Eating Animals
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: December 12th, 2008, 5:30 pm
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: February 20th, 2009, 6:17 pm
How could a poor person, othewise, afford meat if it wasn't factory-farmed? There are, let's say, one billion people who want to eat beef. That supply cannot be granted by humane treatment.
Crowd control assures that factory farming will continue. I'd rather have an aggresive pig, chicken or cow that lives in misery than a mob of people like that with guns in their pickup trucks.
-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
How about a nice falafel?df544 wrote:Only the rich can afford moral meat-- that is, meat from free-range animals that have been treated humanely.
How could a poor person, othewise, afford meat if it wasn't factory-farmed? There are, let's say, one billion people who want to eat beef. That supply cannot be granted by humane treatment.
Crowd control assures that factory farming will continue. I'd rather have an aggresive pig, chicken or cow that lives in misery than a mob of people like that with guns in their pickup trucks.
-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
How about a nice falafel?df544 wrote:Only the rich can afford moral meat-- that is, meat from free-range animals that have been treated humanely.
How could a poor person, othewise, afford meat if it wasn't factory-farmed? There are, let's say, one billion people who want to eat beef. That supply cannot be granted by humane treatment.
Crowd control assures that factory farming will continue. I'd rather have an aggresive pig, chicken or cow that lives in misery than a mob of people like that with guns in their pickup trucks.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13875
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
The poor-uneducated will have to eat less meat and more vegetables as they become more educated and therefore more aware that factory farming is
1. Unsustainable
2. Cruel
3. Bad for health
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:48 pm
What we need to do is find out why killing a person is morally wrong. Then we need to see if this fits the situation of animals. If it is true that the same reasons can apply to animals, then we must admit that it's immoral. If not, then it's not immoral.
I would say that killing a human is wrong when it cannot be justified. For instance, self-defense is a justifiable reason for killing another person. So, if it's not justified, then we call it 'murder' so for this discussion we will say that murder is unjustifiable killing.
Now, let's see why killing somebody is bad. This seems fairly obvious, and it is but it should be spelled out.
The 1st thing to understand is that humans have a consciousness that allows us to feel emotional and physical pain, and to think, to breathe, etc. By pain, I mean harmful pain/physical damage, such as mutilation or other bodily damage. By, emotional pain I refer to severe harm of a person's psyche that affects that person's life. For example, rape is wrong because it causes traumatic emotional pain and physical damage.
Consciousness also allows for a human to have a "will to live" or the instinct to sustain itself and not die. It allows for the ability to It is wrong to take his life, even if painless, because that person wants to live and understands himself to be a living person. That is, he is "self-aware" and not just an inanimate object. He is aware that he exists, even if at a basic & primitive level.
Now, as this as a base let's see how this matches up with an animal, say a pig. A pig has a consciousness that allows him to feel pain exactly how people do, but the extent and depth of his emotional pain is disputable. For instance, a pig who is raped probably doesn't consider it to be rape, but just sex as usual, but to humans rape is a serious issue that is immoral. A pig also doesn't dream of philosophical ideals such as freedom of speech. My point is that the type of rights a person or an animal has depends on that person or animal. For instance, woman get pregnant so they receive maternity leave, but men do not. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Certain facts are different.
Next, we have to ask if a pig has a will to live and is self-aware. Do you think that if you started to chase a pig with a knife, cut him, that he would just say "OK"? Do you think that pig knows, at least at some level, that it's alive or do you think that it's like a robot or rock? I am going to have to say that a pig wants to live and is self-aware because if you harm him and he feels endangered he will run away.
It appears so far that killing an animal, for instance a pig, is wrong for the same reasons that killing a human is.
"We need animals to live, for sustenance!" -No, you don't. We don't live in a society where we must have meat or we'll perish. Nor is there any justifiable reason to kill an animal for food, unless of course you are starving in the woods. That, I believe, would be justifiable given the circumstances and facts. However, the fact that we don't need to eat animals and that it's unjust stands.
"Animals kill other animals, so they don't deserve to die" -yeah, and some animals eat their own puke (dogs) but we don't eat puke because they do, do we? Well, some of you might. The point is that humans don't take our moral cue from animals.
"I don't care about animals and/or I hate animals" -You may not care, but caring and not caring about an animal or human does not give you moral justification for killing him or promoting the killing at all. Imagine if a country decided to kill everybody they hated and/or didn't care about? Wait, it did happen (almost), it was called (Nazi) Germany.
"I have more important issues to concentrate on then the lives of animals" -Yes, this is a good argument if we're talking about activism. Is it better to help the poor and homeless over animal issues? As a human I believe so, but you're not fighting/writing letters/etc for the freedom and lives of animals when you don't eat meat because it's passive. So, to think that since there are more important issues doesn't mean one should support genocide in Darfur by sending money to them, does it?
"What does 1 person not eating meat do? I mean, they're still going to be meat being sold!" -At first glance it's a legitimate argument. Yes, vegetarianism may never be as popular as eating meat, so I have to concede there. Yet, it is not the case that 1 vegetarian is alone. Do you really believe that when 1 person stops eating meat that he or she is alone? Of course not. Vegetarians are a group, and a large one in fact. This affects the demand for meat, but revolucion is not the purpose of restraining to eat meat.
"Plants are alive, so how can you kill them?" - Really? Are you serous? Yet, people say this, so I put it in here but having life is NOT a sufficient and necessary condition for not eating meat (or a plant). It's a necessary condition. The idea that people shouldn't eat meat because animals are alive is a misconception, even if it is popular.
"Animals are for our use!" -Tell that to the pig being hung upside down while being stabbed. Rather yet, imagine that a bigger, smarter being thought the same of you. Would you hold to that mentality? Would you say, "Well I am only useful to these genius giants"? No, you wouldn't so don't act as if you would.
"In so and so they believed it to be right and in this country they believed it to be wrong, so I guess it depends on where you're from." -Again, this argument is strong when we first look at it, but then it's prima facie facade is torn asunder. This argument fails for the very fact that it's DESCRIPTIVE and not argumentative (in the debatable sense). That is, it's not a justification to do X because we observe X in country 1, 2 and 3. For instance, in some countries it's not illegal to rape a woman, or at least it's very hard for the woman to win that case, yet this gives no reason for raping women, it only describes what occurs in a different place.
Therefore, it is unjust to kill animals for food unless there is an overriding justification because of the same exact reason that murder of a human is wrong.
PS I have never, ever heard a good argument for eating meat. Most people do 1 of 2 things: 1) they don't admit they're wrong, but say that they don't care or 2) they admit that they're morally wrong but also hold that they do not care. Basically, they cop out, which shows that they have no logical and consistent argument.
- Martin Ekdahl
- Posts: 245
- Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
- Location: Rostock
- Contact:
I don't need meat.
Vegetarians (with a proper diet of course) are healthier and live longer than meat eaters.
Animals have the same basic needs as humans. If I through a simply passive act of not eating them can save animals from pain and death, then I will do it.
The meat industry is a environmental catastrophe and one of the main reasons to carbon dioxide and methane emission.
Sometimes I answer "My mother is made of meat!" when I get the question why I don't eat meat, because I'm tired of getting it.
Turn the question and ask: "Why do you eat animals?"
You don't need it, it's not good for you, it's a pointless cause of suffering and death, it's bad for the planet, and frankly, the thought of people eating muscles and guts is quite disgusting.
-
- Posts: 597
- Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 3314
- Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm
Re: Eating Animals
Ape:cynicallyinsane wrote:Murder is immoral, right? So, is it immoral to eat animals? We don't kill them in defense, it's murder. Right?
If killing of itself were immoral,
we would have to stop killing or taking any life to live: the life of animals or birds or fish or plants or air.
But to not kill other life in order for us to live would mean that we would kill ourselves!
Hmmmmm
So we have no choice but to kill to live.
The only choice we have is HOW we are going to kill or take life and give life.
That choice is moral when we love living and dying.
That choice is immoral when we hate either living or dying.
So killing of itself is not and can not be immoral nor murder.
To murder means to kill in Hate the person or animal or plant we kill--Hate for ourselves or an enemy-of-war or a mouse or an ochro or for hunger or for any reason means that when we kill, we are killing in Hate and that killing is Hate is what murder is.
This is why murder is called Malice-afore-thought.
So Hate for any person or any life or for any thing is the immorality that confers immorality on otherwise natural and normal and moral actions and reactions.
Hate for self is what makes self-killing suicide and immoral.
Love of self is what makes self-killing mercy-killing or heroic:
Example:
'She knew it was certain death to go into that building for her son, but she did it anyway. She took her own life --in Love--to save his. What a heroine.'
- Martin Ekdahl
- Posts: 245
- Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
- Location: Rostock
- Contact:
Re: Eating Animals
No, Ape, we don't "need" to kill to live. There is another answer, simply going veggie. And you will benefit on it.ape wrote:Ape:cynicallyinsane wrote:Murder is immoral, right? So, is it immoral to eat animals? We don't kill them in defense, it's murder. Right?
If killing of itself were immoral,
we would have to stop killing or taking any life to live: the life of animals or birds or fish or plants or air.
But to not kill other life in order for us to live would mean that we would kill ourselves!
Hmmmmm
So we have no choice but to kill to live.
The only choice we have is HOW we are going to kill or take life and give life.
That choice is moral when we love living and dying.
That choice is immoral when we hate either living or dying.
So killing of itself is not and can not be immoral nor murder.
To murder means to kill in Hate the person or animal or plant we kill--Hate for ourselves or an enemy-of-war or a mouse or an ochro or for hunger or for any reason means that when we kill, we are killing in Hate and that killing is Hate is what murder is.
This is why murder is called Malice-afore-thought.
So Hate for any person or any life or for any thing is the immorality that confers immorality on otherwise natural and normal and moral actions and reactions.
Hate for self is what makes self-killing suicide and immoral.
Love of self is what makes self-killing mercy-killing or heroic:
Example:
'She knew it was certain death to go into that building for her son, but she did it anyway. She took her own life --in Love--to save his. What a heroine.'
"Vegetarians live longer" (The Huffington Post, April 18, 2008)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/1 ... 12431.html
I agree on that there is a question of harm reduction by banning cruel ways slaughtering animals. But I simply can't tell if sausage A came from a cow/pig dying happy and sausage B came from a cow/pig dying in fear and pain. It's easier for me not to eat both sausages, choosing a tasty soy sausage instead.
Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind. - Albert Einstein.
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
What's the defense for that?
Why would slaughter houses make killing animals painful? It would be longer and less profitable. I have a feeling that it's relatively quick and painless, as that's the economical way to kill.
Either way, the Huffington Post isn't the most academic source for reference when trying to support a stance on medically beneficial dietary choices, and there really are no medical studies that dictate which choice is better; in fact, the vast majority of the world's population eats meat, and they're doing pretty well.
The point is, we've been doing it for a while. Many species do it. It's natural. It will continue to be natural. You may choose to do as you wish, but there is nothing immoral or wrong about it.
-
- Posts: 597
- Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
- Contact:
Re: Eating Animals
Murder is a crime. The morality and immorality of a murder is contingent on the nature of the murder. These are legal terms, like 'Murder'.cynicallyinsane wrote:Murder is immoral, right? So, is it immoral to eat animals? We don't kill them in defense, it's murder. Right?
Eating animals is not, nor can it be, a murder.
So no. The string of reasoning does not work.
-
- Posts: 3314
- Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm
Re: Eating Animals
ape:Martin Ekdahl wrote:
No, Ape, we don't "need" to kill to live. There is another answer, simply going veggie. And you will benefit on it.
"Vegetarians live longer" (The Huffington Post, April 18, 2008)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/1 ... 12431.html
I am veggie too!
That's what I included in plants.
But I still have to kill the life in the veggies by eating and chewing and masticating and swallowing and digesting the veggies to get my life!
Right?smile
Plus, veggies still make good meat or flesh: me!smile
The juice of the veggie is just pale blood
while
the blood in the animal is red juice.
Serious joke:
You ever heard the sound grapes make when you step on them or chew on them?
If you listen very carefully, you'll hear them make a little whine!
Get it?smile
ape:Martin Ekdahl wrote: I agree on that there is a question of harm reduction by banning cruel ways slaughtering animals. But I simply can't tell if sausage A came from a cow/pig dying happy and sausage B came from a cow/pig dying in fear and pain. It's easier for me not to eat both sausages, choosing a tasty soy sausage instead.
Not to mention the hormones for fattening and growth and etc.
But the animals do die in Love: to be eaten is why they were born or created!
It's only us who are mixed up:
We say we only kill what or who we hate, yet we kill animals we love to eat their meat.
Hmmm
Can you imagine a convo with a cow:
cow:
I thought you don't kill who you love?
ape:
Ah, er, ah
cow:
So to kill me, you must also hate me?
ape;
ah, er.
cow:
let me solve it for you:
Love what you kill and don't kill,
then in Love kill me and in Love don't kill what you don't eat!
In fact, that's why I am here:
to die as food for you:
I am going to die in Love no matter how conflicted you are about what you hate and what you love.
Ok?
Contented cows make great meat!
I am ready to die in Love.
In fact, since you are watt you eat, I am going to continue life in you as human while you are also a cow!
Ready?
ape:Martin Ekdahl wrote: Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind. - Albert Einstein.
Ah!
By 'vegetarianism,' AE must have meant Lovism for even vegeatables are killed when we eat them!
"What has perhaps been overlooked
is
the irrational, the inconsistent, the droll,
even the insane,
which Nature, inexhaustibly operative, implants in an individual,
seemingly for her own amusement.
But these things are singled out only in the crucible of one's own mind."
Subtle is the Lord, but MALICIOUS He is not
by Abraham Pais.
‘Subtle is the Lord, but malicious he is not" (Raffinert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht’).
When asked by a colleague what he meant by that, he replied:
‘Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse’
(Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List’).
Albert Einstein, vi, 319, ‘Subtle Is The Lord …’
The Science and The Life of Albert Einstein,
Abraham Pais. Oxford University Press, 1982.
- Martin Ekdahl
- Posts: 245
- Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
- Location: Rostock
- Contact:
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023