Philosophy Discussion Forums

It doesn't matter what arguments you pose (however weak they may be), responsible agriculture overall will eliminate the need to stop or even reduce meat production.

If you think irresponsible and unsustainable agriculture practices are limited to the meat industry alone and will not affect the mass-production crop industry then you're quite mistaken. It already has affected it as evidenced by all of the problems outlined in the articles I've provided links to. Ignore them if you wish but you'll have to exit this discussion if you don't care to participate.

You simply cannot eliminate an entire category of food and expect the prices of the remaining food supply to drop. That's absurd. It's a simple case of supply and demand. As I said before, eliminating meat will cause mass starvations for the people who cannot afford the high cost of plant foods produced through expensive processes (vertical farming) and patented GMO seed crops.

The fundamental problem is a rapidly increasing population that requires more and more food. Eliminating an entire category of available food is not the answer.

I suspect we are already growing way more vegetables than necessary to feed all of humanity, it's just that they are going through a middle man (middle animal). So we could raise fewer acres of crops, with presumably fewer of the negative effects you mentioned, and feed the world.

Spiral Out, I'm with you on eating meat and the safety of most GMO's. But apparently you are like most people on all sides of the issues: You form your opinions, and then disregard all arguments that don't fit your preconceptions. I try to form my opinions on the basis of the logic that's available, but most people don't. I recognize that there are good arguments as to the wastefulness of raising livestock for food, but I think the tradeoffs are reasonable - and besides, a good hamburger is one of the pleasures of life.

Wilson wrote:I suspect we are already growing way more vegetables than necessary to feed all of humanity, it's just that they are going through a middle man (middle animal). So we could raise fewer acres of crops, with presumably fewer of the negative effects you mentioned, and feed the world.

Not according to the AAAS article. And definitely not if an entire category of food is eliminated altogether. But what makes you suspect that we are currently growing enough vegetables to feed 7.5 billion people?

Spiral Out, I'm with you on eating meat and the safety of most GMO's. But apparently you are like most people on all sides of the issues: You form your opinions, and then disregard all arguments that don't fit your preconceptions. I try to form my opinions on the basis of the logic that's available, but most people don't. I recognize that there are good arguments as to the wastefulness of raising livestock for food, but I think the tradeoffs are reasonable - and besides, a good hamburger is one of the pleasures of life.

I'm not disregarding opposing arguments. I agree that the mass-production meat industry is less than optimal, but eliminating it altogether is irresponsible, counterproductive and dangerous. Any mass-production crop industry will exhibit the very same ethical, environmental and economic practical problems the meat industry currently exhibits. There is no quick and easy solution to the issue of rapid population growth and their nutritional needs. Eliminating an entire food category would be a massive step backward.

Eating meat was a necessity for our ancestors. It is not as much a necessity now, and hasn't been for some time. Yet if the current trajectory of climate change and population growth continue then it may very well become a necessity once again.

Spiral Out wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You're half right. Murder is the killing of one species by a member of that same species. Killing a member of another species is considered normal and doesn't require a label.

So a lion (or a pneumococcus bacteria) killing a human is notable at a low level but isn't called anything in particular.

Animals are not held to charges of murder when one kills another, same species or not. Murder is a legal term, the definition of which does not include non-Human animals.

While technically correct (that murder is a legal term), it is commonly and likely MOST commonly used outside of the legal realm, (such as in Philosophy Forums). BTW, I have as much information that a wolf who kills another in the pack is held to the charge of "murder" by the pack as you possess that it isn't. Just sayin.

LuckyR wrote:While technically correct (that murder is a legal term), it is commonly and likely MOST commonly used outside of the legal realm, (such as in Philosophy Forums). BTW, I have as much information that a wolf who kills another in the pack is held to the charge of "murder" by the pack as you possess that it isn't. Just sayin.

Are you offering that as a philosophical argument, or are you "just sayin"? Are you saying "meat is murder"?

Spiral Out wrote:

LuckyR wrote:While technically correct (that murder is a legal term), it is commonly and likely MOST commonly used outside of the legal realm, (such as in Philosophy Forums). BTW, I have as much information that a wolf who kills another in the pack is held to the charge of "murder" by the pack as you possess that it isn't. Just sayin.

Are you offering that as a philosophical argument, or are you "just sayin"? Are you saying "meat is murder"?

I am doing a couple of things:

1- Pointing out that one species killing a member of another species is normal and as a concept requires no particular thought or label to describe the issue.

2- Also noting that among higher life forms (not counting black widow spiders etc), killing a member of one's own species (as opposed to jousting for mating rights etc) is usually negative for that species.

3- How various species handle #2 is going to vary. From humans criminalizing it, to pack ostracism, to no outwardly measurable consequence. But regardless it is usually still a thing to be avoided and as such when it happens it usually deserve thought/discussion and often is labeled specially.

4- Since killing (and almost always eating) other species is normal (#1), meat is distinctly NOT murder. As I mentioned before, murder is an intraspecies issue.

Spiral Out wrote:Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Do you want to change the legal definition of murder to include non-Humans? Will killing ants also be murder? People eat those too. Where would you draw the line and why?

You must be ready to engage in the questionable act of subjective line-drawing and have reasoned logic to support it and defend it. It's easy to draw the line at Humans. It's not quite as easy to go beyond that to include animals because there is a well-defined separation between Humans and other animals.

What is that distinction? I have yet to see one characteristic which is shared by all humans which is not shared also by at least one nonhuman animal. You might say the concept of self or intelligence, but not all humans possess these traits. So, what trait is shared by all humans that is not found in nonhuman animals? What makes nonhumans and humans MORALLY distinct?

And actually, I would readily change the definition of murder. If a sentient but nonhuman being (let's say an extraterrestrial life form) is killed by a human for reasons other than self-defense or defense of others, we would say that's wrong and probably on par with the killing of a human by another human. What,do you propose, is the difference between this and needlessly killing animals just to enjoy meat?

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:

Spiral Out wrote:Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Do you want to change the legal definition of murder to include non-Humans? Will killing ants also be murder? People eat those too. Where would you draw the line and why?

You must be ready to engage in the questionable act of subjective line-drawing and have reasoned logic to support it and defend it. It's easy to draw the line at Humans. It's not quite as easy to go beyond that to include animals because there is a well-defined separation between Humans and other animals.

What is that distinction? I have yet to see one characteristic which is shared by all humans which is not shared also by at least one nonhuman animal. You might say the concept of self or intelligence, but not all humans possess these traits. So, what trait is shared by all humans that is not found in nonhuman animals? What makes nonhumans and humans MORALLY distinct?

And actually, I would readily change the definition of murder. If a sentient but nonhuman being (let's say an extraterrestrial life form) is killed by a human for reasons other than self-defense or defense of others, we would say that's wrong and probably on par with the killing of a human by another human. What,do you propose, is the difference between this and needlessly killing animals just to enjoy meat?

It basically comes down to power. More specifically, power assumed though the manifestations of intelligence. Humans are the architects of highest order constructs. Order will always rule over chaos.

We kill animals for meat because we can; because we are higher-ordered than animals. Humans didn't create the concept of killing and eating animals, we're just the best at doing it.

If there are extraterrestrials who are more intelligent and more powerful than us who ever decide to visit us and decide that Humans are tasty treats, then I guess we wouldn't be the best at it anymore.

Are you arguing that "might makes right," Spiral Out?

Felix wrote:Are you arguing that "might makes right," Spiral Out?

Define "right". No, I'm not necessarily saying that 'might makes right'. The concept of 'what is' and 'what is right' needn't be synonymous. Intelligence and the manifestations thereof are apparently what drive what is 'right'.

Spiral Out wrote: If there are extraterrestrials who are more intelligent and more powerful than us who ever decide to visit us and decide that Humans are tasty treats, then I guess we wouldn't be the best at it anymore.

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?

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:

Spiral Out wrote: If there are extraterrestrials who are more intelligent and more powerful than us who ever decide to visit us and decide that Humans are tasty treats, then I guess we wouldn't be the best at it anymore.

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?

What if aliens were as far ahead of us as we are of cattle? Why would it be unacceptable for aliens to eat us while it's acceptable for us to eat cattle? Live by the tooth, die by the tooth, so to speak.

Whatever, I doubt aliens would travel to other planets to eat organisms that their digestive systems aren't evolved to handle :)

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:

Spiral Out wrote: If there are extraterrestrials who are more intelligent and more powerful than us who ever decide to visit us and decide that Humans are tasty treats, then I guess we wouldn't be the best at it anymore.

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.

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.

So, the Nazis didn't need to justify murdering Jewish people, LGBTQ people, gypsies and black people, huh? Sorry, I don't see how you can possibly approach morality with this mindset. I agree fully that morality is NOT objective and that principles we follow are subjective and open to interpretation. However, we aren't discussing metaethics, we're discussing ethics - which means justification is needed.

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:

Spiral Out wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


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.

So, the Nazis didn't need to justify murdering Jewish people, LGBTQ people, gypsies and black people, huh? Sorry, I don't see how you can possibly approach morality with this mindset. I agree fully that morality is NOT objective and that principles we follow are subjective and open to interpretation. However, we aren't discussing metaethics, we're discussing ethics - which means justification is needed.

Neither the Jews nor anyone else for that matter would accept any justification offered by the Nazis or anyone else for that matter for their killing. I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

I'm glad you agree fully that morality is not objective and that principles we follow are subjective and open to interpretation. Again, what are you arguing if this is truly the case?

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.