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
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: October 2nd, 2021, 2:57 am In an ideal world, people would w̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶t̶o̶ wrap their heads around their existential situation - not as divine overlords of the beasts but part of the Earth's systems, but that's looking unlikely.

Rather, I expect human numbers to continue growing rapidly. It's often claimed that population will be fine because the rate of increase has slowed as a percentage. However, that's still a net increase of around 100 million humans per year. How many species would love to achieve a total population even a hundredth of humans' annual increases! And yes, ever increasing consumption and wasteful status items are another massive problem.

However, when population growth slows those in high places worry about the effects of an ageing population. So we cannot win this battle. Humans will not control themselves, rather they simply continue as usual until catastrophes bring balance forcefully. Thus, other large species will continue to be decimated.

An answer to this? Automation. If the population is ageing, then get machines to do the work instead of using migration and tax incentives to encourage baby-making to make up labour shortfalls. However, that will result in UBIs and consequent increased government control (as holder of the purse strings). It would be better for the animal kingdom, though, as would artificially grown meats.

A possible cause for hope: As climate change bites and technology for creating lab-grown meat becomes more affordable, artificial meats may become cheaper than the real thing. You would expect the top end of the meat industry - free range, organic, grain fed, hormone-free - to remain fairly stable in that situation, but the grotesqueries of factory farming would hopefully be largely supplanted by lab-grown meats.
I don't disagree with your predictions, since they are centered on the non-human perspective (in other words, if the discussion was from the human perspective there are significantly different options, not so for animals).

Basically, animals need to wait for the post Anthropocene to flourish.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14993
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote: October 3rd, 2021, 12:30 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 2nd, 2021, 2:57 am In an ideal world, people would w̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶t̶o̶ wrap their heads around their existential situation - not as divine overlords of the beasts but part of the Earth's systems, but that's looking unlikely.

Rather, I expect human numbers to continue growing rapidly. It's often claimed that population will be fine because the rate of increase has slowed as a percentage. However, that's still a net increase of around 100 million humans per year. How many species would love to achieve a total population even a hundredth of humans' annual increases! And yes, ever increasing consumption and wasteful status items are another massive problem.

However, when population growth slows those in high places worry about the effects of an ageing population. So we cannot win this battle. Humans will not control themselves, rather they simply continue as usual until catastrophes bring balance forcefully. Thus, other large species will continue to be decimated.

An answer to this? Automation. If the population is ageing, then get machines to do the work instead of using migration and tax incentives to encourage baby-making to make up labour shortfalls. However, that will result in UBIs and consequent increased government control (as holder of the purse strings). It would be better for the animal kingdom, though, as would artificially grown meats.

A possible cause for hope: As climate change bites and technology for creating lab-grown meat becomes more affordable, artificial meats may become cheaper than the real thing. You would expect the top end of the meat industry - free range, organic, grain fed, hormone-free - to remain fairly stable in that situation, but the grotesqueries of factory farming would hopefully be largely supplanted by lab-grown meats.
I don't disagree with your predictions, since they are centered on the non-human perspective (in other words, if the discussion was from the human perspective there are significantly different options, not so for animals).

Basically, animals need to wait for the post Anthropocene to flourish.
By then, most will be gone and the evolutionary reset will be in a far less hospitable world than today's, akin to the Permian extinction event that ended 250 million years ago, with ocean temps tending to be well over 25C.

That is, of course, unless humans find a way to reverse the damage. I think it more likely that humans will simply create better protections for themselves because it's easier and cheaper than trying to bring about global cooling in a way that does not create even more problems.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: October 3rd, 2021, 7:56 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 3rd, 2021, 12:30 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 2nd, 2021, 2:57 am In an ideal world, people would w̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶t̶o̶ wrap their heads around their existential situation - not as divine overlords of the beasts but part of the Earth's systems, but that's looking unlikely.

Rather, I expect human numbers to continue growing rapidly. It's often claimed that population will be fine because the rate of increase has slowed as a percentage. However, that's still a net increase of around 100 million humans per year. How many species would love to achieve a total population even a hundredth of humans' annual increases! And yes, ever increasing consumption and wasteful status items are another massive problem.

However, when population growth slows those in high places worry about the effects of an ageing population. So we cannot win this battle. Humans will not control themselves, rather they simply continue as usual until catastrophes bring balance forcefully. Thus, other large species will continue to be decimated.

An answer to this? Automation. If the population is ageing, then get machines to do the work instead of using migration and tax incentives to encourage baby-making to make up labour shortfalls. However, that will result in UBIs and consequent increased government control (as holder of the purse strings). It would be better for the animal kingdom, though, as would artificially grown meats.

A possible cause for hope: As climate change bites and technology for creating lab-grown meat becomes more affordable, artificial meats may become cheaper than the real thing. You would expect the top end of the meat industry - free range, organic, grain fed, hormone-free - to remain fairly stable in that situation, but the grotesqueries of factory farming would hopefully be largely supplanted by lab-grown meats.
I don't disagree with your predictions, since they are centered on the non-human perspective (in other words, if the discussion was from the human perspective there are significantly different options, not so for animals).

Basically, animals need to wait for the post Anthropocene to flourish.
By then, most will be gone and the evolutionary reset will be in a far less hospitable world than today's, akin to the Permian extinction event that ended 250 million years ago, with ocean temps tending to be well over 25C.

That is, of course, unless humans find a way to reverse the damage. I think it more likely that humans will simply create better protections for themselves because it's easier and cheaper than trying to bring about global cooling in a way that does not create even more problems.
In the absence of humans, I believe the rest of the natural world will do just fine, not necessarily to go back to previous eras, but flourish in a new era.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Aristocles
Premium Member
Posts: 508
Joined: April 20th, 2015, 8:15 am

Re: Re:

Post by Aristocles »

psyreporter wrote: May 2nd, 2021, 11:44 pm
Scott wrote: August 15th, 2007, 4:13 pm "Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized." -Henry David Thoreau
It appears that he was right.

According to an article on Forbes, millenials (Gen Y) are driving a global shift away from meat eating, mostly for ethical motives.

(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat
A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... from-meat/

As it appears, Gen Z accelerates a shift to veganism.

(2019) Gen Z is going all-in for vegan
https://www.genzinsights.com/gen-z-is-g ... -for-vegan

(2018) Generation Z is driving a global shift towards a vegan world
https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/news ... gan-world/

(2019) The Food World's Next Big Question: What Does Generation Z Want To Eat?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinem ... nt-to-eat/
So mention of automation, educating woman, geologic timetable predictions, not blaming, but blaming… leaves the issue of eating animals = murder as seemingly answered. It was agreed this is murder? So, now tangential reasoning as to why? (understanding this is among the forum’s most sensitive topics, derailed/disbanded elsewhere, until extreme decisive politics distracted further for some years…)
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Neil Wallace »

Depends on definition of immoral. Quick trawl of internet gives a definition as :

not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

At the moment the majority seem to eat meat so its not immoral in that it conforms with accepted standards of moraity.

That's not saying much - It wasnt immoral to keep slaves in roman times.

Probably better to use adjectives like --I find it in my opinion loathesome and disgusting. Curiously, these definitions seem to have more philosophical truth than calling it "immoral"
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14993
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

Neil Wallace wrote: October 5th, 2021, 11:39 am Depends on definition of immoral. Quick trawl of internet gives a definition as :

not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

At the moment the majority seem to eat meat so its not immoral in that it conforms with accepted standards of morality.

That's not saying much - It wasnt immoral to keep slaves in roman times.
That is a fair summary of the situation. Then again, there's tens of millions of slaves today. In a sense, people in debt who are working in jobs that barely pay the bills are functionally living in servitude, which is proportionally a much higher number. One can say that these wage slaves enjoy better conditions that slaves of the past. One can only hope that the animals enslaved under concentration camp conditions will enjoy an equivalent upgrade of living conditions.
User avatar
Aristocles
Premium Member
Posts: 508
Joined: April 20th, 2015, 8:15 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Aristocles »

Sounds like we are saying it is moral to murder… Yes, prima facia, seems to be a problem with terms. Likewise, there may have been a time we believed it was moral to have slaves. Now, it is moral to be a debt slave. More accurately perhaps, we blur the defining boundaries of what life is, what it means to be a slave, etc. Then we may say it is not ethical to murder, to promote slavery, etc. Then we look to better define “ethic.” We ask google, or better, we examine history critically. We then come to the age old measuring art, better weighing good and bad, lessening confounding…. We see we do the measuring art with every single action, may not realize it, but we do it, sometimes we do it better, all in the measure and ancient form of art (science). Once we measure, the things we formerly did not question, long enough (the time since this thread began), we see more clearly that our entire process of eating animals leaves much to be desired (not good).
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14993
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

Aristocles wrote: December 19th, 2021, 7:42 pmOnce we measure, the things we formerly did not question, long enough (the time since this thread began), we see more clearly that our entire process of eating animals leaves much to be desired (not good).
The other issue is that we are mostly only speaking of the mindless cruelty in our own backyards. The East, aside from India, is no better, and the East has many of the world's people. Further, when the west has previously aired humanitarian concerns to China and other eastern nations, eg. Japan, it only seems to prompt them to dig in.

A wicked problem that can seemingly only be alleviated by inches.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: December 19th, 2021, 6:57 pm
Neil Wallace wrote: October 5th, 2021, 11:39 am Depends on definition of immoral. Quick trawl of internet gives a definition as :

not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

At the moment the majority seem to eat meat so its not immoral in that it conforms with accepted standards of morality.

That's not saying much - It wasnt immoral to keep slaves in roman times.
That is a fair summary of the situation. Then again, there's tens of millions of slaves today. In a sense, people in debt who are working in jobs that barely pay the bills are functionally living in servitude, which is proportionally a much higher number. One can say that these wage slaves enjoy better conditions that slaves of the past. One can only hope that the animals enslaved under concentration camp conditions will enjoy an equivalent upgrade of living conditions.
The two are related. The reason for factory farming is to attain volume on the cheap while sacrificing quality and safety. So cheap processed food of low quality is only appealing to folks who can only afford cheap food and are without the time and/resources to prepare food from scratch. Those are pretty good descriptions of your "wage slaves".
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14993
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote: December 20th, 2021, 4:03 am
Sy Borg wrote: December 19th, 2021, 6:57 pm
Neil Wallace wrote: October 5th, 2021, 11:39 am Depends on definition of immoral. Quick trawl of internet gives a definition as :

not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

At the moment the majority seem to eat meat so its not immoral in that it conforms with accepted standards of morality.

That's not saying much - It wasnt immoral to keep slaves in roman times.
That is a fair summary of the situation. Then again, there's tens of millions of slaves today. In a sense, people in debt who are working in jobs that barely pay the bills are functionally living in servitude, which is proportionally a much higher number. One can say that these wage slaves enjoy better conditions that slaves of the past. One can only hope that the animals enslaved under concentration camp conditions will enjoy an equivalent upgrade of living conditions.
The two are related. The reason for factory farming is to attain volume on the cheap while sacrificing quality and safety. So cheap processed food of low quality is only appealing to folks who can only afford cheap food and are without the time and/resources to prepare food from scratch. Those are pretty good descriptions of your "wage slaves".
True, it is a circular self-perpetuating situation. Climate change will only make matters worse, as food animals will struggle to survive outdoors, leading to factory conditions.

I expect that this wicked cycle will only be broken by a combination of technology (cheap, healthy and tasty lab grown meat) with a little help from a tiny proportion of the world's population becoming more aware of the ethics of the situation who can afford to make ethical food choices.
User avatar
Samantha Barnes 3
Premium Member
Posts: 20
Joined: December 15th, 2022, 1:41 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Samantha Barnes 3 »

I don't think it is murder to kill animals for food. Animals eat animals all the time; it is natural. With that being said, if animals are being killed it should be for a purpose, such as food, not just for fun.
User avatar
Aristocles
Premium Member
Posts: 508
Joined: April 20th, 2015, 8:15 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Aristocles »

Samantha Barnes 3 wrote: January 27th, 2023, 9:51 am I don't think it is murder to kill animals for food. Animals eat animals all the time; it is natural. With that being said, if animals are being killed it should be for a purpose, such as food, not just for fun.
Take home message:
Eating Samantha is moral, especially if it was not fun.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by value »

Reflecting on cruelty in nature should be no reason to justify cruelty in my opinion and it would also not justify the idea that cruelty is 'normal' for animals.

Henry David Thoreau's vision on the natural gradual moral enhancement of the human specie is also applicable to animals.

Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized.

It is seen in whales that they save other animals. Whales have been observed protecting other fish from attacking sharks and recently a marine biologist was protected against an attacking shark at open sea.

He kept putting his eye right next to me and I couldn’t figure out what he was trying to tell me. He eventually pushed me up right out of the water on his fin. Then I noticed a shark closeby and the whale was doing what it could to keep the shark away from me.”

Recent studies showed that plants behave altruistically (morally) and move leaves and roots to allow other plants to prosper besides them and they share food to plants that suffer hunger.

Trees Send Food to Hungry Neighbors of Different Species
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ar ... t-species/

Trees share water to keep this dying stump alive
https://www.science.org/content/article ... tump-alive

Never in history has an Orca attacked a human. Not even in folklore and old tales! Since Orca's hunt for seals, it is remarkable that they never made a mistake.

There are reports that Orca's saved people from drowning and from sharks at open sea. In old stories by sailors and more recent. The description of the survivors also shows something remarkable about their experience. They describe a special connection, as if 'communication took place' between the human and the Orca.

Orcas protected humans from sharks and saved drowning people at open sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ZkkHesyjg

Why Do Humpback Whales Protect Other Animals?
Humpbacks are capable of sophisticated thinking, decision-making, problem-solving, and communication, says Marino, the executive director of the Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy.

... these attributes are those of a species with a highly developed degree of general intelligence capable of empathic responses.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... -explained

Orca whales have more grey matter (neurons that supposedly make a human brain special when compared to animals) than humans and that may mean that their conscious experience is more profound then that of humans. (this should be investigated from a philosophical perspective!)

(2021) What do we know about intelligence in whales and dolphins?
"Could whales be as smart, if not smarter, than humans?
https://whalescientists.com/

It is evident in my opinion that animals attempt to be moral (wise) within their capacity. Morality simply requires a moral reasoning potential that needs to be facilitated in some way. That potential might provide the foundation for the idea that in a more moral world, animals would behave differently.

Barbarians reflect on cruelty in nature to fuel cruelty. Moral beings reflect on reason to become reasonable.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR »

Aristocles wrote: January 27th, 2023, 10:13 am
Samantha Barnes 3 wrote: January 27th, 2023, 9:51 am I don't think it is murder to kill animals for food. Animals eat animals all the time; it is natural. With that being said, if animals are being killed it should be for a purpose, such as food, not just for fun.
Take home message:
Eating Samantha is moral, especially if it was not fun.
Well morality is subjective so by definition Samantha's consumer feels it is moral. But post hoc declaration of morality is an extremely low bar. Hardly worth mentioning.
"As usual... it depends."
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