Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 3:14 am

Greta wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 2:36 am
-1- wrote:
May 23rd, 2018, 8:18 pm
I eat animals because they taste good.
You and probably half the world.

I'm looking forward to clean meats coming on the market. I have eaten about one chop in the last ten years because I'm trying to cut my fellow critters at least some slack - to eat no more of them than I need. I would pay a pretty penny for a tasty lab grown lamb chop, though :)
I'm sorry, Greta, but lab-grown meat will use up much more of our precious non-renewable resources than grazing animals' own usual and customary production method.

I actually can't believe that humans' eating veggies only is more sustainable than eating meat as well. Eating-meat animals eat veggies. What's the difference if humans eat the veggies or the animals eat veggies? Veggies are veggies. There is a number of veggies that the earth's environment will support, and man can't possibly eat all veggies that grow and can be safely harvested again and again. Not yet, at any rate. Maybe in a hundred-hundred and fifty years, yes, but this is now, and that is then.

The veggies we and animals eat use approx. the same amount of sunshine to produce carbs and fibre as any other veggie. So I really don't understand what's the big deal from a sustainable environmental point of view. The sun's rays are practically (although not in absolute terms) in an inexhaustible supply.

That's A. B. is that to prepare veggie for eating is cheaper (from an energy usage point of view) than to prepare veggie material on a calorie-for-calorie basis. Cooking and other preparation uses oil-based energy mainly, and that's not renewable.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 3:21 am

chatterbears wrote:
May 23rd, 2018, 5:21 pm
Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Orangutans are herbivorous apes. Insects and meat make up a small proportion of their diet, estimated as 2%. While the common chimpanzee is mostly herbivorous, it does eat honey, soil, insects, birds and their eggs, and small to medium-sized mammals, including other primates.

If you actually read the journal I posted, very early cultures (thousands of years old) did not have a meat-based diet.

Egypt - Wheat, barley
China - Wheat, soya, sorghum
India - Corn, rice, wheat, lentils
Middle East - Wheat, chickpeas
Mexico, Mayas - Corn/maize, amaranth
Peru, Incas - Potatoes, quinoa

It is fairly clear that major early human cultures practiced a predominantly plant-based nutrition. But also, even if it were true that Humans were evolved to eat meat [which it is not], plant-based foods are objectively better for our health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/
"We humans do not need meat. In fact, we are healthier without it, or at least with less of it in our diets. The Adventist Health Studies provide solid evidence that vegan, vegetarian, and low-meat diets are associated with statistically significant increases in quality of life and modest increases in longevity."

https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/po ... rian-diets
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage."

https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179
"British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can support healthy living in people of all ages"
Chatterbears, have you heard of omnivores? Something to read up on.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Eduk
Posts: 1903
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Eduk » May 24th, 2018, 3:45 am

Vegetables require more than just sunshine. Eating animals which have eaten vegetables is less efficient than eating the vegetables directly.
Oh and chatterbears an article about how a well planned vegan diet can be healthful is not the same thing as saying a well planned vegan diet is more healthy than other well planned diets. Again we are omnivorous. This means there are a wide range of healthy diets. Many with different pros and cons but there is no 'best' diet.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 3:56 am

chatterbears wrote:
May 23rd, 2018, 5:21 pm

Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Orangutans are herbivorous apes. Insects and meat make up a small proportion of their diet, estimated as 2%. While the common chimpanzee is mostly herbivorous, it does eat honey, soil, insects, birds and their eggs, and small to medium-sized mammals, including other primates.

If you actually read the journal I posted, very early cultures (thousands of years old) did not have a meat-based diet.

Egypt - Wheat, barley
China - Wheat, soya, sorghum
India - Corn, rice, wheat, lentils
Middle East - Wheat, chickpeas
Mexico, Mayas - Corn/maize, amaranth
Peru, Incas - Potatoes, quinoa

It is fairly clear that major early human cultures practiced a predominantly plant-based nutrition. But also, even if it were true that Humans were evolved to eat meat [which it is not], plant-based foods are objectively better for our health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/
"We humans do not need meat. In fact, we are healthier without it, or at least with less of it in our diets. The Adventist Health Studies provide solid evidence that vegan, vegetarian, and low-meat diets are associated with statistically significant increases in quality of life and modest increases in longevity."

https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/po ... rian-diets
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage."

https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179
"British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can support healthy living in people of all ages"
I carefully checked out your references.
Plant-based diets are more environmentally
sustainable than diets rich in
animal products because they use fewer
natural resources and are associated
with considerably less environmental
damage.101-105 The current worldwide
consumption of diets high in meat and
FROM THE ACADEMY
December 2016 Volume 116 Number 12 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 1975
dairy products is considered by some as
unsustainable.101,103,105 The systematic
review conducted by the Scientific
Committee of the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans provides evidence that diets
higher in plant foods and lower in animal
foods (like a vegetarian diet) are associated
with lower environmental damage.106
Many scientists are calling for a
substantial reduction of livestock products
in the diet of humans as a major way
to reverse climate change.105 Compared
with omnivorous diets, vegetarian diets
utilize less water and fossil fuel resources
and use lower amounts of pesticides and
fertilizers.107 Substituting beans for beef
in the diet would significantly reduce the
environmental footprint worldwide. To
produce 1 kg protein from kidney beans
requires 18 times less land, 10 times less
water, 9 times less fuel, 12 times less
fertilizer, and 10 times less pesticide in
comparison to producing 1 kg protein
from beef.108 In addition, beef production
generates considerably more manure
waste than from any other animal food
production.108
According to the US Environmental
Protection Agency, about 70% of all
water pollution in rivers and lakes in
the United States is a result of pollution
from animal farms.109 Animal agriculture
is associated with land degradation,
air pollution, loss of biodiversity,
and global warming.104,110 Meat production
makes a significant contribution
to anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions and anthropogenic methane
and nitrous oxide production.101,103,111
Using calculations based on 210 common
foods, greenhouse gas emissions
from consuming a vegetarian diet were
found to be 29% lower than from the
use of a nonvegetarian diet,112 while a
vegan diet can have >50% lower
greenhouse emissions compared to a
nonvegetarian diet.102
While new technologies for animal
farming are available, a recent study
found that greenhouse gas emissions
from the production and consumption
of animal products were reduced
only 9% due to a more efficient
livestock production.113 The authors
concluded that cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions necessary to meet the global
temperature target “imply a severe
constraint on the long-term global
consumption of animal food.”
113 Others
have suggested that reducing animal
production has a greater potential to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions than
“technological mitigation or increased
productivity measures.”
105
The use of antibiotics in farm animals
as growth promoters and for the prevention
and treatment of animal diseases
has generated antibiotic-resistant
bacteria. This antibiotic resistance can
be transmitted to humans through animal
food consumption and is now a
major public health problem, causing
illnesses that are difficult to treat, and
resulting in increased morbidity, mortality,
and health care costs.105,
This is mainly a fairy tale, because the references cited by the article and linked to same, are broken links, that is, uncheckable references.

As a fairy tale, I don't insist the article's assertions are false, but I insist they are unverified, and thus should not be toted as they have been.

There is one refrence which is extant, that is 106. And in part it reads,
In other words, although meat increased land requirements, diets including meat could feed more people than some higher fat vegetarian-style diets.
So the only reference that is extant and can be checked QUOTED BY YOU, CHATTERBEARS, TO PROVE YOUR OWN POINT actually disproves your point.

That is my point.

You are a bit of a fanatic, and you can overlook important facts. A fanatic's one tactic of many is to cherry-pick facts. You do that.

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

I agree that Thomas Hobbes user here should be more verbose and he ought to expand on his opinions to make them stick.

However, he had one good point: man did not evolve for plant-based agricultural work any more than he has evolved to hunt, or to do meat-productive agricultural work.

And you cite evolution. One of man's achieving great survival success was the harvesting of proteins and fat tissues, that is, high-calorie food products, and healthy, otherwise nutritional food, because the brain uses an incredibly large amount of energy.

So food intake welcomed cooking food, both meat and veggie based food, because it greatly reduced the energy needed to digest food.

And food intake welcomed fatty animal tissues, because it is full of calories.

Actually, food tastes good which historically and in OLD evolutionary terms were rich in survival values: sugar, fat, non-sugar carbs, protein, in this order.

My point is that you, chatterbears, missed that an omnivorous diet is healthier than a vegan diet. My point is that you missed that a proper omnivorous diet uses less land and energy, and is safer for the environment (as per your cited study's express words) than either all-meat diets or no-meat diets.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 4:09 am

Eduk wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:45 am
Vegetables require more than just sunshine. Eating animals which have eaten vegetables is less efficient than eating the vegetables directly.
This is true in our everyday lives. But historically speaking, which history shaped our eating habits, eating meat had had great advantages that dwarfed in evolutionary advantage any vegan diet.

First of all, to eat meat all you need to do was to outrun or outfox a few buffaloes, or woolly mammoths. This was short and sweet, for a huge return in protein and fat. Fat was a premium food.

In agruculture, the gathering of fruits, nuts and roots was slow, painstaking, and did not produce too much calories. But it brought home life-sustaining vitamins and other nutrients, as well as a more steady supply of calories than hunting provided.

So omnivoring was the order of the day in the 100000 years that mankind spent evolving as homo sapiens.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2037
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Felix » May 24th, 2018, 4:13 am

-1- I actually can't believe that humans' eating veggies only is more sustainable than eating meat as well. Eating-meat animals eat veggies. What's the difference if humans eat the veggies or the animals eat veggies? Veggies are veggies.
Veggies are veggies? Do you consider grass to be a veggie? Try eating grass alone and see how you do.
The veggies we and animals eat use approx. the same amount of sunshine to produce carbs and fibre as any other veggie.
It is not sunshine, but land and water, that is being squandered by raising livestock. Beef production requires 20 times more land and emits 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of edible protein than common plant-based protein sources such as beans, peas and lentils. And forage crops use more water than any crop except almonds.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Eduk
Posts: 1903
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Eduk » May 24th, 2018, 4:17 am

I agree -1- what I said is only true now. I didn't mean to imply that it was true historically.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1065
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by ThomasHobbes » May 24th, 2018, 4:53 am

chatterbears wrote:
May 23rd, 2018, 7:02 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 23rd, 2018, 6:03 pm

Wrong.
I mean, if you want to be willfully ignorant, that's up to you. But it is clear that the scientific consensus is; plant-based foods are optimal for health and environmental factors. At this point, it is like trying to argue with a flat earther or an evolution denier. Just because the science doesn't adhere to your narrative, doesn't mean you are justified in holding a stance against it.

I've already posted my Google Doc which holds all the sources for scenitific journals, as well as posted some individual journals regarding health (which you still asserted was wrong).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Posted it again. I have a "Health" and "Environment" tab, so you can look at both sides of the research. You can also google it yourself and look up scientific articles/journals that all point to the same data.
The environment is being destroyed by wheat farming. Children are suffering mental deficiencies from too much carbohydrates; ADHD, autism, epilepsy. And adults are suffering an epidemic of coeliacs disease and diabetes. All of these ailments are cured or mitigated by moving to a highfat lowcarb diet.
I advocate more grazing on the land which mimics the natural cycle of the carbon and nitrogen cycles, rather than dumping megatonnes of nitrates on to the land to which we have become dependant, as billions of hectares have lost their soil.

Eduk
Posts: 1903
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Eduk » May 24th, 2018, 5:03 am

Animals need to eat too.

Eduk
Posts: 1903
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Eduk » May 24th, 2018, 5:05 am

Mother nature isn't actually a mother in the literal sense and 'she' doesn't 'know' best.

User avatar
chatterbears
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 6:14 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by chatterbears » May 24th, 2018, 6:00 am

-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:02 am
The same justification won't work for the examples you gave. I'll leave the work to you to figure out why the same justification can't work. Let me know if you can't work this problem out. I'll help.
If the justification won't work in other contexts (examples), than you're inconsistent within your own ethical argumentation. If you have a valid and sound justification, it should also work in other contexts. If it doesn't work in other contexts, you'd have to pinpoint exactly why. In which, I could assume you are going to adhere to 'species'. Meaning, you might say something like, "It's ok to eat animals, but not humans." - This is an appeal to species, but you can clarify before I put too many words in your mouth.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 3:51 pm

chatterbears wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 6:00 am
-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:02 am
The same justification won't work for the examples you gave. I'll leave the work to you to figure out why the same justification can't work. Let me know if you can't work this problem out. I'll help.
If the justification won't work in other contexts (examples), than you're inconsistent within your own ethical argumentation. If you have a valid and sound justification, it should also work in other contexts. If it doesn't work in other contexts, you'd have to pinpoint exactly why. In which, I could assume you are going to adhere to 'species'. Meaning, you might say something like, "It's ok to eat animals, but not humans." - This is an appeal to species, but you can clarify before I put too many words in your mouth.
I am inconsistent in YOUR ethical argumentation, not in mine. You accepted Sam Harris's triple rule, but I am sorry, I don't. They are not universal absolute rules.

My ethics does not involve the third point. Empathy is not an ethical issue, it is an emotional reaction, which I experience. Compassion is a learned emotional response, which I also learned. But they are compelling forces, not ethical rules. The first is an unconditional emotional reaction in most humans, the second is a condtioned reaction. But they are not ethical rules.

As to consistency, that is also related to whom we feel compassion. To warm blooded animals we do, to vertebrates we ("we" being humans) do, but we don't feel compassion for invertebrates such as ants, amoebas and tape worms.

This is where Sam Harris's third rule breaks down. If we feel compelled to act universally to all animals, then do it, don't cherry pick it, and if you cherry pick which animals to be good to and which not to be good to, then allow me to make the choice for myself, much like you do make the choice for yourself.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
chatterbears
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 6:14 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by chatterbears » May 24th, 2018, 4:15 pm

-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:51 pm
I am inconsistent in YOUR ethical argumentation, not in mine. You accepted Sam Harris's triple rule, but I am sorry, I don't. They are not universal absolute rules.
Huh? There's either consistent or inconsistent. There's no different types of consistency. You are either consistent or you are not. I guess I'll have to break it down for you.

If I ask a religious person, "Why do you think it is OK to kill homosexuals?" - And if their response is, "Because God is NOT okay with homosexuality." - This is where I would push for a consistency test and ask them, "Do you base your morality on the mind of God?" - If they say yes, which many of them do, I will then ask this, "If God was okay with rape, would you then be okay with your daughter or mother getting raped?" - If they say NO, then they are being inconsistent within their own ethical argumentation. I can structure it in a formula for you to better understand.

Religious person believes it is okay to kill homosexuals based on the mind of God.
Religious person believes it is NOT okay to rape based on the mind of God.

In this case, "the mind of God" is the justification being used for why an action is morally acceptable. But they simultaneously reject and accept that justification, based on the context. This creates an inconsistency, which causes their internal ethics to be contradictory. You cannot accept and reject an action based on the same justification.

So back to my question, and I'll frame it the same way.

You believe it is okay to eats animals based on they taste good
You believe it is NOT okay to eat pregnant mothers based on they taste good

Explain why you are inconsistent within YOUR OWN justifications.
-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:51 pm
My ethics does not involve the third point. Empathy is not an ethical issue, it is an emotional reaction, which I experience. Compassion is a learned emotional response, which I also learned. But they are compelling forces, not ethical rules. The first is an unconditional emotional reaction in most humans, the second is a condtioned reaction. But they are not ethical rules.
This is irrelevant. I am talking about consistency within your own subjective justifications.
-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:51 pm
As to consistency, that is also related to whom we feel compassion. To warm blooded animals we do, to vertebrates we ("we" being humans) do, but we don't feel compassion for invertebrates such as ants, amoebas and tape worms.
You still haven't explained why it is ok to eat animals based on the justification "It tastes good", but not eat humans based on the justification "It tastes good".
-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:51 pm
This is where Sam Harris's third rule breaks down. If we feel compelled to act universally to all animals, then do it, don't cherry pick it, and if you cherry pick which animals to be good to and which not to be good to, then allow me to make the choice for myself, much like you do make the choice for yourself.
Sam Harris doesn't have any rules. The moral trifecta for Veganism is something I came up with myself. You don't need to accept all 3 to become Vegan, but I was stating that is actually impossible to accept all 3 and NOT be Vegan. But that is irrelevant, because all you need is logical consistency within your own ethics, and that leads to Veganism (unless you're a sociopath who doesn't feel empathy for humans or animals).

Eduk
Posts: 1903
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Eduk » May 24th, 2018, 4:33 pm

All animals are deserving of compassion and all animals are not the same.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7215
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Greta » May 24th, 2018, 5:29 pm

-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:14 am
Greta wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 2:36 am

You and probably half the world.

I'm looking forward to clean meats coming on the market. I have eaten about one chop in the last ten years because I'm trying to cut my fellow critters at least some slack - to eat no more of them than I need. I would pay a pretty penny for a tasty lab grown lamb chop, though :)
I'm sorry, Greta, but lab-grown meat will use up much more of our precious non-renewable resources than grazing animals' own usual and customary production method.
Completely wrong.

Why would you speak as if a fledgling industry is a finished product? It's ungrounded to believe that progress will completely stop in this area? Why would you assume that progress will stop in this area while all other etch projects continue apace?

Post Reply