Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Eating Animals

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3143
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR » December 30th, 2016, 12:53 am

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


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.
Of course not. No one protests more about public assistance for others than those who are adept at dodging their own responsibilities.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7435
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Greta » December 30th, 2016, 1:08 am

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

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.
Of course not. No one protests more about public assistance for others than those who are adept at dodging their own responsibilities.
Which brings us back to the observation of Spiral (et al) that might is right. Justice appears ever more to just be a happy fluke rather than an imperative.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3143
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR » December 30th, 2016, 4:19 am

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


Of course not. No one protests more about public assistance for others than those who are adept at dodging their own responsibilities.
Which brings us back to the observation of Spiral (et al) that might is right. Justice appears ever more to just be a happy fluke rather than an imperative.
Justice implies impartiality. Impartiality requires the ability to judge against one's own interest, if required. This is an uncommon trait, though not an impossible one. Perhaps more frequent than pure chance (since it used to be held in high regard and children were taught to try to emulate it) but getting less common all of the time. I blame the Internet.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7435
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Greta » December 30th, 2016, 3:56 pm

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

Which brings us back to the observation of Spiral (et al) that might is right. Justice appears ever more to just be a happy fluke rather than an imperative.
Justice implies impartiality. Impartiality requires the ability to judge against one's own interest, if required. This is an uncommon trait, though not an impossible one. Perhaps more frequent than pure chance (since it used to be held in high regard and children were taught to try to emulate it) but getting less common all of the time. I blame the Internet.
:lol: I'll blame population.

Pertinent point about working against one's own interests. It does appear that today's populace is far from uniformly interested in sacrificing their lifestyles today for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5011
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Spiral Out » December 30th, 2016, 4:41 pm

Let's say we eliminate the mass-production meat industry and nobody eats meat anymore. What is the proposed new food source that will meet the nutritional needs of the entire planet?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7435
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Greta » December 30th, 2016, 4:44 pm

Spiral Out wrote:Let's say we eliminate the mass-production meat industry and nobody eats meat anymore. What is the proposed new food source that will meet the nutritional needs of the entire planet?
No need to go that far. How about people tend more towards eating a healthy quantity of meat? If meat prices truly reflected the costs to the entire community of the meat industry, then perhaps that would happen.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5011
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Spiral Out » December 30th, 2016, 10:57 pm

Greta wrote:
Spiral Out wrote:Let's say we eliminate the mass-production meat industry and nobody eats meat anymore. What is the proposed new food source that will meet the nutritional needs of the entire planet?
No need to go that far. How about people tend more towards eating a healthy quantity of meat? If meat prices truly reflected the costs to the entire community of the meat industry, then perhaps that would happen.
Well now we're getting into very subjective judgements indeed. How much is a "healthy quantity of meat", and for whom is it healthy? How do you imagine the meat industry to change with people eating a "healthy quantity of meat"?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2037
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Felix » December 30th, 2016, 11:28 pm

Greta just addressed that question, Spiral Out. She said: "How about people tend more towards eating a healthy quantity of meat? If meat prices truly reflected the costs to the entire community of the meat industry, then perhaps that would happen."

As I said on my post #718: " Eliminate the billions of dollars of government subsidies given to the meat industry (fruit and vegetable crops are not subsidized) and see how economically feasible they are then. See: https://goo.gl/pSgTMs "
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7435
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Greta » December 31st, 2016, 12:35 am

Spiral Out wrote:How much is a "healthy quantity of meat" ...?
Generally, an amount and type that won't significantly increase the risk of bowel cancer.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5011
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by Spiral Out » January 1st, 2017, 9:43 am

Greta wrote:
Spiral Out wrote:How much is a "healthy quantity of meat" ...?
Generally, an amount and type that won't significantly increase the risk of bowel cancer.
That's not an answer, that's a dodge, and it proves my point quite well. You'll have to leave the judgement of what the "proper" amount (and type) of meat is up to the individual as it is yet just another subjective determination. That is, there is no scientific basis behind your suggestion. Therefore, it would have to be an all-or-nothing deal. So I'll ask again, what will the replacement food source be that will meet the nutritional needs of the entire planet?

I'm presuming the new meatless diet would necessarily have to be strictly plant-based, but then you'd run into the critical problems I'd outlined previously.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3143
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR » January 4th, 2017, 4:35 pm

Moving from a greater to a lesser dependence of a less efficient calorie source (in production) will not require fancy technology to produce more calories for the planet, it will happen automatically.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
ThamiorTheThinker
Posts: 281
Joined: October 21st, 2015, 9:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Yoda

Re: Eating Animals

Post by ThamiorTheThinker » January 6th, 2017, 7:17 pm

My point, SpiralOut, was that large, powerful groups (like the Nazis) propagated and enforced intolerable acts like enslavement, genocide and eugenics. By your reasoning, since they were large, powerful groups, they needed no justification for their actions.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3143
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR » January 7th, 2017, 1:21 pm

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:My point, SpiralOut, was that large, powerful groups (like the Nazis) propagated and enforced intolerable acts like enslavement, genocide and eugenics. By your reasoning, since they were large, powerful groups, they needed no justification for their actions.
That depends on your use of the word "need". From a practical (and thus moral) standpoint large powerful groups can use that power as a de facto mandate to do whatever they please. From an ethical standpoint (what you are insinuating), you are correct, power does not apply.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
ThamiorTheThinker
Posts: 281
Joined: October 21st, 2015, 9:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Yoda

Re: Eating Animals

Post by ThamiorTheThinker » January 14th, 2017, 9:09 pm

And I was indeed talking about the ethical standpoint, LuckyR.

-- Updated January 14th, 2017, 9:12 pm to add the following --

What is able to be done is not what should be done, ethically speaking. SpiralOut was appealing to the idea that we are able to overpower, outsmart other organisms and the fact that we have a desire to in order to reach their conclusion that it's ethically PERMISSIBLE to kill and eat animals.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3143
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Eating Animals

Post by LuckyR » January 16th, 2017, 2:02 pm

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:And I was indeed talking about the ethical standpoint, LuckyR.

-- Updated January 14th, 2017, 9:12 pm to add the following --

What is able to be done is not what should be done, ethically speaking. SpiralOut was appealing to the idea that we are able to overpower, outsmart other organisms and the fact that we have a desire to in order to reach their conclusion that it's ethically PERMISSIBLE to kill and eat animals.
Spiral's logic is sound, though limited. It is ethically permissible to kill and eat animals. Having said that there are many nuances within the topic that will limit and/or supercede that general comment.
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply