A Challenge To Meat-Eaters

[Kid A]

No, this thread is pointless, you seem to think that everyone else has to justify their actions to you, but you don't have to justify your actions to us.

The thread is not entitled: 'Vegetarians vs. meat-eaters.' It's entitled 'A Challenge To Meat-Eaters, the challenge being to give a moral justification for eating meat. If you don't want to give a moral justification for eating meat, or don't think you have to, then fair enough. No one is having a go at you. I'm not trying to make you change if you don't want to. I've just put a challenge out there, some people may think it stupid or pointless, i don't care. If you want to make a reply to this challenge then do so, and i will reply to it, if you don't want to then fair enough, but stop complaining.

[Kid A]

sking1981, i'm sorry to have taken so long to reply to you. You have brought up very good points, and have been very patient, so i will get to your replies in one moment.

First though a post has appeared which demands my attention:

has been killed close to the end of it's life

I could be wrong but it seems to me that this requirement would be pretty easy to meet. Indeed, I'm rather surprised if the current meat industry manages to extend the lives of many animals much past the time they are killed.

I don't know if there's a typo in there somewhere or something, but this post don't make alot of sense to me. Please, explain?

Anyway on to sking1981

My initial thoughts are if you make the choice not to eat meat on moral grounds, then you're a hippocrit if you don't apply that moral standard to your clothing.

I think you're absolutely right. As i stated before the only reason i occasionally wear leather is that i bought the leather items before i really thought about the morals of clothing. Nowadays i do not buy leather products, and so the only reason that i wear pieces that i have bought a long time ago is that i have a need of them, and don't see any good in throwing it away. In the same way, if there was meat that was going to be thrown away, i don't think it would be morally inconsistant for a vegetarian to eat it.

If the alternative is natural materials made from non slaughtered animals. ie wool, silk, cotton or synthetics.

I don't know anything about wool farming. I'd assume livestock is livestock and it's treated the same, if so then there's argument to say wool farming doesn't pass your moral checklist.

Yes, that might well be true. I think i'd have to read up more on the matter before making any conclusive judgement, but it may certainly be the case that the wool industry is immoral, unlikley to the same degree has the leather of fur industries, but perhaps immoral nonetheless.

Silk farming, well not sure how you feel about little silk worms being exploited, but they are now incapable of breeding naturally, have no 'fear' of predation and cannot fly when adult, they exist in boxes in extraordinaryly high populations. Still not fussed? Compare this to battery chickens and you may see the relevance.

Yes, well i'd say this is a hard issue. I'm still not convinced that worms have the cognitive abilities necessary to 'suffer' in any meaningfull sort of way. And even if they do, i should still think that they are capable of alot less then chickens. But, i don't know, it may be possible to argue that silk farming is immoral. I don't personally wear silk, but that's just cause i don't particuliarly like it.

Cotton requires lots and lots of water to grow. The biggest threat to humanity is said to be the availability of potable water, much of Uzbekistans newly desertised terrain is owed to it's cotton industry. The plant requires little nutrition and lots of water, but it requires frost free environments and long periods of sun. in short we can't rely on cotton to cloth the world without creating desert in the countries most likely to suffer drought.

Right, well i'd have to research the matter further, but yes, ecological concerns should probably be taken into consideration also. It is interesting to think of which clothing materials available that do not come from any animals. Cotton is one, Hemp is another. I don't really know enough to think up many others.

So all that's left is synthetic. Now with all the climate change focus, cutting CO2 etc, can you morally justify supporting this industry?

I don't know, again, i guess i need to research into this further. What are your views on it?

So is it so easy to be idealistic? If you really think about eating meat in the same way as wearing clothes, how do you make the moral choice?

I think a very interesting moral question (one that i'm not sure i have the time to get into fully here) is the struggle between our moral ideals and our selfish interests. I do think, mainly due the complex large nature of the world, that it is pretty much impossible to be completely true to ones moral ideals, or even to have a complete idea of how true one is being to those ideals. I accept that i hold moral ideals that i do not fully live up to, as i think is probably true of everyone here. Animal issues are tricky because our whole society is based on exploiting animals for our selfish interests, so i think you do have a point that once you decide that animal issues need to be taken into consideration, it is pretty much impossible to stay true to those ideals without leaving our society altogether (i think this is probably not only true for the animal debate, but for most moral issues out there), something which i for one, am not prepared to do. 'Why debate the issue at all if you are not prepared to live up to the ideals?' you may ask, and it's a fair question; my admitadely slightly lame answer being that i think that for any society to change, people's minds have to change first. The animal rights laws in all of the animal-related practises have, in england at least, gotten vastly better over the last 50 years are so, and i think will continue to do so in the future. Eventually we may come to a point where the majority of people in this country are against factory farmed foods, so the goverment will stop the practise. Perhaps sometime after that the majority of people will become vegetarians, so eventually the killing of animals for meat may become outlawed too, and etc..


The fact is that if you believe in some sort of morality, then the issues outlines above aren't just moral issues for me, but you too, and most people here, and to be honest, most people have probably never even considered them in their lives before. But once they have considered them, and thought about them logically and honestly, i hope they will come to similiar conclusions; that some of them at least, are not very moral practises and perhaps something should be done about them.

This thread is simply about whether 'there is a moral justification for eating meat'. The fact may well be that once we decide that it's not morally justifyable to eat meat, there are a whole bunch of other things that may not seem morally justifyable either, and we'll get to them also, and hopefully look at them honestly and logically too. But the fact is that right now, this whole spectrum of problems will be too much in one go, so the eating meat issue is something of a good tipping point.

I want to state that i am not trying to necessarily make people turn into vegetarians right now. I just want them to think about whether they can justify their meat-eating habit or not. If they come to the conclusion that they can't morally justify their habit, but at the moment still don't feel about to give up meat yet, then i say fair enough. That is completely their choice.


Anyway i am tired now and need to sleep. I think my responses are getting a little messy as a result of this so i am sorry if any of what i said hasn't made any sense. But in answer to your original question as quoted; no, it is not easy to be idealistic. Good night.

[paddy_rice]

To prove that eating meat is immoral, you have to prove that morals are objective - good luck with that.

Eh? How's that? I don't think morality is objective at all (in the sense of being absolute or Platonic), and the argument for animal rights I have presented is based entirely in preference utilitarianism, which requires no appeal to moral objectivity, and only to quality of life.

Whether you accept the argument depends on whether you accept that quality of life for as many people and (for consistency, as explained) animals as possible is a goal worth pursuing. There are no absolutes, only conventions which we choose to agree upon, according to what is in the best interests of society as a whole and the individuals in it.

In that sense, all morality is subjective. I think you (and all the other posters who invoke moral absolutes) have misunderstood my argument.

And by the way, if you believe absolute morality is necessary in order to know the difference between right and wrong, how do you know that anything you do is right and wrong?

Animals eat other animals, therefore it it justifiable to eat meat. No morals needed.

Does that include humans? If not, why not?

You've already subjectively decided that eating met is immoral and I believe nothing anybody says will ever change your mind, no matter what 'logical' reply anyone gives, you will have an answer for it.

Yes, that's called having a good argument. Don't be so rash as to suggest that every single person who disagrees with you is intransigent and unwilling to listen to counter-arguments.

The fact is that you haven't presented any reason for me to think that eating meat doesn't entail suffering, and that suffering isn't something to be minimised. If you have presented such an argument, then I've missed it, so please do me the courtesy of repeating yourself (even though I realise repeating yourself is very boring, believe me!).

You'll just go round in circles until you end up back at the start. If you think that morality is objective, then prove it. if you think that morality is subjective then the burden is on you to show that eating meat is immoral, because that is only way you can get people on your side.

See above about moral objectivity. As for eating meat, strictly speaking it's not the eating meat that's wrong, but rather the suffering that is entailed in the raising and slaughtering of animals in order to produce the meat. But you get the picture.

---

And in response to all this bluster from various posters, especially you, RuleBritannia, about how they don't see why they should have to justify anything, the burden of proof is on vegetarians, blah blah blah, if you're not interested in replying to the OP, don't bother posting! It clutters the thread! And it obscures more interesting posts from other people!

[archibald]

Animals eat other animals, therefore it it justifiable to eat meat. No morals needed.

Does that include humans? If not, why not?

At the same time, there seems something..........odd.......about us being the only species which is essentially too..........squeamish, to do what comes naturally.

Btw, how would you answer your question?

Or, if it's the suffering and not the taking of the life (as it is for humans) then how to justify the difference?

Personally, I agree we shouldn't be disputing who the burden of proof is on. I don't think it's on one side or the other. In that sense, I do think Kid A has slightly rigged the premises of the debate.

[paddy_rice]

At the same time, there seems something..........odd.......about us being the only species which is essentially too..........squeamish, to do what comes naturally.

Btw, how would you answer your question?

Yes, fascinating subject.

I'd say the "zeroth-order" justifications for squeamishness are pretty simple: firstly, blood and guts reminds us that we're made of the same stuff, and so we; secondly, the sensation of disgust (in an aesthetic sense, rather than an olfactory sense) is thoroughly rooted in the feeling that something is "out of place", so when we bleed we get the strong feeling that something isn't right. Both responses have very useful evolutionary purposes.

To "first order", if you like, you might say we've become squeamish because eating members of our own species is detrimental to our survival, which addresses your "what comes naturally" question and can also be understood in evolutionary terms. However, lots of species cannibalise each other (including some humans, until recently!), so maybe that idea doesn't hold water...

To "second order", there are cultural reasons for eating some creatures and not others. In that case, lower-order considerations become irrelevant, or at least we justify our actions according to such higher-order conventions.

Or, if it's the suffering and not the taking of the life (as it is for humans) then how to justify the difference?

Not sure what you mean. The taking of a life is a particular event separate from the quality of life that a creature has experienced, of course. Nevertheless, the event of death or killing can still be understood in terms of suffering, both direct - the pain and anguish of dying - and indirect - prevention from living a life of high quality, etc.

[archibald]

Saying 'it wouldn't be a moral problem' is a bit different from it not being morally wrong, which is what I was asking. The knowledge of the suffering is different from the suffering itself. There is an element of objectivity missing in your approach, I think. If we were all psychopathic, then yes we wouldn't care about any suffering we may inflict on others, but that would not mean the suffering would not exist. If a rock fell on my foot, I would be in a lot of pain - the rock would be incapable of caring about that (much like a psychopath) but my pain would still exist.

Yes, the pain would exist. But it wouldn't be a moral issue. It isn't in nature, unless you think that a lot of animals are doing the wrong thing but just don't realize it (I'm thinking killer whales playing with seals or cats toying with mice). The bottom line seems to be that you (and I) feel bad for causing suffering.

I'm not sure about that. When religious people act altruistically, are they purely doing it out of a sense of duty/fear of hellfire/wish to go to heaven?

Not purely, I think, but I do think it is one incentive which influences what people do. I guess that's one thing I'm saying, that we are kidding ourselves if we don't recognize that underneath all the issues is simply our own desires, which mostly relate to making ourselves feel good. And that is what you are doing, albeit to the benefit of other living things.

I'm not sure I agree with you - I think humans have probably always known about their own pain, but knowledge of others' pain is a different matter. For example Descartes had a huge influence on people's perceptions of animals - he said they were nothing but automata, and this led his colleagues to experiment on conscious dogs by cutting them open to observe their circulatory systems etc. As biology has developed, and we have learned more about the similarities between ours and animals' brains and nervous systems, and as philosophers have debunked Descartes' ideas, it has become impossible to argue that animals don't feel pain.

I'll have to take your word on this. :] It seems counter-intuitive to me that we didn't realize many animals felt pain all along. An eight year old with a sharp object and a kitten could come to that conclusion. Maybe we know more and more accurately now.

Also - we can see that as our society has progressed and become more enlightened and knowledgeable, animal welfare has become progressively more important to us. The abolition of fox hunting and other bloodsports, for example. If people saw a bear tied up in the street being made to dance for coins they would be horrified, and people on this very forum have been getting very angry about the puppy that was kicked to death by teenagers in a park recently. As a society we are generally upset when confronted with animal cruelty. It's just that this attitude doesn't yet extend to those animals farmed for meat.

Yes. I agree. It does seem....natural. My point I suppose is just to understand that it's an entirely subjective and human-centered concern.

I'm not vegan for my own benefit

Well, maybe it sounds harsh, but I think you are. Ultimately, you want to feel good.

[paddy_rice]

It seems counter-intuitive to me that we didn't realize many animals felt pain all along. An eight year old with a sharp object and a kitten could come to that conclusion. Maybe we know more and more accurately now.

FF is quite right about Descartes. But your post brings up the question of why, despite knowing animals feel pain, we choose to inflict it on them. Maybe my earlier point about different "orders" overriding each other can be put to good use here.

I'm not vegan for my own benefit

Well, maybe it sounds harsh, but I think you are. Ultimately, you want to feel good.

Unfortunately, that's an argument that can be applied to any question of morality, and it doesn't really get us anywhere. And to reduce a moral decision to whether it makes someone feel good or not ignores the effects it has. In the case of veganism, the effects are felt (or rather not felt) by the animals who never existed, and therefore never suffered a life of abject suffering.

The idea that we only do things to make ourselves feel better - one commonly attached to vegetarians - is really outdated. Not eating meat doesn't make me feel particularly good, because I like eating meat.

Anyway, FF's the boss and she can answer much more clearly than I.

[archibald]

Or, if it's the suffering and not the taking of the life (as it is for humans) then how to justify the difference?

Not sure what you mean. The taking of a life is a particular event separate from the quality of life that a creature has experienced, of course. Nevertheless, the event of death or killing can still be understood in terms of suffering, both direct - the pain and anguish of dying - and indirect - prevention from living a life of high quality, etc.

What I mean is, we have different moral views (or we seem to have) for animals and humans. For a lot of vegetarians, the issue seems to be the suffering of the animal while alive or during the killing, rather than the...not realising the future potential, as it is with say human babies.

As to squeamishness, I'm wondering if you consider it morally acceptable for someone to 'do what comes naturally' and include meat in his/her diet so long as they minimize any suffering involved, I suppose one example might be just doing what other animals do, that is killing another wild animal (as expediently as is reasonable or possible) which hasn't suffered any prior human cruelty.

[archibald]

FF is quite right about Descartes.

I didn't doubt her, but some of those philosophers will question anything to the nth degree. I was just wondering if people at large didn't believe it.

Not eating meat doesn't make me feel particularly good, because I like eating meat.

Surely, you are only saying that the long-term feeling you get from abstaining exceeds the temporary pleasure of eating?

Unfortunately, that's an argument that can be applied to any question of morality, and it doesn't really get us anywhere

Personally, I think it might help us draw the lines when the detailed issues get more complicated.

[hoopy frood]

I've been vegetarian for the past 27 of my 41 years mostly because we are not designed to eat meat and it's a purely cultural phenomenon that we do. If you want animal protein in your diet then you should eat insects - instant, easily absorped protein even our digestive systems can deal with. Red meat however, aka writhing masses of complex DNA, are not a food source we are adapted to eat and we suffer many side-effects from the practice.

All true carnivores are descended from just one single ancestor, the one with carnassial teeth. True carnivores also have specifically designed specialist digestive sytems for coping with the demands of eating flesh. I can't recall the statistics offhand but I seem to recall that when a human eats red flesh you're doing well to absorb around 4-7% of the protein in it. So yes meat may be protein-rich, but what good is that of you absorp only 4%. With soya on the other hand you absorp over 90% of the protein. Interestingly, the second best form of protein for humans is apparently hemp protein, which is why the farmers are all so keen to grow non-psychoactive crops of marijuana for cattle-feed.

As I understand it and just as a random example: around 85% of blood disorders come from eating the flesh of animals. AIDS was introduced by a human butchering a chimp. Many other diseases are also rooted in our abnormal fleshmunching. CJD was a product of BSC. etc etc etc. Look at the anti-gay mania when it was believed they were responsible for cursing the human species with a disease like AIDS, when it turned out that butchering and eating animals was in fact the cause, not a word was said against fleshmunchers.

Things like that, coupled with things like the disgusting way we keep food animals and the way the meat industry cuts every last corner and does things like feeding cows the brains of other cows was more than enough to deter me from the practise long before it ever became that nasty.

I also generally go by Albert Schweitzer's maxim:

Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil.

By that rule any needless killing of an animal is evil.

In addition to the fact we are not carnivores or designed to eat flesh, I personally, have always loved and respected animals and life, and to me they are more than lunch.

[paddy_rice]

What I mean is, we have different moral views (or we seem to have) for animals and humans. For a lot of vegetarians, the issue seems to be the suffering of the animal while alive or during the killing, rather than the...not realising the future potential, as it is with say human babies.

Well, the "realising future potential" argument is certainly stronger for humans, but it holds for animals too to a lesser extent. However, to cast the hopes and "future potential" of humans as more important or noble than those of animals is entirely subjective, come to think of it.

As to squeamishness, I'm wondering if you consider it morally acceptable for someone to 'do what comes naturally' and include meat in his/her diet so long as they minimize any suffering involved, I suppose one example might be just doing what other animals do, that is killing another wild animal (as expediently as is reasonable or possible) which hasn't suffered any prior human cruelty.

There's no dividing line between "morally acceptable" and "morally acceptable", it's a sliding scale, and we're more usually confronted with binary decision of "more acceptable" and "less acceptable". But yes, I can see that killing a wild animal with a clean shot with a bullet through the brain entails only momentary suffering, notwithstanding the "future potential" argument already mentioned.

In that case, however, the question of what is "natural" or "unnatural" (whatever the fuck that means) is secondary to the question of whether you can obtain food of equivalent calorific and nutritional value from other sources that entail less suffering. For most people in the West and beyond, the answer is a simple "yes" - if you are anything like a decent cook - since most of us eat meat that has come from animals raised in considerably nastier conditions than those experienced by wild or "wild-managed" animals.

[sking1981]

Thanks for answering

you asked what my thoughts were, well as I said earlier, Ive never considered whether it's moral to eat meat, but on reading this thread I was open to giving up if I could see the moral and logical case to do so.

So far, I think it's safe to say there's no moral justification for eating meat as clearly demonstrated, the arguments are all ".. but buts"

Having convinced me of this, I then start thinking about morality of eating any food groups, I've always had a problem with the organic / intensive / GM agriculture debate.

Organic requires more land, produces lower yields and higher spoilage, supposedly more Eco friendly but I'm not sure if more deforrestation would be needed to rely solely on organic agriculture.

Intensive causes more polution, but with higher yields, less waste and less space, I'm not sure where the trade off is between organic and intensive farming

GM is a bit of a mystery to me, although I've read it promises higher yield, less space less waste and higher nutritional content it seems like a no brainer, but there seems to be a lot of people confused or against it.

So again where does the moral boundry sit? Then when you're into land usage and Eco systems the clothing debate comes in.

I know you only wanted to talk about eating animals, but really it's illogical to only consider animals when making a moral choice.

Whilst on it's own it's impossible to morally justify eating animals, the bigger picture is ignored, it's impossible to morally justify eating and wearing clothes. However there is a logical need to do these things, so how fo we get round it?

Personally I believe in the subjectivity of morality, but I also believe morality is self improving, never a fixed position. All you can do is square it with yourself and your kin, at some point a breakthrough is made that resolves the moral conflict. I think I'm happy to continue eating meat, but I'm certainly going to be more selective of how I buy it. I guess that's a cop out in your eyes, but like I said, I need a moral reason and a logical case to stop eating meat. I still can't see the logical reason (because it's not logical to apply morality to eating meat and nothing else)

[archibald]

Well, the "realising future potential" argument is certainly stronger for humans, but it holds for animals too to a lesser extent. However, to cast the hopes and "future potential" of humans as more important or noble than those of animals is entirely subjective, come to think of it.

I only ask this because I myself can't think of a good reason for it (and similar distinctions between us and other animals) other than pragmatic or selfish (species related) ones.

There's no dividing line between "morally acceptable" and "morally acceptable", it's a sliding scale, and we're more usually confronted with binary decision of "more acceptable" and "less acceptable". But yes, I can see that killing a wild animal with a clean shot with a bullet through the brain entails only momentary suffering, notwithstanding the "future potential" argument already mentioned.

In that case, however, the question of what is "natural" or "unnatural" (whatever the fuck that means) is secondary to the question of whether you can obtain food of equivalent calorific and nutritional value from other sources that entail less suffering. For most people in the West and beyond, the answer is a simple "yes" - if you are anything like a decent cook - since most of us eat meat that has come from animals raised in considerably nastier conditions than those experienced by wild or "wild-managed" animals.

I know. What I'm not sure about is whether anyone should be obliged to choose to omit the meat option (especially if the suffering is minimised), since other animals don't, unless there are pragmatic reasons.

------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian? I only heard it this morning, from a colleague.

Same colleague has a neighbour who insists her pets are vegetarian too. I suppose that makes a certain sense, in terms of choosing a practical option which helps to prevent cruelty

[archibald]

dp error

[paddy_rice]

Having convinced me of this, I then start thinking about morality of eating any food groups, I've always had a problem with the organic / intensive / GM agriculture debate.

Organic requires more land, produces lower yields and higher spoilage, supposedly more Eco friendly but I'm not sure if more deforrestation would be needed to rely solely on organic agriculture.

Intensive causes more polution, but with higher yields, less waste and less space, I'm not sure where the trade off is between organic and intensive farming

That's a big subject, and has been covered in other threads, I think. Just to address a few points, though, organic farming can have a wildly smaller ecological impact than conventional farming. Pesticides and herbicides are the main reason.

GM is a bit of a mystery to me, although I've read it promises higher yield, less space less waste and higher nutritional content it seems like a no brainer, but there seems to be a lot of people confused or against it.

As it stands, GM exists to line the pockets of large agricultural science corporations like Monsanto. That's my main gripe with it, TBH.

The evidence of whether GM yields are any higher than non-GM is mixed, to say the least. No benefit is currently conferred by GM crops, and the problem of widespread famine and drought isn't going to be solved by GM crops, but by political will. And then there's the problem of not knowing how the genes in GM strains interact with other organisms.

So again where does the moral boundry sit? Then when you're into land usage and Eco systems the clothing debate comes in.

I know you only wanted to talk about eating animals, but really it's illogical to only consider animals when making a moral choice.

Whilst on it's own it's impossible to morally justify eating animals, the bigger picture is ignored, it's impossible to morally justify eating and wearing clothes. However there is a logical need to do these things, so how fo we get round it?

Nope, it's a good question. Buying clothes derived from animal products helps make the animal husbandry industry more profitable, simple as that. Most of mine are second-hand or synthetic. Some of my shoes are leather, though.

It's increasingly easy to buy synthetic clothing for whatever purpose. Some manufacturers even market their gear as vegan!

I need a moral reason and a logical case to stop eating meat. I still can't see the logical reason (because it's not logical to apply morality to eating meat and nothing else)

Well, hopefully reading back over this thread, you can see that the reasons for not eating meat derive from the same reasons for all empathy. The logic doesn't apply solely to eating meat, and if that's how you've read it then you've misunderstood.

[paddy_rice]

All true carnivores are descended from just one single ancestor, the one with carnassial teeth. True carnivores also have specifically designed specialist digestive sytems for coping with the demands of eating flesh.

[...]


I can't recall the statistics offhand but I seem to recall that when a human eats red flesh you're doing well to absorb around 4-7% of the protein in it. So yes meat may be protein-rich, but what good is that of you absorp only 4%. With soya on the other hand you absorp over 90% of the protein. Interestingly, the second best form of protein for humans is apparently hemp protein, which is why the farmers are all so keen to grow non-psychoactive crops of marijuana for cattle-feed.

[...]

As I understand it and just as a random example: around 85% of blood disorders come from eating the flesh of animals. AIDS was introduced by a human butchering a chimp. Many other diseases are also rooted in our abnormal fleshmunching. CJD was a product of BSC. etc etc etc.

Interesting points. I'd want to see some research to support some of the points, though, about the carnassial teeth and the absorption of protein.

[paddy_rice]

Surely, you are only saying that the long-term feeling you get from abstaining exceeds the temporary pleasure of eating?

Not really. I derive only as much pleasure from not eating meat as I do from similar, abstract things like giving to charity.

I'm lucky in as much as I never liked meat that much - I always found it a bit heavy - so it was pretty easy to give it up. I realise some people that posted earlier like meat a lot, so it would be more difficult for them. Having said that, I used to enjoy a bacon sandwich every morning...

To be honest, I've come to see the craving for meat in the West (and increasingly, as they become more affluent, in developing countries) as rather vulgar. It's aspirational, and a big steak is a status symbol. I have no such insecurities, so I should consider myself lucky.

On the other hand, many unrepentant meat-eaters view vegetarian food as peasant food, but that's pure ignorance. Eating meat necessarily limits your experience of food, since it's always the centrepiece of any meal it contains.

What I'm not sure about is whether anyone should be obliged to choose to omit the meat option (especially if the suffering is minimised), since other animals don't, unless there are pragmatic reasons.

That argument doesn't make sense, really.

Same colleague has a neighbour who insists her pets are vegetarian too. I suppose that makes a certain sense, in terms of choosing a practical option which helps to prevent cruelty

You can actually buy vegan cat and dog food. If you would feed your kids vegan food, then why not your pets? There's no nutritional reason to stop you.

[feminist freethinker]

Saying 'it wouldn't be a moral problem' is a bit different from it not being morally wrong, which is what I was asking. The knowledge of the suffering is different from the suffering itself. There is an element of objectivity missing in your approach, I think. If we were all psychopathic, then yes we wouldn't care about any suffering we may inflict on others, but that would not mean the suffering would not exist. If a rock fell on my foot, I would be in a lot of pain - the rock would be incapable of caring about that (much like a psychopath) but my pain would still exist.

Yes, the pain would exist. But it wouldn't be a moral issue. It isn't in nature, unless you think that a lot of animals are doing the wrong thing but just don't realize it (I'm thinking killer whales playing with seals or cats toying with mice). The bottom line seems to be that you (and I) feel bad for causing suffering.

So we can agree that pain exists. Now, if it is possible for us to prevent pain from existing in a certain circumstance, I believe it behooves to do so, simply for the benefit of whichever being would feel the pain. As for carnivorous wild animals - if they didn't kill they would starve to death, they only kill what they need, and seeing as they cannot eat anything other than meat, I don't see how they would be doing the wrong thing, even by our standards.

The 'toying' behaviours that you describe could be seen as practice for hunting or they could be seen as something which gives the aggressor pleasure... does the orca/cat know that the seal/mouse feels pain, and suffers when they toy with them? How much of a choice do animals have over their behaviour, compared to humans? These are questions for a zoologist or an expert in animal psychology. If a wild animal doesn't know about the pain of other beings, could we say it is doing the wrong thing by toying with its prey? Probably not. Because the moral issue is in the knowledge of the pain imo - if you know you are causing suffering to something, continuing to cause the suffering constitutes an immoral act. Regardless of whether or not you feel bad.

I personally feel that the bottom line is that we know pain exists in other beings, and that we have every reason to believe that their pain is as unpleasant as our pain. Therefore if there is no good reason to cause it, we should not cause it, do you agree?

I'm not sure about that. When religious people act altruistically, are they purely doing it out of a sense of duty/fear of hellfire/wish to go to heaven?

Not purely, I think, but I do think it is one incentive which influences what people do. I guess that's one thing I'm saying, that we are kidding ourselves if we don't recognize that underneath all the issues is simply our own desires, which mostly relate to making ourselves feel good. And that is what you are doing, albeit to the benefit of other living things.

So do you think there is no such thing as a selfless altruistic act?

I'm not sure I agree with you - I think humans have probably always known about their own pain, but knowledge of others' pain is a different matter. For example Descartes had a huge influence on people's perceptions of animals - he said they were nothing but automata, and this led his colleagues to experiment on conscious dogs by cutting them open to observe their circulatory systems etc. As biology has developed, and we have learned more about the similarities between ours and animals' brains and nervous systems, and as philosophers have debunked Descartes' ideas, it has become impossible to argue that animals don't feel pain.

I'll have to take your word on this. :] It seems counter-intuitive to me that we didn't realize many animals felt pain all along. An eight year old with a sharp object and a kitten could come to that conclusion. Maybe we know more and more accurately now.

Don't take my word for it - go and look it up! In the example of the sharp object and the kitten, Descartes would have said that if the kitten cried or squirmed, it was merely the result of mechanical processes (such as in a musical instrument, a clock or a car), and that no consciousness or subjective feeling was there to cause a sensation of pain. He believed that pain came from minds, and only humans have minds because only humans have immortal souls (no such thing as kitty heaven either!).

A lot of people are still skeptical about how much animals can really suffer - Descartes' ideas, albeit in a watered down form, still exist in the form of popular myth. Or, rather, there is a form of doublethink abounding in some meat-eaters whereby they apply Descartes' ideas to animals they are about to eat, but yet if they found an injured bird in their garden would wrap it up in a cardigan and phone the RSPCA.

Also - we can see that as our society has progressed and become more enlightened and knowledgeable, animal welfare has become progressively more important to us. The abolition of fox hunting and other bloodsports, for example. If people saw a bear tied up in the street being made to dance for coins they would be horrified, and people on this very forum have been getting very angry about the puppy that was kicked to death by teenagers in a park recently. As a society we are generally upset when confronted with animal cruelty. It's just that this attitude doesn't yet extend to those animals farmed for meat.

Yes. I agree. It does seem....natural. My point I suppose is just to understand that it's an entirely subjective and human-centered concern.

If you mean that we are only capable of being concerned about animal cruelty because we as humans have large brains which can comprehend the suffering of other beings, and empathise with it, then yes, this is clearly true. However, I see this as a tool, in the same way our language capability is a tool. It means that as a species we have the power to help prevent suffering. (In much the same way as our intelligence has been a tool for creating medical and veterinary science, which helps prevent untold amounts of suffering and death.) So why not prevent it?

I'm not vegan for my own benefit

Well, maybe it sounds harsh, but I think you are. Ultimately, you want to feel good.

Seeing as you don't know me, I'm not sure how you can make that judgement! You seem to be projecting your own ideas onto me and basically telling me that I don't know my own mind on the issue of why I am vegan - which I don't appreciate.

If I could take a pill tomorrow which meant that I would always feel good, no matter what, I would still be vegan.

[RuleBritannia]

Eh? How's that? I don't think morality is objective at all (in the sense of being absolute or Platonic), and the argument for animal rights I have presented is based entirely in preference utilitarianism, which requires no appeal to moral objectivity, and only to quality of life.

Whether you accept the argument depends on whether you accept that quality of life for as many people and (for consistency, as explained) animals as possible is a goal worth pursuing. There are no absolutes, only conventions which we choose to agree upon, according to what is in the best interests of society as a whole and the individuals in it.

In that sense, all morality is subjective. I think you (and all the other posters who invoke moral absolutes) have misunderstood my argument.

And by the way, if you believe absolute morality is necessary in order to know the difference between right and wrong, how do you know that anything you do is right and wrong?

No I think you've misunderstood, I don't belive in objective morality and I spend half this thread agruing that morals are subjective, maybe you should go back and read them.

I accept that quality of life for as many people as possible is a goal worth pursuing. And for animals (until their killed for meat). I treat humans as sepertate from all other life forms on Earth and I have no problem eating all other life forms either.

My point was that in order for eating meat to be wrong, morality has to be objective, which it isn't. If morality is subjective (which it is), then eating meat is only immoral for you. For me eating meat neither moral or immoral.

[paddy_rice]

I accept that quality of life for as many people as possible is a goal worth pursuing. And for animals (until their killed for meat).

On what basis do you differentiate between the killing of animals and the killing of humans? You seem a bit muddled.

My point was that in order for eating meat to be wrong, morality has to be objective, which it isn't. If morality is subjective (which it is), then eating meat is only immoral for you. For me eating meat neither moral or immoral.

Why is objective morality necessary for it to be wrong to eat meat? Not sure what point you're trying to make with the "morality for me" comment.

[GoodListener]

Animals eat other animals, therefore it it justifiable to eat meat. No morals needed.

To prove that eating meat is immoral, you have to prove that morals are objective - good luck with that.

RuleBritannia, please read my first post on this page (page 10), and stop making these sorts of statments here, as they are pointless.

No, this thread is pointless, you seem to think that everyone else has to justify their actions to you, but you don't have to justify your actions to us. You've already subjectively decided that eating met is immoral and I believe nothing anybody says will ever change your mind, no matter what 'logical' reply anyone gives, you will have an answer for it. You'll just go round in circles until you end up back at the start. If you think that morality is objective, then prove it. if you think that morality is subjective then the burden is on you to show that eating meat is immoral, because that is only way you can get people on your side.

I agree with RuleBritannia the thread is pointless and I will remind you that you have created an impossible situation where you examine logical arguments about the morality of eating meat without defining morality. Instead everyone uses his/her own sense of morality which is subjective and tries to support his case merely by extending to the animal kingdom the moral rules he/she uses. I would appreciate if anybody respond to my previous post where I have stated my definition of morality. Thanks

[paddy_rice]

I agree with RuleBritannia the thread is pointless...

Even more so if you insist on posting comments to say so.

...and I will remind you that you have created an impossible situation where you examine logical arguments about the morality of eating meat without defining morality.

Morality is pretty fucking easy to define: that system which ensures the highest quality of life for as many as possible. Please feel free to give your definition.

Instead everyone uses his/her own sense of morality which is subjective and tries to support his case merely by extending to the animal kingdom the moral rules he/she uses.

So are all personal moralities equally valid?

I would appreciate if anybody respond to my previous post where I have stated my definition of morality. Thanks

Your comments stand or fall according to how relevant, interesting and well reasoned they are. If they have been ignored, that's probably because they've failed to satisfy one or more of those criteria.

[GoodListener]

Paddy_rice wrote:

Morality is pretty fucking easy to define: that system which ensures the highest quality of life for as many as possible. Please feel free to give your definition.

I have stated my definition of morality in my previous post on Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:42 pm. The definition that you so easily provided is not clear. You state "a system" , a system of what? do you mean a system of rules? Also you say "for as many as possible", as many what ? human beings, mammals, living things? I know that you don't include non living things because your definition includes the statement "quality of life" but you are not specific as to what life form you are referring. If you are referring only to humans I cannot see how eating meat subverts our quality of life. By the way quality of life is also very subjective!

[archibald]

All true carnivores are descended from just one single ancestor, the one with carnassial teeth. True carnivores also have specifically designed specialist digestive sytems for coping with the demands of eating flesh.

[...]


I can't recall the statistics offhand but I seem to recall that when a human eats red flesh you're doing well to absorb around 4-7% of the protein in it. So yes meat may be protein-rich, but what good is that of you absorp only 4%. With soya on the other hand you absorp over 90% of the protein. Interestingly, the second best form of protein for humans is apparently hemp protein, which is why the farmers are all so keen to grow non-psychoactive crops of marijuana for cattle-feed.

[...]

As I understand it and just as a random example: around 85% of blood disorders come from eating the flesh of animals. AIDS was introduced by a human butchering a chimp. Many other diseases are also rooted in our abnormal fleshmunching. CJD was a product of BSC. etc etc etc.

Interesting points. I'd want to see some research to support some of the points, though, about the carnassial teeth and the absorption of protein.

I must admit, I have heard that we should be eating a lot less meat. I thought the ideal diet (for omnivores like us) was the one we had for thousands of years until urbanization etc.

[RuleBritannia]

I accept that quality of life for as many people as possible is a goal worth pursuing. And for animals (until their killed for meat).

On what basis do you differentiate between the killing of animals and the killing of humans? You seem a bit muddled.

The same way you differentiate between the killing of plants and bacteria and the killing of animals.

My point was that in order for eating meat to be wrong, morality has to be objective, which it isn't. If morality is subjective (which it is), then eating meat is only immoral for you. For me eating meat neither moral or immoral.

Why is objective morality necessary for it to be wrong to eat meat? Not sure what point you're trying to make with the "morality for me" comment.

If you don't understand that then okay, I haven't got time to explain it now.