis actually is? does it boil down to complaining about this "I'm right. You're wrong." thing? or is it your intention to endorse and enforce it by insisting that you are right and the rest of the thread is wrong?

Actually, there is quite a bit of interesting stuff here that is worth reading. However, there is an old cliche that goes something like "When discussing religion or politics, everything that's going to be said will be said in the 1st ten minutes. After that, it's just an argument." This thread reached this point quite a while ago...at least in terms of the original topic.

And, yes, of course I'm right. Why would I say something that is wrong? In this regard I'm no different than anyone else here.

What is my point and purpose here? To object to the moral high-ground. To be disruptive. To be politically incorrect and say that humans are barbaric, especially while claiming not to be. Suffering is suffering, whether it is a cow or a sheep subjected to farm ranching, a grasshopper being poisoned by pesticides, or a human starving due to crops being destroyed because of a lack of pesticides or an unwillingness to use them. We pick and choose our evils. We value human life more than any other form because humans are "us" and "they" are not. Is this wrong? No. Ya got to look out for numero uno. But to pretend that there is some morality in this is pure ego.

There are lots of reasons why man should not "conquer" the Earth and exert dominion over it. Most of them have to do with the long term consequences of short-term solutions. Kill wolves to protect our herds only to find out that rabbits were the main diet of wolves and now the rabbits are overrunning our crops...that kind of thing. So now we have to kill the rabbits too. Between the wolves and the rabbits there is a lot more suffering than the cows we eat experience. Hello?

Ultimately, the real question is where do you draw the line? I hear PETA is now concerning themselves with the suffering of fish. PETA has been around for decades. How many millions of fish suffered before they "got around" to being concerned about them. They should be ashamed of themselves. Most fish are carnivores. Shouldn't PETA be concerned about the suffering of their prey? Maybe fish deserve to suffer because of the suffering they cause to others? Besides fish smell funny.

Where do you draw the line? ...and why there?

 

[physicsisphirst]

Actually, there is quite a bit of interesting stuff here that is worth reading.

i agree! other than a few minor outbursts this is one of the best threads on this sort of topic I've seen for quite some time.

However, there is an old cliche that goes something like "When discussing religion or politics, everything that's going to be said will be said in the 1st ten minutes. After that, it's just an argument." This thread reached this point quite a while ago...at least in terms of the original topic.

i think that as different people come into the thread, they make different contributions. i think it is best to see a forum thread as a conversation at an openhouse party rather than a conference where people make presentations. in the latter case, once it is said it pretty well needn't be repeated. in the former, people just drop in for a while and talk to someone whose post they like (or don't like), then leave for a while.

And, yes, of course I'm right. Why would I say something that is wrong? In this regard I'm no different than anyone else here.

well, i hope not! it would be terrible if people started saying things when they really thought they were wrong! it is probably a good thing to start at the opposite corners of the room with conviction and see if understanding (or even transformation) takes place.

What is my point and purpose here? To object to the moral high-ground. To be disruptive. To be politically incorrect and say that humans are barbaric ...

just as long as we are totally clear on this

We pick and choose our evils.

i'm sure this is correct in some context.

We value human life more than any other form because humans are "us" and "they" are not. Is this wrong?

it may not be wrong to value human life more than any other form, but your statement is wrong factually (assuming you mean humans in general by "We"), since all humans most certainly don't value human life more than any other lifeform. would you like some examples?

Ya got to look out for numero uno. But to pretend that there is some morality in this is pure ego.

i think there are different ways to look out for numero uno and very often people and animals put numero uno aside and look out for some other being at the risk of their own direct or material benefit.

Where do you draw the line? ...and why there?

i think a more appropriate question might be "what is the criteria one uses to draw the line?" after all, different people draw the line in different places. here is one pretty good idea presented by loseyourname (another of your fellow meaters) from post #1193:

When I suffer, it feels awfully bad to me and so I extrapolate to the conclusion that suffering in general is a bad thing and is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary (for instance, in military training or childbirth). On that basis, I will grant the right of all sentient beings to not suffer unless absolutely necessary. Of course, there is some question as to which organisms are sentient and which are not. The minimum qualifications are probably at least the structural portions of the brain identified with pain perception in humans. This qualification is met by all mammals and birds and most reptiles.

so what do you think of this, jonahhex?

 

[sheepdog]

without your consent

No, what I'm saying is that if the pain reversals were already done, and let's say irreversible... in this position, I'd have no problem with factory farms. I'm considering that somehow it was already done, without my knowledge, and without my consent. In this position, the pain centers are already reversed. So I'd have no problem with the factory farms.

Right. So the scientist says, "If we do pain/pleasure reversal will you stop complaining about our factory farms?" And you answer, "Only if you do it without my knowledge or consent." And they go ahead and do it without your knowledge or consent. Now what? The pain/pleasure reversal is done. It's done before you know it. Do you stop complaining about the factory farms and start eating lambs at every meal?

The situation described was one where we CREATED the responsibility ourselves. For example we can engineer a species that produces some kind of vaccine humans find beneficial. Unfortunately the species is constantly in pain. So humans need to constantly inject a drug, so that the animal can be free of pain. Is it a good idea to create such a species? I'd say no, because humans would be in charge of injecting the drug, and they may mess up, make mistakes etc.

We shouldn't create NEW situations where we make others utterly dependent on us, when we don't have the resources and skills to take care of them.

If animals are already dependent on us (and we can't make them independent), then we should do our best to fulfill our responsibility even though we may make mistakes. But we shouldn't create NEW dependencies...

So first you tell me your "ethic" is based upon maximizing pleasure. Now what are you telling me? I don't see how we have some "responsibility" to care for something we have made dependent relates to pain/pleasure maximizing. Why not just kill it? Painlessly of course. You seem to think the dependency is "bad". So why not just end the dependency and the bad pain that goes with it, once and for all?

Why are you being so dramatic? I'm curious what this completely non-destructive thing is.

Oh, man! I really am left without words to respond to these questions. You're going to have to find your own way from here. Sorry. I'm at a complete loss as where to begin if there is nothing at all, ever, that you are certain is/was not destructive. Your place is too far for my reach. And may God speed.

 

[learningphysics]

Right. So the scientist says, "If we do pain/pleasure reversal will you stop complaining about our factory farms?" And you answer, "Only if you do it without my knowledge or consent." And they go ahead and do it without your knowledge or consent. Now what? The pain/pleasure reversal is done. It's done before you know it. Do you stop complaining about the factory farms and start eating lambs at every meal?

No no... I would not answer, "if you do it without my knowledge". I'd try to prevent it from happening.

Yes, once it is done and I can't reverse it, then I wouldn't complain about the factory farms.

We seem to have gone off on a tangent.

Basically I'm saying that if the only way sheep are going to be happy is if they are held in factory farms, then we should hold them in factory farms.

Maybe I can clarify here... Suppose sheep will be miserable unless we put them in factory farms, would you agree to put them there? Would you be against it?

So first you tell me your "ethic" is based upon maximizing pleasure. Now what are you telling me? I don't see how we have some "responsibility" to care for something we have made dependent relates to pain/pleasure maximizing. Why not just kill it? Painlessly of course.

My ethic is mainly negative utilitarianism. I see it as more urgent to prevent pain and suffering that to create pleasure. But yes, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is the idea. But maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for all beings! Not just myself... and not just humans.

Yes, killing it is one idea. But you've got to consider how it affects everyone, the rest of the species etc... and consider all the effects.

You seem to think the dependency is "bad". So why not just end the dependency and the bad pain that goes with it, once and for all?

Yes, it is possible this is a solution. Again, all the effects need to be considered. If we don't know all the effects, then we need to figure it out.

Oh, man! I really am left without words to respond to these questions. You're going to have to find your own way from here. Sorry. I'm at a complete loss as where to begin if there is nothing at all, ever, that you are certain is/was not destructive. Your place is too far for my reach. And may God speed.

Looks like I've really upset you.

As far as the completely non-destructive thing... Lots of people find that all of life is destructive... Buddha, Schopenhauer, many others. Even using physics, ever process increases the entropy in the universe. I don't know why you had such a reaction to my answer. Life being destructive is almost a cliche in a philosophy forum.

 

[marley.wannabee]

Well, I'm training to be a professional athlete...
how is it that i would get enough protein to keep my muscle in peak condition without some meat again?

soybeans and some vitamins to help me use the veg protein to the maxx?
yummy