Eating 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
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » February 19th, 2008, 4:38 pm

Fpoiuyt wrote: But even then there's nothing wrong with an individual eating meat/dairy every now and then: it doesn't contribute to animal suffering. And if everyone reduces their meat/dairy consumption only by 90%, that's a huge improvement. Lots of vegans, I gather, are purists: they would say that a 90% reduction is morally comparable to no reduction at all. But it seems obvious to me that a 90% reduction is a lot closer to a 100% reduction: it's basically a victory.

I'm a vegan, and I do think that a 90% reduction is much more preferable than no reduction. But I do think you are right that some vegans take too purist of a stance.

I think that is an important point though that applies to many issues of human conduct. It seems people too often take an "all or nothing" type of stance. For example, consider all the "zero tolerance policies" that various organizations have. For example, some schools treat bringing a loaded gun to school the same as bringing a plastic knife to school. This purist type of thinking is often fallacious and counter-productive.

For the case at hand, we can save more animals from suffering by convincing 100 people to cut their their meat-eating in half than by convincing 2 people to cut it completely. But a purist approach would cause us to incorrectly value the 2 people's complete change as more than the 100 people's half change, which is clearly incorrect.

Thanks,
Scott
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Invictus_88
Posts: 597
Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
Contact:

Post by Invictus_88 » February 21st, 2008, 10:54 am

But if meat eating doesn't cause significant suffering, then why not?

The best arguments employed by Vegans are ones that are best used in support of better minimum conditions for farm animals.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » February 21st, 2008, 4:36 pm

Invictus_88 wrote:But if meat eating doesn't cause significant suffering, then why not?

I think vegans and vegetarians do not eat animals for the same reasons they do not eat humans even if it "doesn't cause significant suffering." For one, they may not want to needlessly slaughter animals (both humans and non-human animals). Also, they may be disgusted by the idea. Also, they may have health concerns.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Invictus_88
Posts: 597
Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
Contact:

Post by Invictus_88 » February 22nd, 2008, 9:47 pm

My objection to farming people for food would be that they have amazing potential to change the world. The same is not true of animals. The same is also true for the less industrial 'shooting of wild specimens'.

And further to that, eating anything in one's own genetic pool is fraught with risk, especially where nervous tissue is concerned.

User avatar
pjkeeley
Posts: 694
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post by pjkeeley » February 25th, 2008, 3:08 am

I read not long ago about scientists developing the ability to clone meat for food production. Not animals mind you, just meat. So, in creating this meat genetically, no animal is harmed.

My question to vegetarians is: would you eat the meat?

anarchyisbliss
Posts: 515
Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by anarchyisbliss » February 28th, 2008, 5:25 pm

I agree with the guy who said you pay to have the animal murdered, but it is immoral and animal flesh wasn't meant for human consumption and personally i don't even think it tastes good i just eat because its cheap and im a poor teenager

anarchyisbliss
Posts: 515
Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by anarchyisbliss » March 28th, 2008, 2:53 pm

Stoan wrote:I think the major thing PETA bases this argument on is the fact of whether or not the animal can feel pain and/or fear. That particular take depends on how much you know about animal anatomy. Taking the stand that mammals can feel pain may yield other conclusions.


Like what?
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984

AlexHartfelt
Posts: 2
Joined: March 30th, 2008, 6:25 am

Post by AlexHartfelt » March 30th, 2008, 6:44 am

Well i guess the technical definition of murder would look something like: The deliberate killing of lifeforms that is: 1. not a direct threat to the murderer, and 2. who's death is not vital in the continued survival of the murderer.
Given this definition, then meat-eating in the developed world of industrial production and factory farm IS murder, since it IS an option to survive and be both healthy and fit, without the need to kill animals (And any nutritionist not paid by KFC or the like, will agree on this, even though it will require slightly better insight into what our bodies need and what plants can supply, than what is probably common in the broader circles of society).
Regarding meat-eating in areas where plant-based nutrition would be impossible (either very poor or very cold/dry areas,)well that cannot really be considered murder since one lifeform is dependent upon to death of another in order to survive.
But, to be frank the whole murder/not murder thing is not really that important to me. There are plenty of very good reasons not to eat meat if one have access to a wide variety of plant-based foods, one of the more heavy being the obvious better resource/protein-ratio, lower polution and in general a form of production that quite simple induces less pain, as farm animal do suffer before they are "murdered".

anarchyisbliss
Posts: 515
Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by anarchyisbliss » April 1st, 2008, 7:58 pm

PhalThrax wrote:I do not eat meat because I do not view animals as subordinates to us. As pseudo-hippie as that may sound, I have felt this way for many years.


I agree, I believe all life forms have an equal place on this Earth.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984

keith24
Posts: 8
Joined: December 31st, 2007, 7:09 pm

Post by keith24 » April 12th, 2008, 2:28 am

Human beings are by nature omnivores. Our bodies evolved over thousands of years during the hunter-gatherer phase of our history to live on meats and scavenged/gathered vegetable products. To argue that we should not eat meat is to argue that we are somehow outside nature. There weren't too many loaves of bread out there to be gathered in pre-agriculture times. Do animals have rights? I would say yes. Do their rights supercede ours? I'm not too sure... There is some very thoughtful work on this subject by Peter Singer if the debate is interesting to you.

godard
Posts: 5
Joined: May 14th, 2008, 11:42 pm

Post by godard » May 21st, 2008, 12:55 am

One of the questions that always brings me to a screeching hault when considering this dilemma is the question of necessity. If every single human on earth stopped eating meat, would there be enough nutrition to exist without a consiberable decrease in progress? If yes, then one could be convinced that, assuming the non-existance of any objective moral norms on the subject, that it would be extremely immoral to kill and eat animals for food. If not, than I can easily see its morality being upheld.

anarchyisbliss
Posts: 515
Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by anarchyisbliss » May 21st, 2008, 8:04 am

godard wrote:One of the questions that always brings me to a screeching hault when considering this dilemma is the question of necessity. If every single human on earth stopped eating meat, would there be enough nutrition to exist without a consiberable decrease in progress? If yes, then one could be convinced that, assuming the non-existance of any objective moral norms on the subject, that it would be extremely immoral to kill and eat animals for food. If not, than I can easily see its morality being upheld.


Actually, yes. Without eating animals one could easily survive and make "progress" whatever you mean by that. The truth is that there are actually fewer people on this planet who eat meat than who don't. However, in the United States and in neighboring countries we don't see that, but go to most of Africa and Asia and Australia and you will find that the people there treat flesh as more of a delicacy than a part of their diet.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984

User avatar
pjkeeley
Posts: 694
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post by pjkeeley » May 21st, 2008, 10:13 am

go to most of Africa and Asia and Australia and you will find that the people there treat flesh as more of a delicacy than a part of their diet.

I live in Australia and must protest: this is false. The majority of people here eat meat.

anarchyisbliss
Posts: 515
Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by anarchyisbliss » May 21st, 2008, 11:01 am

pjkeeley wrote:
go to most of Africa and Asia and Australia and you will find that the people there treat flesh as more of a delicacy than a part of their diet.

I live in Australia and must protest: this is false. The majority of people here eat meat.


Not to sound condescending, but do you live everywhere in Australia? Or in Africa and Asia? For example I live in the United States in the Baltimore Metropolitan area, and most people here do eat meat, but there re areas of the country where meat is not in high demand, or in easy access. It may be true that in your part of Australia people regularly consume meat, especially if its a metropolitan area, but many other people either do not or can not, and that comment I made was mostly focused in Africa and Asia. The point I was making is that meat is not necessary to life and that there are entire groups of people who are "living" proof of that. But thank you for your Eastern point of view. :D
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984

iron
Posts: 7
Joined: May 30th, 2008, 11:22 am

Post by iron » June 5th, 2008, 12:49 pm

I don't believe that eating animals is wrong. I do have a problem with the companies that produce the meat . I there for only buy organic free range chicken and do not by any beef (only buffalo). The same goes for my eggs and all other dairy. This is more because of a hatred of corporate bottom line practices of animal cruelty threw out the animals life than the actually killing itself.

Post Reply