Eating Animals

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

Spiral Out wrote:The only reason eating animals is 'wrong' in your mind is because you don't like it. You've expressed a subjective opinion, not an objective truth.
Based on the above, the killing and eating of humans people is not wrong either, with only culture determining the depth and breadth of morality.
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Spiral Out »

Greta wrote:
Spiral Out wrote:The only reason eating animals is 'wrong' in your mind is because you don't like it. You've expressed a subjective opinion, not an objective truth.
Based on the above, the killing and eating of humans people is not wrong either, with only culture determining the depth and breadth of morality.
And why would it be wrong? Lack of justification? Consequence of powerlessness? It's power that speaks, isn't it?

“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

What does this say for morality? Why is our morality not more stringent than it is now, even to the point of the infringement upon certain 'rights'?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
Artimas
Posts: 566
Joined: August 3rd, 2014, 11:23 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Plato
Location: Oregon, US

Re:

Post by Artimas »

cynicallyinsane wrote:But you pay them to kill the animal. How's the different than hiring a hitman to kill a person?
Who pays a Lion to eat a gazelle?

-- Updated December 27th, 2016, 2:13 pm to add the following --
Spiral Out wrote:
Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Based on the above, the killing and eating of humans people is not wrong either, with only culture determining the depth and breadth of morality.
And why would it be wrong? Lack of justification? Consequence of powerlessness? It's power that speaks, isn't it?

“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

What does this say for morality? Why is our morality not more stringent than it is now, even to the point of the infringement upon certain 'rights'?
Can't only rely on Neitzsche, that would be a fallacy.
"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Spiral Out »

I don't rely on Nietzsche, I do occasionally quote him though.

Still, my point stands.

If we are to stop killing cows then we must also stop killing ants, else logic be abandoned completely. Yet, being all merely subjective opinion, I guess that would be par for the course.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

Spiral Out wrote:
Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Based on the above, the killing and eating of humans people is not wrong either, with only culture determining the depth and breadth of morality.
And why would it be wrong? Lack of justification? Consequence of powerlessness? It's power that speaks, isn't it?

“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

What does this say for morality? Why is our morality not more stringent than it is now, even to the point of the infringement upon certain 'rights'?
Spiral, I didn't claim that eating humans was wrong. After all, crocodiles, sharks, snakes, predatory fish, wild canines, big cats and cadaver-eating scavengers have never had an issue with killing humans.

The post hoc rationalisation I constructed around my conditioned distaste for killing humans and other organisms that evoke sympathy in me is concerns about pointless loss of order in the environment. It would seem better to inflict the minimum amount of entropy in achieving what we need to do. If plants and simple animals can give an individual good health, there is no ethical justification for inflicting pain and suffering on intelligent animals. Of course, this is all in the personal domain. Globally, not too many much care, with the main difference between meat and vegetables being cost, taste and, maybe, nutritional content. Yet the idea of eating humans is considered shocking to most of us.

I can see why you choose to avoid judgement here - it's easy hold double standards when one judges with this issue. As animals, if we are to live then some other living thing has to die.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR »

Spiral Out wrote:
ThamiorTheThinker wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Note that no one would accept that as justification for extraterrestrials killing and eating us. That means there's something unconvincing about that line of reasoning, no?
I doubt there would be anyone who would accept any line of reasoning as justification for their demise in such a scenario. There are no objective criteria in the justification for anything. It's all relative and subjective. An 'unconvincing' line of reasoning is irrelevant to what the general population will accept. Justification is unnecessary when a large and/or powerful collection of people agree on something.
You're correct, of course, that the average citizen would not accept reasoning, but then again we're in the Philosophy Forum, so we are examining issues with a finer toothed comb. A couple of things are so predictable as to be almost truths. One is that anything being killed and eaten is going to have a "logic" problem with the idea. That doesn't mean that the idea is flawed. Extraterrestrials chowing down on humans is more akin to humans initially but later essentially abandoning eating cetaceans, than the industrial farming/ranching of cattle by humans.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Spiral Out »

Greta wrote:The post hoc rationalisation I constructed around my conditioned distaste for killing humans and other organisms that evoke sympathy in me is concerns about pointless loss of order in the environment. It would seem better to inflict the minimum amount of entropy in achieving what we need to do. If plants and simple animals can give an individual good health, there is no ethical justification for inflicting pain and suffering on intelligent animals.
Do you limit your concern only to 'intelligent' animals? How do you judge the level of intelligence in any given animal?

A mass-production crop industry will cause as much loss of order and entropy as any mass-production meat industry. I've already shown evidence of this. The problem isn't the type of food production, it's the scale of food production.

Speaking of entropy and disorder, I'm sure you're aware that such things are a distinctly Human concept. The universe would be better off without us. Yet the survival instinct given to us by the universe causes us to thrive and cause more entropy and disorder.
I can see why you choose to avoid judgement here - it's easy hold double standards when one judges with this issue. As animals, if we are to live then some other living thing has to die.
I don't think I'm avoiding any judgement here. I'm glad you admit that life feeds on life. It is a necessary condition, but you seem to want to change the fundamental nature of the physics of physical existence.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

Spiral Out wrote:
Greta wrote:The post hoc rationalisation I constructed around my conditioned distaste for killing humans and other organisms that evoke sympathy in me is concerns about pointless loss of order in the environment. It would seem better to inflict the minimum amount of entropy in achieving what we need to do. If plants and simple animals can give an individual good health, there is no ethical justification for inflicting pain and suffering on intelligent animals.
Do you limit your concern only to 'intelligent' animals? How do you judge the level of intelligence in any given animal?
There's no hard and fast line, more a broad principle. Generally mammals and birds are the most aware. Vertebrates tend to be more aware than invertebrates, aside from molluscs. All this is corroborated by neuroscience.
Spiral Out wrote:A mass-production crop industry will cause as much loss of order and entropy as any mass-production meat industry. I've already shown evidence of this. The problem isn't the type of food production, it's the scale of food production.
Yes, but there's no measure of the relative order lost when a chimp dies as compared with a worm. A more complex system of consciousness is broken. It's not a practical consideration to humans, hence the lack of measurement, but the death of a cow will result in a greater loss of order in reality than the death of a fish.
Spiral Out wrote:Speaking of entropy and disorder, I'm sure you're aware that such things are a distinctly Human concept. The universe would be better off without us. Yet the survival instinct given to us by the universe causes us to thrive and cause more entropy and disorder.
I can see why you choose to avoid judgement here - it's easy hold double standards when one judges with this issue. As animals, if we are to live then some other living thing has to die.
I don't think I'm avoiding any judgement here. I'm glad you admit that life feeds on life. It is a necessary condition, but you seem to want to change the fundamental nature of the physics of physical existence.
I didn't realise that you were effectively an antinatalist. I personally hold hope that life can evolve and improve on itself, just that the path to intellectual and ethical advancement is long and pitted.

Re: "you seem to want to change the fundamental nature of the physics of physical existence". This is true. You do too, along with all other life forms. Living itself is in opposition to entropic forces working to break one's unity into smaller, more readily recyclable pieces.

Logically, it makes more sense to operate "with a light touch", aiming to do the minimum amount of damage in achieving our aims. It's not a new idea, obviously, being alluded to in all major philosophic traditions. Ethically and strategically, it's usually better for humans to operate with subtlety and care than to be akin to a bull in a china shop.
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Spiral Out »

Greta wrote:Yes, but there's no measure of the relative order lost when a chimp dies as compared with a worm. A more complex system of consciousness is broken. It's not a practical consideration to humans, hence the lack of measurement, but the death of a cow will result in a greater loss of order in reality than the death of a fish.
And what of this 'loss of order' if all cows were gone? What of it if cows had never existed? What if Humans cease to exist? What will become of 'order' then? You speak of order as if it's an objective thing; as if it's quantifiable; as if there's a reference to measure it against.
Greta wrote:There's no hard and fast line, more a broad principle. Generally mammals and birds are the most aware. Vertebrates tend to be more aware than invertebrates, aside from molluscs. All this is corroborated by neuroscience.
Also corroborated by science, ants appear to be more sentient than cows. If we are to argue against the killing of cows due to some 'loss of order' as it pertains to their 'intelligence' then we must also argue the same for ants. That's quite the hard sell.

We'd have a much easier time convincing people to save the puppies than convincing them to save the scorpions. If you understand why that is then you'll understand my point. Emotion. Emotion rules the day, not logic, not reason, not science. For better or worse, just emotion. It's what opinions are made of, and all we have here are subjective opinions.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

Spiral Out wrote:
Greta wrote:Yes, but there's no measure of the relative order lost when a chimp dies as compared with a worm. A more complex system of consciousness is broken. It's not a practical consideration to humans, hence the lack of measurement, but the death of a cow will result in a greater loss of order in reality than the death of a fish.
And what of this 'loss of order' if all cows were gone? What of it if cows had never existed? What if Humans cease to exist? What will become of 'order' then? You speak of order as if it's an objective thing; as if it's quantifiable; as if there's a reference to measure it against.
Yes, Lucky made this fair point earlier - that the cows wouldn't have existed if not for humans. It's been suggested that, since there are far more domesticated cattle than wild cattle, that being a staple food source for humans is a survival advantage. I have no answer on that other than I like cows :lol:

Still, there is a valid environmental consideration, in that cows, especially, and sheep are far less energy efficient than other meats.

Spiral Out wrote:
Greta wrote:There's no hard and fast line, more a broad principle. Generally mammals and birds are the most aware. Vertebrates tend to be more aware than invertebrates, aside from molluscs. All this is corroborated by neuroscience.
Also corroborated by science, ants appear to be more sentient than cows. If we are to argue against the killing of cows due to some 'loss of order' as it pertains to their 'intelligence' then we must also argue the same for ants. That's quite the hard sell.
While it's true that the number of neurons in a large ants' next is about equal to that of a single human, the number of neurons in an entire herd of cattle is greater still. Further, individual cows and bulls are obviously far more sentient than individual social insects.
Spiral Out wrote:We'd have a much easier time convincing people to save the puppies than convincing them to save the scorpions. If you understand why that is then you'll understand my point. Emotion. Emotion rules the day, not logic, not reason, not science. For better or worse, just emotion. It's what opinions are made of, and all we have here are subjective opinions.
The claim is incorrect - logic, reason and science are all considered, but when those factors provide contestable conclusions then it comes down to probabilities, emotions and commonsense.

Why do you do favours for friends and family that you would not do for strangers? Emotions. You are subject to them too. So there's nothing whatsoever wrong with avoiding killing things for emotional reasons if there's no reason to kill them, if there are viable alternatives.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR »

Greta wrote:
Spiral Out wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


And what of this 'loss of order' if all cows were gone? What of it if cows had never existed? What if Humans cease to exist? What will become of 'order' then? You speak of order as if it's an objective thing; as if it's quantifiable; as if there's a reference to measure it against.
Yes, Lucky made this fair point earlier - that the cows wouldn't have existed if not for humans. It's been suggested that, since there are far more domesticated cattle than wild cattle, that being a staple food source for humans is a survival advantage. I have no answer on that other than I like cows :lol:

Still, there is a valid environmental consideration, in that cows, especially, and sheep are far less energy efficient than other meats.
Would it change the logic of the argument if it was shown that domestic cattle live longer than wild cattle? (thus confirming the "survival advantage"). I can support those who choose not to consume animals for any reason: health, environmental, religious, taste preference, ethical, moral, though by the same token consuming animals is logical but optional thus any choice is reasonable. The argument that industrial farming processes are not ethical and thus not logical can (and has) be made, but everyone acknowledges that there are other farming practices, so while valid for special cases is not a universal argument.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote:
Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Yes, Lucky made this fair point earlier - that the cows wouldn't have existed if not for humans. It's been suggested that, since there are far more domesticated cattle than wild cattle, that being a staple food source for humans is a survival advantage. I have no answer on that other than I like cows :lol:

Still, there is a valid environmental consideration, in that cows, especially, and sheep are far less energy efficient than other meats.
Would it change the logic of the argument if it was shown that domestic cattle live longer than wild cattle? (thus confirming the "survival advantage").
The survival advantage is there, no doubt, so quality of life is the concern. After all, humans appear to be highly successful but most of us would prefer that we were less so. Aside from maintaining minimum standards of care for livestock, the main issue now would seem to be environmental - that some foods are more efficient in terms of energy and water use. Another significant issue is health. It hardly makes sense for people to be struggling to make ends meet while insisting on buying far more expensive meat than is healthy.
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Spiral Out »

Greta wrote:After all, humans appear to be highly successful but most of us would prefer that we were less so. Aside from maintaining minimum standards of care for livestock, the main issue now would seem to be environmental - that some foods are more efficient in terms of energy and water use. Another significant issue is health. It hardly makes sense for people to be struggling to make ends meet while insisting on buying far more expensive meat than is healthy.
Enough talk about the problems. What are the solutions?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR »

Greta wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Would it change the logic of the argument if it was shown that domestic cattle live longer than wild cattle? (thus confirming the "survival advantage").
The survival advantage is there, no doubt, so quality of life is the concern. After all, humans appear to be highly successful but most of us would prefer that we were less so. Aside from maintaining minimum standards of care for livestock, the main issue now would seem to be environmental - that some foods are more efficient in terms of energy and water use. Another significant issue is health. It hardly makes sense for people to be struggling to make ends meet while insisting on buying far more expensive meat than is healthy.
If ranchers had to pay for the damage that their livestock created then beef and lamb would be a lot more expensive. Which would be a good thing. That would drive down (but not eliminate) consumption. Sort of like the idea that while a Prius may be better for the environment, Ferraris should not be illegal. They don't need to be. They are prohibitively expensive so their impact on the environment is negligible.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote:
Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

The survival advantage is there, no doubt, so quality of life is the concern. After all, humans appear to be highly successful but most of us would prefer that we were less so. Aside from maintaining minimum standards of care for livestock, the main issue now would seem to be environmental - that some foods are more efficient in terms of energy and water use. Another significant issue is health. It hardly makes sense for people to be struggling to make ends meet while insisting on buying far more expensive meat than is healthy.
If ranchers had to pay for the damage that their livestock created then beef and lamb would be a lot more expensive. Which would be a good thing. That would drive down (but not eliminate) consumption. Sort of like the idea that while a Prius may be better for the environment, Ferraris should not be illegal. They don't need to be. They are prohibitively expensive so their impact on the environment is negligible.
Pricing that truly reflects the cost of things, without hidden costs transferred to the broader community would be the kind of practical answer Spiral asked about. Powerful vested interests, however, may not be enthusiastic about the concept.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021