Eating Animals

[Atreyu]

Murder is immoral, right? So is it immoral to eat animals? We don't kill them in defense. It's murder. Right?

The way I resolve this issue is to say that 'murder' only applies to man killing man. Eating an animal is 'killing', not 'murder'. So no, it's not 'murder'.

Animals were created in part to be eaten by ourselves. That's why they exist. It's why they're here (in part). We're supposed to eat them. In fact, I might argue it's 'immoral' to not eat them and kill them, since that is what Nature intends for us to do.

And as far as killing them 'in defense', actually, you could argue that in a sense that is exactly what we do. We kill them because we need their substance to survive. And while some might argue that we don't need to eat meat, I personally disagree and say that the most healthy diet for most people is one which includes both animal and plant tissue. So you could indeed argue, not exactly 'self-defense', but rather 'self-maintenance' and 'survival' as being an adequate justification for killing them.

So... don't be squeamish. Eat your meat... lol

[Felix]

Atreyu, When the hungry, carnivorous extraterrestrials arrive, I'll be sure to quote to them what you've said (i.e., "The way I resolve this issue is to say that 'murder' only applies to man killing man. Eating an animal is 'killing', not 'murder'. So no, it's not 'murder'.") That way they need have no guilty feelings about eating you.

[GreenBow]

By definition murder is one human being killing another human being. Even the derivation base is Viking for killing a man in his sleep. You can not "murder" an animal. But you can kill one. The human body is designed to eat meat. Our physiological structure includes carnivorous teeth to tear flesh. Other life forms on this planet consume living animals with no apparent remorse or thought on the victim's life and by this it could be called "natural." It is natural to have sex, to eat, to breath, and many other activities which would take up unnecessary amounts of time to write down. Then there is the debate on plants, plants are alive. They die when overwhelmed with too much harm (pain), they "breath" and reproduce. The only difference between us and them is the inanimate factor of plants. They feel, they evolve and even communicate with each other through various means. Is it a sin to "murder" plants? You probably don't think so, I don't think so. Just the same as I believe it is natural and unsinful to kill and eat animals. After all we are omnivores. Lastly though is the personal choice. Meat? Plants? Both? People have the freedom to choose and I am in no way in argument with vegetarians or bacon lovers.

Sincerely, John T. Goodman

[Yui]

We cannot live on earth without killing other beings. We kill plants and animals(both of which are living beings) for food and every time we brush our teeth or take a shower, we kill hundreds of thousands of 'germs'(living beings) unintentionally.

[Atreyu]

Atreyu, When the hungry, carnivorous extraterrestrials arrive, I'll be sure to quote to them what you've said (i.e., "The way I resolve this issue is to say that 'murder' only applies to man killing man. Eating an animal is 'killing', not 'murder'. So no, it's not 'murder'.") That way they need have no guilty feelings about eating you.

I would certainly not expect them to feel guilty, and any offense I would feel about being eaten would only be my own weakness....

[Cat-In-Itself]

The argument about plants is a sort of slippery slope. Plants don't feel pain, or anything at all. Besides, we have to eat something in order to survive, but we are not strictly speaking forced to eat animals.

[Littleendian]

And while some might argue that we don't need to eat meat, I personally disagree and say that the most healthy diet for most people is one which includes both animal and plant tissue. So you could indeed argue, not exactly 'self-defense', but rather 'self-maintenance' and 'survival' as being an adequate justification for killing them.

A need for meat would morally justify the killing of animals. What is necessary for survival is never immoral.

But what exactly do you base this claim (that it is a necessity) on?

Certainly not nutritional science or biology, I am sure, both of which tell us clearly that it is in fact possible and even beneficial for humans to live on a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Millions of healthy vegans are living proof of that.

Health-benefits together with global ecological considerations (meat is ressource expensive to produce) and compassion (for animals and slaughterhouse workers) are the strongest arguments for veganism.

-- Updated March 23rd, 2015, 11:14 am to add the following --

The argument about plants is a sort of slippery slope. Plants don't feel pain, or anything at all. Besides, we have to eat something in order to survive, but we are not strictly speaking forced to eat animals.

From what I hear the jury is still out on what plants feel or don't feel. It's certainly true that they don't have a central nervous system, so any pain they might experience would be fundamentally different from what animals feel as pain. Eating the plant itself is certainly not in its interest, no matter how much or little they feel. Eating the plants' fruit on the other hand is not against the plants interests (one could even argue by eating the plants fruit you could be giving them their version of sexual pleasure ).

However, I don't think the feelings of plants are relevant for the argument against/for eating meat since food-animals get fed plants before we kill them for food so vegetarian or meat-eater, either way plants are the "eatees" in the process (as opposed to "eaters", I'm stretching it here)

[Littleendian]

I often question what gives mankind the right to murdering animals. And yes, it's murder to me, as the animals are not willfully handing over their life. Is it simply because we are a more intelligent species than them? If it's an intelligence issue, then why don't we eat babies born with illness - there are plenty without homes and they could feed our poor! But that's immoral.

Is it murder when a lion kills an antelope?

Bad lion. Bad lion.

It's a necessity for the survival of the animal, therefore it's not a question of the moral realm.

As omnivores humans do have a choice, it is not necessary for our survival to eat meat, therefore it becomes a moral question whether it is okay to do so. The answer is quite clear. The confusion is brought on only by our stubborn resistance against change. As long as most people are doing it, most people will run with the herd, where it's safe, and assume it's okay to do without checking it against their own moral compass, which will more often than not lead them to draw the conclusion that human evolution must aim much higher, namely to a heart full of compassion and love towards our dumb little brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom.

[Roel]

namely to a heart full of compassion and love owards our dumb little brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom.

May I object to this? You say dumb little brothers and sisters, lately I saw a documentary about animals and their intelligence as opposed to their instinct, in comparison to crows, most humans are dumb as hell, only a few minority of humans can match the intelligence of a crow. Besides humans the only animals which can understand the physics of Archimedes and build tools ina wide variety of ways, comparable to the way how humans create different kinds of tools.

[Wilson]

namely to a heart full of compassion and love owards our dumb little brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom.

May I object to this? You say dumb little brothers and sisters, lately I saw a documentary about animals and their intelligence as opposed to their instinct, in comparison to crows, most humans are dumb as hell, only a few minority of humans can match the intelligence of a crow. Besides humans the only animals which can understand the physics of Archimedes and build tools ina wide variety of ways, comparable to the way how humans create different kinds of tools.

You think crows are smarter than you? Silliness. Of course certain animals can do certain things that we can't, but for the most part it's not based on intelligence as we commonly define it, but on semi-automatic patterns of behavior placed in our brains by evolution.

By the way, Littleendian may have intended the alternate definition of dumb, meaning "unable to speak".

-- Updated March 23rd, 2015, 2:21 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

Is it murder when a lion kills an antelope?

Bad lion. Bad lion.

It's a necessity for the survival of the animal, therefore it's not a question of the moral realm.

As omnivores humans do have a choice, it is not necessary for our survival to eat meat, therefore it becomes a moral question whether it is okay to do so. The answer is quite clear. The confusion is brought on only by our stubborn resistance against change. As long as most people are doing it, most people will run with the herd, where it's safe, and assume it's okay to do without checking it against their own moral compass, which will more often than not lead them to draw the conclusion that human evolution must aim much higher, namely to a heart full of compassion and love towards our dumb little brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom.

What about an omnivorous animal - a bear, for instance - who kills another animal for food? Is that bear guilty of murder and therefore immoral?

It all depends on your definition of morality. If you feel that animals have equal rights with humans - if their lives are just as important - then you might have a point. But most of us just simply don't feel that way, and I suspect that you don't either. If a house was on fire, and you could only save a baby or a dog, but not both, I hope that you would save the human child, without hesitating.

Personally I'm an animal lover and tend to see them as individual personalities. So I certainly empathize with animals and would react violently if I saw an animal being treated cruelly. However, there's just enough of tribalism me that I value human life much more highly than animal life - though admittedly it would be wrenching if I had to choose between one of my dogs and a random human being.

My rationalization for eating meat - enthusiastically and with only an occasional moral twinge - is that animals fear pain but don't fear death in the same way that we do - so killing an animal is morally acceptable as long as it is raised and killed humanely. The criterion for me is suffering. If an animal has a good life and then is killed quickly and painlessly, I see nothing wrong in that. Of course that isn't the norm, and we should try to craft laws that require good treatment of the animals raised to feed us.

Besides, we humans evolved to love the taste of meat. For most of us, vegetarian dishes can be very good, but there's nothing like the primal, sensual, inborn pleasure we get from a great steak.

[Roel]

(Nested quote removed.)


May I object to this? You say dumb little brothers and sisters, lately I saw a documentary about animals and their intelligence as opposed to their instinct, in comparison to crows, most humans are dumb as hell, only a few minority of humans can match the intelligence of a crow. Besides humans the only animals which can understand the physics of Archimedes and build tools ina wide variety of ways, comparable to the way how humans create different kinds of tools.

You think crows are smarter than you? Silliness. Of course certain animals can do certain things that we can't, but for the most part it's not based on intelligence as we commonly define it, but on semi-automatic patterns of behavior placed in our brains by evolution.

By the way, Littleendian may have intended the alternate definition of dumb, meaning "unable to speak".

-- Updated March 23rd, 2015, 2:21 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

It's a necessity for the survival of the animal, therefore it's not a question of the moral realm.

As omnivores humans do have a choice, it is not necessary for our survival to eat meat, therefore it becomes a moral question whether it is okay to do so. The answer is quite clear. The confusion is brought on only by our stubborn resistance against change. As long as most people are doing it, most people will run with the herd, where it's safe, and assume it's okay to do without checking it against their own moral compass, which will more often than not lead them to draw the conclusion that human evolution must aim much higher, namely to a heart full of compassion and love towards our dumb little brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom.

What about an omnivorous animal - a bear, for instance - who kills another animal for food? Is that bear guilty of murder and therefore immoral?

It all depends on your definition of morality. If you feel that animals have equal rights with humans - if their lives are just as important - then you might have a point. But most of us just simply don't feel that way, and I suspect that you don't either. If a house was on fire, and you could only save a baby or a dog, but not both, I hope that you would save the human child, without hesitating.

Personally I'm an animal lover and tend to see them as individual personalities. So I certainly empathize with animals and would react violently if I saw an animal being treated cruelly. However, there's just enough of tribalism me that I value human life much more highly than animal life - though admittedly it would be wrenching if I had to choose between one of my dogs and a random human being.

My rationalization for eating meat - enthusiastically and with only an occasional moral twinge - is that animals fear pain but don't fear death in the same way that we do - so killing an animal is morally acceptable as long as it is raised and killed humanely. The criterion for me is suffering. If an animal has a good life and then is killed quickly and painlessly, I see nothing wrong in that. Of course that isn't the norm, and we should try to craft laws that require good treatment of the animals raised to feed us.

Besides, we humans evolved to love the taste of meat. For most of us, vegetarian dishes can be very good, but there's nothing like the primal, sensual, inborn pleasure we get from a great steak.

Chosing between a 6 years old human and a crow I choose a crow. The point is that most humans only understand science or mathematics when they learn it in school, crows show the ability to solve puzzles for which intelligence is required in an extremely short time. Also, if it's instinct, that would mean that recognizing abstract patterns like square-circle is similar to triangle-square due to 2 different forms and not similar to square-square is instinct. But if you claim that, does intelligence exist? Crows have flexible thinking which is basicslly what intelligence is, being able to adapt to your environment with flexible thinking, that's why fundamentalist christians and scientists which are closed to other views are not intelligent, because they aren't flexible in their thinking and due to that can't form other thinking patterns to solve problems. A crow understands that difference between two forms, most animals don't, because intelligence is needed to understand those patterns.

Ok, you share the same view as fundamentalist christians which claim that humans are superior. But the problem is that, when faced with an abstract puzzle, a human needs time to solve it, a crow doesn't need as much time as most humans and can grasp the concept of Archimedes, this text of Scientific American shows:

Why might crows be promising animals to study? Of course, crows are reputed to be clever. Aesop’s famous fable “The Crow and the Pitcher” tells of a crow solving a challenging problem: the thirsty crow drops pebbles into a pitcher with water near the bottom, thereby raising the fluid level high enough to permit the bird to drink. Such tales are charming and provocative, but science cannot rely on them. Recent scientific research sought to corroborate this fable. It found that crows given a similar problem dropped stones into a tube containing water, but not into a tube containing sand. Crows also chose to drop solid rather than hollow objects into the water tube. It thus seems that crows do indeed understand basic cause-effect relations. Such causal understanding is no minor feat; children struggle with tasks like this until they are 5 years old!

You can read the whole article here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... analogies/

And yes, I misunderstood dumb, my native language isn't English and I 'm more familiar with the meaning of not being smart.

[Wilson]

Ok, you share the same view as fundamentalist christians which claim that humans are superior.

I'm an atheist, so you don't need to be a fundamentalist Christian to think that humans are smarter than crows. I feel that you have to have an extremely unusual and non-standard definition of intelligence to believe otherwise.

[Roel]

Ok, you share the same view as fundamentalist christians which claim that humans are superior.

I'm an atheist, so you don't need to be a fundamentalist Christian to think that humans are smarter than crows. I feel that you have to have an extremely unusual and non-standard definition of intelligence to believe otherwise.

I never said that, I said that crows are smarter than some humans, and if you would read that scientific article of Scientific American you might understand that crows are smarter than toddlers, if you keep believing that it's pure instinct while crows in human-made experiments show analytical thinking, you are not open-minded.

[Wilson]

I never said that, I said that crows are smarter than some humans, and if you would read that scientific article of Scientific American you might understand that crows are smarter than toddlers, if you keep believing that it's pure instinct while crows in human-made experiments show analytical thinking, you are not open-minded.

Not interested in reading the article, but I agree that many animals are smarter than toddlers - but that's kind of cheating. I think your implication was that some animals are smarter than some normal adults, and I think that's incorrect.

[Vijaydevani]

Murder is immoral, right? So is it immoral to eat animals? We don't kill them in defense. It's murder. Right?

I was of the opinion that eating animals is wrong. Then I found that there are certain deficiencies that crop up in people who live on strictly vegetarian diets which a large number of us Indians are prone to do. I think we are omnivores which means to a certain extent we NEED both plant and animal protein to thrive. I used to believe that omnivores have a choice to eat either plant or animal proteins. So I think arguing morality on an issue which has been laid to rest by genetic design is fruitless. The fact is, we need both plant and animal protein. If there are people out there who wish to sacrifice their health for a higher moral ground, I say good for them. I will now stick with the genetic design and requirement. Wilson, I owed it to you to let you know that I have now changed my opinion.