78 replies to this topic

[Twilight]

It is true that we should not "unnecessarily" harm animals, and that eating meat is not strictly "necessary". Eating meat is not necessary for my survival, but it is necessary for me to maximize my health and pleasure. Going out into a field and randomly shooting cows for fun on the other hand, would not be ethical -- not because the cows have any rights, but because it would be an unproductive and malevolent action on my part. (Not to mention a property rights violation if I didn't own the cows!)

I do not believe vegetarians understand what happens when an animal is brought in for slaughter. First they are shipped to the slaughter house. There, they are kept in stalls or an open field and fed normally and watered normally. There is absolutely no cruelty involved before or after they are brought to the house. Then they are lined up in a cattle shute and they are tagged in the back of the head by an electrical shock that shuts down their brain. It is similar to a taser. Their body falls limp, without feeling, and they are hung by their ankles from the ceiling while they are bled out. There is no pain whatsoever involved in slaughtering an animal which will exclude your reason of "pain and suffering".

Biologically, humans are meant to seek nourishment from both animals and plants. Humans are omnivorous. They need meat, poultry, and fish in their pursuit of happy, healthful lives. The vegetarians, who have recruited scientists to convince us that we can healthfully satisfy our nutritive needs without meat, are preaching sacrificing our need for meat for the sake of animals we need to slaughter for food. I am in strong disagreement with vegetarians.

[Darkademic]

Yes, the fact that it is "unecessary" does not logically mean that it is morally wrong to eat meat. If this were the case then driving a car would be morally wrong, wearing clothes would be morally wrong, owning anything that doesn't keep you alive directly would be morally wrong.

The remaining argument is that it is cruel - but as you have illustrated it is not.

Meat is looovely.

[Parquay]

I fully agree. Meat tastes nice. If the animals aren't cruely treated... then it's ok. But things like, is it battery chickens..? I don't like the idea of that... Plus, I'm sure if the animals were able to, they would farm, kill and eat us too...

[Twilight]

I fully agree. Meat tastes nice. If the animals aren't cruely treated... then its ok. But things like, is it battery chickens..? I don't like the idea of that... Plus, I'm sure if the animals were able to, they would farm, kill and eat us too...

Exactly. It's nature. Carnivorous animals eat other animals, why should humans be any different?

As for "battery chickens" I assume you mean where they are all crammed into small cages with between 3 and 7 other birds and left unable to excersise etc.? Well I suppose it is unecessary and "cruel", but I think people personify animals far too much. Animals are not rational beings, they are instinctive. They do not possess self-awareness and so the moral connotations of cruelty cannot be directly applied to animals. Though the whole subject of "animal awareness" is debated by scientists and philosophers and we wouldn't be able to reach a conclusion if we decided to discuss it.

[Insathius]

Ok, well I thought I would put my point across since it doesn't seem like anyone is defending the other side.

I was raised a vegetarian since birth really, my dad has never fed me meat of any kind. I am not a vegetarian now however, as much as I would like to be there is just too much effort involved I like the feeling of being able to enter any restauraunt and order whatever I like.

However, the way I see vegetarianism (in my opinion): You can say that humans need to eat from both plant and animal since this is how we have evolved, however the way I see it is that vegetarians are basically trying to surpass the need to eat from animals I.e evolve beyond what we are now. As for cruelty and need, well we have proven we can make fake meat and survive perfectly without meat, therefore is it nessasary to kill animals? I agree though, it is not done in a cruel way from the way you describe it, however shouldn't the mere fact of us killing them for our own greed be cruel? Should we not just take natures example and kill for our need and not greed?

As I said before, I am not a vegetarian, I love meat. I'm just trying to bounce a few ideas around.

[Prophet]

I'm not usually one to necro, but there's no harm in reigniting an old debate - especially now there are so many more members in the guild who can add their two cents.

I was raised vegetarian, not a single animal product came anywhere near me for the first 13 years of my life. My mothers side of the family is a mix of vegetarian and vegan. Back then, I was a rebellious little blighter, and was annoyed by the fact that I was forbidden to even try meat. So, naturally, I tried meat. Bacon, to be precise. I never looked back.

However, this doesn't mean that I think eating meat is moral; It's not. There's no two ways about it, in my eyes.

Yes, the fact that it is "unecessary" does not logically mean that it is morally wrong to eat meat. If this were the case then driving a car would be morally wrong, wearing clothes would be morally wrong, owning anything that doesn't keep you alive directly would be morally wrong.

The remaining argument is that it is cruel - but as you have illustrated it is not.

Meat is looovely.

The argument is not that "things that are unnecessary are morally wrong", it's that "unnecessarily ending a life is wrong". Which it is, and I fail to see how any sane person can argue with that. Would it be morally wrong to line up people in a cattle shute, tag them in the back of the head with an electrical shock that shuts down their brain and hang them by their ankles from the ceiling while they are bled out? Of course it would. The remaining argument is that it is cruel - but as you have illustrated it is not. There is no pain whatsoever involved in slaughtering a human which will exclude your reason of "pain and suffering".

I can imagine the first response to this will be, "but they're only animals! Humans are more important."

I'm not stupid, of course I value the life of a human being more highly than, say, a dog. But, as you said yourself: It is true that we should not "unnecessarily" harm animals, and that eating meat is not strictly "necessary"
If it's not necessary for a human to kill an animal, then why would it be moral? Why would the fact a human life is valued higher than that of an animal, give the human a right to unnecessarily end it's life?

I disagree with what you said about meat being necessary to maximise your health and pleasure. As Insathius said, we can make artificial meat, we can survive perfectly without it, that is a fact. It is completely untrue that meat is necessary to "maximise your health" and Carl Lewis is living proof of that.
As for pleasure, if you believe that the momentary gluttonous joy you get from a hamburger is worth the life of an animal...

Anyway, that's enough from me. I want to hear what everyone else has to say on the matter.

Edited by Prophet, 10 May 2012 - 11:29 am.

[Tomill]

We're too far into using animals now to all turn off meat, look up a list of products made from cow products, it's insane what we get from cows - medicines, clothes, chewing gum, delicious steaks. So long as this is going on, theres no reason to not eat meat, the animals are going to die anyway as we use a hell of alot of detergents and fertilizers made from animals in other food production. May aswell enjoy the meaty side products.

Personally, because of this, I don't really see any problem with eating meat, being a vegan these days seems to entail avoiding the obvious animal products, but will probably take therapeutic medicines and chew chewing gum as they don't know about the animal products, or life is easier by ignoring the contents of those products. Or the fact that, saw, animal urines is a primary phosphate and nitrate provider in some fertilisers.

No it's not necessary to eat meat, but we're hard wired to crave fat and protein, as they're not as readily available in the wild, this makes it so delicious.
Also, though we do eat alot more meat than we should and waste too much land and energy on animal production, removing them completely would be just as inefficient as our current system.
We originally raised animals as there was lots of land that crops couldn't grow on but animals can survive on, so we filled in the gaps with the animals.

IThe argument is not that "things that are unnecessary are morally wrong", it's that "unnecessarily ending a life is wrong". Which it is, and I fail to see how any sane person can argue with that. Would it be morally wrong to line up people in a cattle shute, tag them in the back of the head with an electrical shock that shuts down their brain and hang them by their ankles from the ceiling while they are bled out? Of course it would. The remaining argument is that it is cruel - but as you have illustrated it is not. There is no pain whatsoever involved in slaughtering a human which will exclude your reason of "pain and suffering".

I can imagine the first response to this will be, "but they're only animals! Humans are more important."

I'm not stupid, of course I value the life of a human being more highly than, say, a dog. But, as you said yourself: It is true that we should not "unnecessarily" harm animals, and that eating meat is not strictly "necessary"
If it's not necessary for a human to kill an animal, then why would it be moral? Why would the fact a human life is valued higher than that of an animal, give the human a right to unnecessarily end it's life?

I disagree with what you said about meat being necessary to maximise your health and pleasure. As Insathius said, we can make artificial meat, we can survive perfectly without it, that is a fact. It is completely untrue that meat is necessary to "maximise your health" and Carl Lewis is living proof of that.
As for pleasure, if you believe that the momentary gluttonous joy you get from a hamburger is worth the life of an animal...

Anyway, that's enough from me. I want to hear what everyone else has to say on the matter.

No it's not moral, but nothing about food consumption is moral. It's naturally selective and brutal, but we have to look past morality to prosper. People don't seem to have a problem with cats and dogs eating meat products from the same animals we eat. Or even further than that, fish eating other fish. Or birds eating mice and insects, or even parasitoids devouring their prey from the inside out. It's the natural world and like us, they're not caring about morals, just eating.
We treat animals the way we do in food production because it's efficient, it maximises profits and the amount of product per animal. It's not nice but that's just the way it is.
People are always focusing on the feelings of the animals, but we don't think like them, we have our own umwelt, so we can't compare. What you should focus on is the ecological impact. Everything about our food production is damaging the environment through run off of fertilisers, to crops and pesticides driving native plants to extinction, and when one species goes it inevitably leads to another few species dying. If you care about animals feelings, think about the animals were driving to extinction even before we decide if we're going to eat the food stuffs ourself or feed them to livestock to eat.

So yes, eating meat is morally wrong, but eating at all is morally wrong, doesn't mean I'm going to stop.

Oh, also, artificial meat isn't feasible ATM and requires about 3x more energy than beef to produce from what I remember, so if you eat exclusively artificial meat than you have worse morals than any of us bacon eaters.

Edit: Who is Carl Lewis and why is he important?

Edited by Tomill, 10 May 2012 - 12:16 pm.

[ZeCooL]

@ Prophet, You used the word "wrong", so I will have to venture into morals a little bit. I believe that the moral system you are using is rather inaccurate and unfounded. It has been spoon fed to us by theologists of an ideal world in their mind which does not relate to the "real" "truths" of this world in any way. I will not continue to discuss them however as the subject here is different.

You stated that "unnecessarily ending a life is wrong". Yet you do not define "life" or "necessity" at all.

On life:

Why is it that ending the "life" of a cow is wrong while ending the lives of millions of micro-organisms by using air fresheners are not wrong? Why is cutting down trees is not as frowned upon as slaughtering an animal? If you look at it from an outside point of view, even killing a small fish is more accepted than killing a large fish. Why?

Because our specie-preservation instincts generally resent killing another human to preserve our species. The instincts also trigger when we deal with the slaughter of "thing" which resembles humans. The stronger the resemblance the more we detest it's slaughter.

There is not anything "revered" about life, the way they spoon feed it to you. It is just some natural instinct that you have.

If you thrive to preserve all life due to your moral grounds, which I highly doubt anyone does because it is against nature, then your points on preserving "life" are valid based on your morals. If not you have to reconsider.

On necessity:

"Necessity" is just a concept designed by idealists to explain and get away with fulfilling their desires. If you think about it nothing is a necessity in the way you use it. I dare you to do this: Make a list of the "wrong" things the idealists feed you. Look at your life or someone's life that you think strive their best to follow their idealistic morals. You will notice they will cross their morals a thousand time a day for unnecessary things. Is it necessary to wear clothes and harm animals/plants by doing it? Is it necessary to life in buildings and damage nature by it? Is it necessary to consume as much food as they do and use earth's resources by it? NO.

Because "Necessity" is a self fabricated concept designed to satisfy your conscious which was fed by idealistic fallacies to satisfy it's needs. There is no necessity, humans have needs and desires. Sometimes those desires conflict with their moral values. In that case they should reconsider their moral values or their desires and solve the paradox, not to design a flawed concept like "necessity" to get away with biased moral values and desires which have undesired outcomes.

On inflicting pain:

"Inflicting pain" is just another unfounded value humans try to hold in fear of being hurt themselves. "Inflicting pain" on itself shall not be considered immoral. A surgeon inflicts pain to the patient. A woman will suffer pain when giving birth, thus both her husband and her child have caused her pain. It is not "inflicting pain" that is immoral. It is "hurting other beings for the sole purpose of hurting them", in other words "torture" that is immoral and the fear of that which has led idealists to wrongly dub "pain" a bad name.

After all, with new techniques animals don't receive much pain when being murdered, even if they do it is not more than they would in their daily lives just by accidents.

So after all, I say, Vegetarianism based on "we should not "unnecessarily" harm or kill animals, and that eating meat is not strictly necessary. " is an unfounded moral value and not accepted by me.

[Tomill]

@ Prophet, You used the word "wrong", so I will have to venture into morals a little bit. I believe that the moral system you are using is rather inaccurate and unfounded. It has been spoon fed to us by theologists of an ideal world in their mind which does not relate to the "real" "truths" of this world in any way. I will not continue to discuss them however as the subject here is different.

You stated that "unnecessarily ending a life is wrong". Yet you do not define "life" or "necessity" at all.

This.

I love you ZeCool.

[Darkademic]

@ZeCool - Overall, a very good post, but a couple of points:

Because "Necessity" is a self fabricated concept designed to satisfy your conscious which was fed by idealistic fallacies to satisfy it's needs. There is no necessity, humans have needs and desires.

Necessity implies the question "necessary for what?", in exactly the same way needs imply the question "needed for what?" Even desires are driven by some underlying impetus, whether rational, emotional or even purely sensational (e.g. hunger).

I would argue that one's own life is the standard by which all actions and values must be judged, and on that basis it is absurd to suggest that eating meat is immoral due to it being "unecessary", because that would mean everything beyond the bare minimum for survival (a very small amount of food and fluids) is also be immoral.

Something is only immoral if it is self-destructive. This includes violating the rights of others - because aside from all of the contradictions it entails, it is a surrender of one's own rights and leaves one open to retaliation.

So the real question is whether animals have rights or not. Since it is my view that rights are derived from a capacity to reason, and animals cannot reason, animals do not have rights.

[Prophet]

@ZeCool

An interesting read. I have realised that I may have approached this in the wrong way, or at least, I should have mentioned that this is not my view.
In fact, I wouldn't even consider it a correct view. I made that post based on the way society views the issue.

Personally, I don't think that morals can exist objectively. Morality is an entirely subjective concept. I believe it is false to say, "killing is always morally wrong", because that which is right, and that which is wrong, changes based on who you ask. There is no 'black and white', there is only gray.

You'll notice that while I put forward an argument against the eating of meat, I also mentioned that I do eat meat. The point of view I put forward is not mine; it is that which I believe is held by the general public. You did a brillant job of breaking it down and refuting it, and quite rightly.

But the "average" person could not make an argument like that. The "average" person could not even comprehend some of the points you raised. Unfortunately, society is the average. I raised the argument as an average member of society, and was looking for a response from the same.

@Dark
 

Since it is my view that rights are derived from a capacity to reason, and animals cannot reason, animals do not have rights.

I just wanted to bring attention to this, as I thought it was an interesting point.

I would argue that the severely mentally challenged, and those in a coma, do not have a capacity to reason; do they not have the same rights as us?

Also, could you elaborate on this:

 

Something is only immoral if it is self-destructive. This includes violating the rights of others - because aside from all of the contradictions it entails, it is a surrender of one's own rights and leaves one open to retaliation.

What makes you say this? To me, the belief that violating the rights of others surrenders the rights of the self would imply a belief that morality is objective, or even that legality and morality are intertwined.

[Tomill]

Necessity implies the question "necessary for what?", in exactly the same way needs imply the question "needed for what?" Even desires are driven by some underlying impetus, whether rational, emotional or even purely sensational (e.g. hunger).

I would argue that one's own life is the standard by which all actions and values must be judged, and on that basis it is absurd to suggest that eating meat is immoral due to it being "unecessary", because that would mean everything beyond the bare minimum for survival (a very small amount of food and fluids) is also be immoral.

Completely agree with this. If not requiring to eat meat but doing it anyway is immoral than by that logic, nearly everything done by humanity for the past 100-200 years has been immoral. Though alot of it is immoral, it's immoral for different reasons which aren't really relevant.

Something is only immoral if it is self-destructive. This includes violating the rights of others - because aside from all of the contradictions it entails, it is a surrender of one's own rights and leaves one open to retaliation.

So the real question is whether animals have rights or not. Since it is my view that rights are derived from a capacity to reason, and animals cannot reason, animals do not have rights.

Could you simplify what you mean by you statement on immorality? I don't really get it (your too clever for me!), from what I personally believe, basing my beliefs off of the two great ones (Bill and Ted), we should all try to be excellent to each other, intentionally doing the opposite is what I would consider immoral (I realise this is a thread about hurting/eating animals but I justify that to myself through evolutionary and delicious means).

You shouldn't say out right that animals lack the capacity to reason as we cannot experience the world the way they can (the umwelt idea). From our perspective they cannot reason, I agree with you on that, but making direct statements about something we cannot experience is the path to the darkside (religion).

I would argue that the severely mentally challenged, and those in a coma, do not have a capacity to reason; do they not have the same rights as us?

People with severe mental handicaps differ from farm animals in that they are certified humans and so have rights afforded to them by protocols in the Geneva Convention. We as humans have already decided what defines a human and what basic rights this entails, so we don't really need to go into this. Also, mentally handicapped people and those in comas don't have the same rights as us, they demand constant care and attention, and also lack the ability to vote among other things. They aren't any less human, but have fewer ways to contribute to society.

Edit: seriously, what has Carl Lewis got to do with this discussion? It's really bugging me.

Edited by Tomill, 10 May 2012 - 03:13 pm.

[Darkademic]

I would argue that the severely mentally challenged, and those in a coma, do not have a capacity to reason; do they not have the same rights as us?

If someone in a coma doesn't have rights, then someone who is asleep also doesn't have rights. Rights cannot be based on the capacity to reason from moment to moment. In the same way, we wouldn't treat a laptop as junk just because it is turned off.

I would say that to the extent a person does not have a rational faculty is the extent to which they don't have rights. I haven't thought about the issue enough to say more than that. Here is a very interesting discussion where Objectivists (like myself) debate whether mentally retarded people have rights: http://forum.objecti...showtopic=18955

What makes you say this? To me, the belief that violating the rights of others surrenders the rights of the self would imply a belief that morality is objective, or even that legality and morality are intertwined.

In my view, morality is objective, and the law should be a reflection of morality.

[DeanAdamFry]

Here is a very interesting discussion where Objectivists (like myself) debate whether mentally retarded people have rights: http://forum.objecti...showtopic=18955

Off-topic but of course mentally retarded people have rights, why wouldn't someone who has an intellectual disability not have any rights? If that was the case then does that mean I don't have rights since I'm mentally disabled (Autism)?

[Darkademic]

Could you simplify what you mean by you statement on immorality? I don't really get it (your too clever for me!), from what I personally believe, basing my beliefs off of the two great ones (Bill and Ted), we should all try to be excellent to each other, intentionally doing the opposite is what I would consider immoral (I realise this is a thread about hurting/eating animals but I justify that to myself through evolutionary and delicious means).

Well first you have to ask "what is morality, and why do we need it?" It is a code of values to guide our choices and actions. Humans cannot survive automatically (by instinct) as animals do, we must survive by means of a volitional use of reason. Before we can decide how to act, we need a standard. Any and all actions require us first to be alive, therefore all actions can be judged according to whether they benefit our life or not. Any actions which are self-destructive are contradictory because they are destroying that which is necessary for them to be possible in the first place. Life vs death is the fundamental alternative we face, and every action or value ultimately rests upon life as a prerequesite.

[Tomill]

Off-topic but of course mentally retarded people have rights, why wouldn't someone who has an intellectual disability not have any rights? If that was the case then does that mean I don't have rights since I'm mentally disabled (Autism)?

Of course you have rights! people with handicaps do have rights, though in some cases it's decided to deligate these rights to other people or take them away for the good of the person. I think the problem we're having here is we're debating complex and delicate things and so one wrong word can completely change the context of what someone is trying to say and how it's taken by other people. But I think everyone in the guild can agree that people with disabilities are still people with equal rights to any other person.

Any and all actions require us first to be alive, therefore all actions can be judged according to whether they benefit our life or not. Any actions which are self-destructive are contradictory because they are destroying that which is necessary for them to be possible in the first place. Life vs death is the fundamental alternative we face, and every action or value ultimately rests upon life as a prerequesite.

This was the bit I didn't get, thanks for putting it in a better light. Makes sense but I'm still going to live by the philosophy: "Be excellent to each other." It's worked well so far.