Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

JPD

Absolutely - what effect would speaking out against it have anyway? It won't stop it happening.

JPD

There are other possibilities - here your lack of awareness shows itself. You have assumed that I either (a) Buy my meat from a supermarket, or
(b) Go and kill animals.
In actuality, I purchase meat directly from the producers on our local farms.

JPD

You could be right - ultimately telling others what they should and shouldn't do has little or no effect. You will continue to not eat meat and I will continue to eat meat. It probably does come down to the fact that it is so delicious. I need no greater justification than that.

russ_watters

While I agree it is unimportant, the labeling of food and the existence of the GM food debate suggest a great many people do consider "natural" to be relevant (and in this argument, it has been claimed that a vegitarian diet is more "natural"). I once went into a "Whole Foods" grocery store without realizing what it was....

JPD

Did the mould inform you?

russ_watters

No, but try to find some 1%, Pasteurized, homogenized milk and some processed cheese and Wheat Thins at a Whole Foods...

And since its "all natural" (read: lower quality), it costs twice as much too! I wanted to vomit.

Dooga Blackrazor

Shumeo, this is an educated forum, you can't expect to be able to cut out what information suits you and not have people check where it originally came from.

The dictionary says "Of, relating to, or concerning nature." Nature is "The material world and its phenomena", and our environment (surroundings) is nature.

Hoarding animals isn't necessarily natural, I was making the point that what is found in nature is not necessarily right or most efficient. I never claimed to know about a vegan diet, and the trick you used to weaken my arguement was inappropriate for this debate. This thread is supposed to a logical debate where both sides present multiple views and respect each other. There is no point in trying to solve this problem, it isn't like meat-eating has any chance of winning - a vegetarian is not going to suddenly say, "Yes, I will be cruel to animals once again" and start eating meat. In fact, the opposite happened and I became vegetarian partly because of this thread. People can rationalize meat-eating, but it can never be proven better than vegetarianism.

Be Happy!

Russ,
I don't really understand why you fight SO hard to understand such simple arguements! Perhaps your desire to eat flesh is getting in the way of at least recognizing some of the sincere and noble reasons why people might want to not eat meat.

It really is simple, so if I may, here are all the reasons we should use our complex brain to CHOOSE (as we have a choice here) a diet that will be better for all life, our health and the planet.

In the US we slaughter 27 billion animals!

1) Whether you want to admit it or not, all farmed animals are capable of suffering. Farmed animals live horrible lives on factory farms and their death is quite painful as well. As I mentioned in a previous post, they live in filthy, crowded, and diseased conditions and are often slaughtered while they are still fully conscious. (pls see www.ChooseVegetarian.com for more details and if you would like to see these condition www.MeetYourMeat.com is a great site)

2) Imagine all the resources and energy it takes to raise animals for food! Over 70% of US land is used to grow crops to make animals fat!!! Half of all the water used goes to raise livestock...In cities where factory farms reside there are huge environmental catastrophies taking place. The recent book by the World Watch Institute (http://www.worldwatch.org)- The State of the World 2004, goes into much detail as to how animal agriculture is destroying the earth...oh and did I mention that the number one cause of rainforest destruction is cattle grazing to produce hamburgers! Once cattle have grazed, our precious rainforests become deserts forever!

3) No matter what you say, the vast majority of us do not hunt for our meat anymore though many people did thousands of years ago...mind you humans were cannibals too many thousands of years ago- but that's another point. As the China Study by Cornell University (which the New York Times called "The 'Grand Prix'...the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease...tantalizing findings" (http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject/)and many leading scientists and prominent doctors are reporting, eating meat (esp in the proportions that we do) is making us sick! (www.PCRM.org) Meat is pumped full of fat and cholesterol (not to mention antibiotics and growth hormones)- is there any wonder why every 40 sec someone falls down with a heart attack! Obesity and so many other diseases are rising in epidemic proportions...if you do a simple comparison of people in rural China for example- these people live on a plant based diet and do not suffer from the same diseases as us, they do have a few diseases yes, but *very* few and they are not as dangerous as ours.

I hope you see that we don't need to get into complicated justifications...and as I said before, vegetarianism is the best environmental, ethical and healthful decision for societal problems. Because ethics are only useful in my mind when we can apply them in our lives...the question (whilst putting all of our egos and desires aside) begs to ask itself- How are we to live to make this world a kinder and healthier place?

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
- Albert Einstein

Sincerely,
Sangeeta Kumar

P.S: "...if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow..."

The "logic" you use (if you want to call it that) in the cow and lion argument is completely meaningless- how does one follow from the other? Please explain.

Be Happy!

Hi All!

For those of you interested in some delicious recipes for this holiday season (whether you are a vegetarian or not) here is a great site! http://www.vegcooking.com/

Sincerely,
Sangeeta

loseyourname

He did explain it. He said that a cow either has a right to life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's right for anything to kill a cow. If a cow has a right to life, then it is wrong for anything to kill a cow, whether it be man or lion. We may not consider the lion morally culpable because lions are not generally considered to be moral agents, but that doesn't make its action right. By analogy, if a 3 year-old shoots her mother, we don't consider her morally culpable because she cannot tell right from wrong, but what she did is still wrong.

Why do I always find myself defending Russ? How come nobody ever seems to understand his arguments?

learningphysics

I doubt anyone else shares this belief. I don't think anyone or anything has an absolute "right to life". However, under certain circumstances, and at partiulcar moments in time, I'd say they had the right to life.

It's like saying: A person either has the right to smoke or doesn't. People have the right, in partiular circumstances, and in other circumstances they don't.

Anyway, no society in the world has this type of concept of an absolute right to life for humans. Under certain circumstances they say it's ok to kill a human (capital punishment, self defense etc...)

Dooga Blackrazor

Idealistically, it is wrong to kill a cow. This doesn't mean we should attempt to integrate all animals into society to protect them. Sometimes idealism conflicts with realism and a problem arises. Realistically, the animals might be doing the correct thing, because it is the only option avaliable - it is difficult to tell; however, humanity has evolved and is ready for a more logical vegetarian lifestyle.

physicsisphirst

what you wrote above was a defense??

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

jpd, i think that is a fairly reasonable assessment to some extent in this particular situation.
before i went lacto-ovo veg in 1972, i don't think i would have budged just because someone told me i shouldn't eat meat (on the otherhand, back then, there weren't too many people around to tell me either). what i had to do was learn about it for myself and understand the nutritional rationale for it (i really didn't think much about the ethics in those days). it took another bit of nutritional research in 1990 to make the transition to strict veg, but again not because people were telling me what to do - though there was a lot more information by then - and there were other veg folks that i could talk to and even see in action. still, i had to convince myself and i think that's what's probably fairly important.

one of the benefits of discussing it in a forum such as this is that people get to understand (and in some situations hear about for the first time) the veg side from veg folks (who probably know what it's about a bit better that the meaters LOL) - and then make up their own minds (like dooga did, for instance).

in any case, i wish you a good holiday season and look forward to continuing the discussion in a day or so!

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

First, I should note that, in many posts you do argue for a “healthy vegetarianism”. However, this is not at question. What is at question is, “Are you an ethical vegetarian?” The second question, is “Do you consider it morally wrong that any animal might eat meat?”

The answer to the first question is obviously, “Yes, you are an ethical vegetarian.” Although you almost explicitly deny this in post 898, and seem to deny it in post 786 (where you “are fine with” with my statement, “It is moral for an animal to eat meat” - a statement which you subsequently equivocate over in post 792), the fact is that you profess, promote, and approve the ethical vegetarian view.

You profess the ethical vegetarian view (that vegetarianism is the ethical choice) in posts 399, 409, 715, 718, 722, 742, 745, 746, 748, 751, 859, and 899. You do this based on the idea that all human beings have an ethical obligation to prevent animal suffering, and thus should not kill animals in order to eat them. Typical of your views on this are:
and
You promote the ethical vegetarian view by providing us with collections of ethical vegetarian quotes. You do this in posts 107 and 151.

You approve the ethical vegetarian position by systematically endorsing, (I would say, exclusively endorsing), those posts by participants who profess ethical vegetarian views. You do this in posts 812 (replying to Sangeeta), 835 (to Dooga Blackrazor), and 888 (Cogito).

So, there is no doubt that you are an ethical vegetarian. You say so, quite clearly, repeatedly, and in a variety of ways. It is not at all true, as you claim, that “the content of my posts have been for the most part that eating meat is bad for you purely on health grounds” (#898). Rather, a substantial part of your message (perhaps the majority of it) has been that vegetarianism is the ethical lifestyle.

As to the idea that “you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat”, this is demonstrated as follows: In post 743, you tell us that you have obliged your dogs to a vegetarian diet, and you analogize your relationship as one of moral authority like to that of a parent with a child. In post 763 you imply that a cheetah should be stopped from killing for food if there is “a large supply of veg catfood.” In this same post, you tell us that you prevent your cats from catching mice or birds (which you would still do even if you were allowed “to let cats stray”, right?). In post 859, you tell us that animals may not “eat as they please” (my words) because their prey has “certain basic rights” (your words) - and you morally equate the idea of animals eating as they please with cannibalism. In post 899, you countenance the idea of exterminating eagles and shooting lions in order to protect fish and deer from predation, only criticizing it on the grounds of unworkability. In the same post, you present us with an ideal of the world in which all humans do “our little bit” toward “reducing pain and suffering” in the whole animal kingdom, and an implicit goal of evolution that all nature should be released from the primitivity of predation. And frankly, I cannot see how one would believe that every animal has a right to be free from suffering and still not conclude that animals killing other animals is fundamentally wrong.

So, it is also clear that your ethical vegetarianism extends to animals – that your ideal is that no animal should ever kill and eat another animal – and that humans should be activists in enacting this vision.

Your core values and the essence of your position on meat eating have been evident from your very first posts in this thread. You seem to think that you have been an enigma. You have not. No-one has any doubt as to where you stand. In this regard, you have communicated yourself effectively – though you seem to have wished to appear mysterious.

What is baffling is the way you have toyed with me on the matter. Rather than being direct and honest about your views – views which every thread participant is well aware of – you have played a little game of hide and seek with me, obliging me to prove the obvious – like the two-year-old who hides by covering her eyes.

And what is the point of all this? Frankly, it strains charity to categorize your behavior toward me as respectful. I have gone a long way to extend an attitude of goodwill toward you – I am not at all unsympathetic toward ethical vegetarians – yet you have burdened my graces and encroached on the little bit of good will that we started with, all on what can only be called a pointless game. And for what? What does this accomplish?

The balance of your post is similarly troublesome. I will deal with it in a subsequent post.

P.S. Does anyone not know these things? I welcome the comments of anyone who thinks that I have mistakenly assessed physicsicphirst's position. I have been repeatedly accused of falsely attributing positions to people and “movements”. The above reasoning is the sort of method that I use to draw my conclusions (though better documented than is my wont on a forum). If anyone believes that I have falsely represented physicsisphirst's position, I welcome a reasoned response.

OneEye

As to your thorough but inaccurate post regarding my tendency to make false attributions:

The fact is that every one of your complaints was actually answered in the original post which you cite. Apparently, you examined these posts thoroughly enough to form a complaint but not thoroughly enough to recognize that your complaint lacked merit.

In my original post on this subtopic, I pointed out substantial differences between humans and animals which call this particular point into serious question. You have never dealt with those substantial differences. I did not simply make a claim, I made a series of observations and drew a conclusion. (And for the record, No, I have not read Masson's book, but I am well-familiar with these arguments, having once been a proponent of those same arguments. Yes, I know who Washoe and Koko were! I have close relatives who are still where I once was on the issue of the “humanity” of animals – but for myself, I have left that view behind.)

Again, you seem to have willfully missed the point, to wit: We cannot prove the existence of awareness in animals; evidence exists which draws a substantial distinction between humans and animals on the question of awareness; therefore, any definite conclusion must rest on presumption rather than evidence. I did not say that animals are unaware (though I believe this to be the case) – just that you are making an unwarranted assumption.

Hmmm. Let's see: physicsisphirst post #792: “when stated differently (not the way you are doing it), they [my statements] can be considered to be correct for ethical vegetarians.” So apparently, you don't disagree that my assertions substantially represent the ethical vegetarian view (and, I would say, every existing animal rights construct). You just want me to use your particular turn of phrase – and that will make it valid? (But honestly, I doubt that any turn of phrase will suit you, so long as I am doing the writing.)

Post 749: You claim that my premisses are not animal rights premisses (so also in subsequent posts). Post 792: You admit that my premisses are, substantially, animal rights premisses – especially, of the ethical vegetarian kind. Hmmmm.

(1) My statements of the case are accurate representations of the animal rights position. You, yourself, have made a careful study of showing yourself to agree (or at least, not disagree) with every premiss I have put forward – because you know that I am making a true representation of the case – as you admit in post 792. (2) The reason that the 4-point syllogism had become useless for the discussion was because some participants were redefining the terms contrary to my use of them – a fact which you already knew, and were reacquainted with, if you read my post (771, which you cite) at all. This is why I restated the syllogism in a simpler, 3-point form which was harder to play word games with. The 4-point syllogism remains both an accurate rendition of the animal rights position, and a cogent demonstration of a contradiction inherent to the animal rights position.

My concession about the “an/any” distinction was intended to help you out of a jam. During the discussion, it became clear that you did not understand concepts of basic logic – as you demonstrated in your bobbling of a simple Barbara argument. You could not recognize or critique a simple modus ponens argument, and you did not know the difference between a valid argument and a true argument. This was a tremendous discredit to you (might even be considered a disqualification), but rather than exploiting your lack of knowledge and making a spectacle out of you, I chose to allow you to escape the embarrassment through your (extraordinary) “an/any” distinction. I now have reason to regret the fact that I gave you a gentleman's chance - especially since you are now misusing my good graces to criticize me.

In your post, you expend a great deal of effort in attempting to demonstrate the claim that I make baseless attributions. But I am not in the habit of posting unreasoned conclusions. The reasoning for my conclusions is always included with the conclusion. You may disagree with my reasoning, or with my conclusion, but you cannot honestly accuse me of unfounded allegations.

I must also say that I do not believe that you have treated my postings in a respectful or thoughtful manner. I am very careful to ascertain my position before posting it, and to thoroughly argue and substantiate my case. I do not post hastily or casually. May I respectfully request that you spend little more time in understanding my posts before critiquing them? All of your criticisms (above) could have been avoided had you considered what I posted with adequate care.

Finally, may I respectfully request that we move on from this line of discussion? It amounts only to an elaborate ad hominem tactic. If you find it too difficult or distasteful to engage me in reasonable discussion, I will understand. But if you intend to converse with me, I will greatly appreciate it if you do so in a reasonable manner: Please, either deal with me substantially, or don't deal with me at all.

OneEye

Just to make myself clear:

I am against cruelty to animals, and especially against the wanton destruction of animals. I do not let my wife kill bugs (except flies, mosquitos, and ticks) - not even spiders. I often take spiders pill bugs, millipedes, and crickets outside the house and set them free. But I do not consider killing and eating animals to be wanton destruction nor (if done properly) cruelty.

I have several relatives who are vegetarians. When I eat with ethical vegetarians, I eat what they are eating, and don't shove my meat eating in their faces. I am sensitive to their concerns and scruples.

I have several times considered switching to a vegetarian diet. However, I do not feel compelled by the ethical argument, and the health argument simply doesn't work for me at all (more on that later). But I have seriously considered whether I should switch to a vegetarian diet. And so far, I have concluded (after due gravity) that I need not and should not.