Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[OneEye]

As I was kneeling beside the Briggs engine in the equipment shed, a medium-sized black cat came out from somewhere in the dim rearward portions of the building. It mewed cheerfully, and with only a little hesitation, came up to me and let me pet it. I did this for a minute, the cat and me both enjoying ourselves, and then I went back to work. And so did the cat.

A half hour passed, but suddenly, while I was gapping the points, the cat reappeared. I didn't look at it immediately, but I could tell by its short, insistent mews that something was up. Once I had verified the point gap, I looked up in the cat's direction. Sure enough, he had a rodent (a mouse, probably, but maybe a vole) in his mouth. He was pretty excited about this, and when he saw that I was looking, he dropped the mouse on the floor and mewed at me, asking for approval.

"Good kitty," I said, as I toed the dead rodent with my right foot. I spent only a second at this (in fact, I do not enjoy looking at dead mice), then went back to work. The cat did the expected: He brought the mouse over to me, hunkered down by the wire roller frame, and quickly gorged the mouse down. He left nary a whisker.

Question: Did the cat do the right thing?
Corollary: Did I?

This may seem to be a pointless tangent, but it actually is crucial information. If you answer my questions, please also identify whether you are an animal rights advocate, a vegetarian, a meat eater, or anti-animal rights.

 

[physicsisphirst]

suffering no matter where or how, is bad?but what we can do to reduce it is what is the issue at hand.
...
the concept of rights is most useful when it can be enforced by a group of individuals such as a government, a moral community, individual actions, etc.
...
I am sure you do not draw you morality by the behavior of non-human animals, so why are you trying to do it here just to justify eating meat?
...
No matter how you look at it, vegetarianism is the moral answer for many of the atrocities of our times.

what an outstanding post, sangeeta!
you have dealt with several issues here and very effectively too
i like how you replied to the question regarding 'right to life' - it's something that i will certainly think about further due to your answer.

in friendship,
prad

 

[JPD]

What this seems to be about if removal from blame. If you choose to not eat meat you have exercised your right (if such things exist) as an individual. Everyone will respect this by not forcing you to eat meat. By the same token, I eat meat and will continue to do so, regardless of half-baked moral arguments and the objectives of others to spread their rose-tinted spectacle vision of life on Earth to everyone else. I don't even care if I should or not - I enjoy the texture and flavour. If a vegetarian or vegan doesn't like the fact that I eat meat, too bad. I don't force you to eat meat, you can't force or persuade me to give it up. This argument has gone round in circles for a whole year with the same base issues and small embelishments from time to time which have little impact.

 

[russ_watters]

Hi Russ!

I must say that I disagree with you. Morality applies when there are moral agents. Now, I will be the first to admit that non-human animals DO exhibit moral behaviors such as altruism, but just as you can't hold a small child responsible for their actions generally speaking (at least not in the same sense that you can hold an adult) one can't hold a non-human animal responsible for their actions.

...I certainly have a “right to life” but if a small child accidentally pulled a trigger and took away my life, the child’s inability to act/understand the consequences of her moral actions doesn’t negate my right to life. Just because my “right” has been violated, by the child’s actions doesn’t mean that child acted immorally as children are incapable of the same understanding and ability for moral fortitude…similarly you can’t hold a cougar responsible for his actions.

But that's exactly the point: a very small child is incapable of understanding the morality of his/her actions, but that does not make those actions moral. The capacity to understand the actions affects the punishment or response to the immoral act, but does not effect the morality of the act itself. And you can be sure that one way or another, someone will try to correct the immoral behavior of the child. Similarly, if a cougar kills a person, you can bet someone will "correct" (kill) it. And if its immoral for a person to kill an animal, it also must be immoral for an animal to kill an animal.

So that's why my question is: should we try to correct the immoral actions of animals?

Various philosophical ideologies within the animal rights movement would have different ways of responding to your question. The ideology that I am most familiar with is utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, the idea is to minimize the overall suffering in the world. Yes, suffering no matter where or how, is bad…but what we can do to reduce it is what is the issue at hand.

I'm very happy you brought that up - that was my next point: I probably cause the deaths of 10-20 animals (vertibrates) a year due to my eating habits. A bald eagle kills hundreds of fish a year. Therefore, the moral thing to do based on the utilitarian principle would be for me to wipe-out the bald eagle population to prevent the deaths of those hundreds of fish. Its win-win: I'd still get to eat meat (only preditors) and I'd save the lives of those hundreds of fish.

The whole concept of rights is a bit complicated. To say someone (a human or non-human animal) has a right, implies that the right can be enforced. I believe the concept of rights is most useful when it can be enforced by a group of individuals such as a government, a moral community, individual actions, etc. However, the real world is not always ideal. Therefore sometimes, we will say someone has a right, but it will not always be possible for everyone's rights to be fulfilled (at least not in the current world we live in).

You say the right to life "protects the deer from being killed." What I'm wondering is who is going to protect the deer from being killed by a lion? Are we to have people hiding in the woods at all times in order to stop deer from being eaten? Of course not! It is not practical that we do that, what is practical is to figure out what we can do in our own lives to reduce suffering in the world.

Give me a rifle and some ammo and I will protect those deer from those lions. Sound good?

edit: regarding enforcement, no, the ability to enforce a right does not affect whether that right exists. Rights are a philosophical concept and exist independently of the practical problem of protecting them. In fact, if the inability to protect rights meant that those rights didn't exist, I could use that as a defense for any crime! "Your honor, the fact that I killed the victim means that he never had the right to live in the first place."

I am sure you do not draw you morality by the behavior of non-human animals, so why are you trying to do it here just to justify eating meat? If your argument stands, then it would be alright to do a lot of horrific things just because other non-human animals do it… non-human animals kill each other barbarically over territory- does this make gang warfare moral? Lioness’ have been known to eat their own babies, so does this make infanticide moral? Of course not! So, just because this argument seems to be a convenient excuse to justify eating meat, it does not make it a sound philosophical argument.

My point here is that it makes just as little sense to apply animal morality to humans as human morality to animals. Animal rights activists want it both ways (or halfway?). In fact, I have argued that morality is a concept that doesn't even apply to animals at all: it was created by humans for humans to govern how to treat humans.

 

[learningphysics]

So that's why my question is: should we try to correct the immoral actions of animals?

Yes, when possible.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, when possible.

Great! So you're going to let me hunt bald eagles?

 

[theriddler876]

<rant hmnnn see as humans we tend to value some things over others, thus making everything not equal, for example, you shoot a fish, no one cares, you shoot a deer, some people care, you shoot a dog, youre a monster. this is why the atomic bomb was dropped in japan, see traditionally western culture has reguarded eastern culture inferior. the president would have thought about it for a lot longer dropping the bomb in a german city, anywhoo what some insane animal rights activists want do do is assign equal value to every animal, which isn't possible, because by this token all predators when hunting for survival would commit immoral acts, so we should kill off all the predators and live off plants. it's this kind of mentality that has the world f' ed up why, becuase we're messing with nature, you know that whole circle of life, it's in the lion king if there are any animal rights activists on here, there is a balance and this is how nature worked itself out. if it weren't for predators we'd be overrun by mice and bunnies, and then they would eat all the vegetation and we would all die why because "oh no we can't eat bunnies" so we need predators, and guess what, we are predators... anywhoo /rant>

 

[learningphysics]

Great! So you're going to let me hunt bald eagles?

If the world has less suffering with the bald eagle extinct, then yes, I'll let you hunt them, but I'd make sure you hunted them so that they died painlessly. The method of killing them needs to be painless.

 

[OneEye]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions. But a thought occurred to me: If the goal is to decrease the total suffering in the world, and we are allowed to kill in order to achieve this - then we need only wipe the Earth completely clean of all life forms. No suffering! (Schopenhauer, anyone?)

 

[russ_watters]

Wow. This is where the logic (of the ARs) leads, but I never expected to get here.

Well, I'm off to go kill abortion doctors and bald eagles. Anyone want to come?

 

[shrumeo]

some 'reliable' b12 plant sources (depending on who you talk to): Red Star T-6635+ nutritional yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), tempeh and miso (though some claim these contain only b12 analogues that interfere with b12 absorption), and sea vegetables (blue-green algae too), many organically grown plants (but in extremely small amounts).

Yeast isn't a plant, but that's ok. So to get my RDA of B12 I'd have to eat a certain kind of yeast(is this a common yeast I can buy at the store and cook bread with?), risk interfering with actual B12 by eating certain japanese foods (that I might not like), live near the sea, or eat lovely blue-green algea (mmmm), or eat a ton of organically grown veggies, or just EAT MEAT and not worry about it.

well, you could try a little bit harder you know :D
kids actually tend to cuddle smaller animals not chase them - unless they see adults demonstrating or ratifying abusive behaviours.
dogs don't need to eat meat and are probably healthier for it (as many people have found once they actually try the alternative).

You mean when they become weak and anemic from B12 deficiency?
What about Iron? It's less readily absorbed when it comes from plants. Eh, but it's still absorbed isn't it?

And DERP, I was being sarcastic. Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.

well I'm not suggesting that they be fed an iceberg lettuce diet, you know LOL
take a look at the meat-based dog food - you will find that they are supplemented too - and even include the goodies that's in agri-meat (the hormones, drugs, bacteria etc) as well as cat and dog parts (and more!):

Oh, I have no problem with it being supplemented, or that it contains meat.
I just figured you might have a problem with the thought that dogs (and humans) can't thrive without certain vitamins that NATURALLY come from animals sources so NATURALLY we are intended to eat these things. I would just like you to admit that a vegan diet is not natural for dogs (or even humans, but you don't have to admit that just yet.)

Consider one word found on most pet food labels: by-products. Hundreds of rendering plants (known as the silent industry) produce over 8 billion tons each year containing:
Carcasses of pets (some with flea collars and containing sodium pentobarbital used for euthanasia).
Diseased livestock, some still wearing plastic ID tags, and filled with unwanted insecticides and pharmaceuticals.
Rotting supermarket rejects including plastic and Styrofoam packaging.
http://vegepet.com/
well, at least it would provide a diet with a remarkably wide variety :

That's why I don't feed my dog Kibbles & Bits.
And I used to work at a vet and one of the doctors would use pentobarbital as a sedative and an anesthetic. If you double the dose, it kills them. This is an outdated practice, but really, if an animal eats trace amounts of it, I don't see any harmful effects. Over 10 years, who knows. I'm not trying to excuse it. The fact that it's in there is bad, and that's why I don't feed my dog cheap crap.

But this place wants to sell you their dog food so they'll try to scare you into it. But just because most commercial dog foods aren't good for dogs doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is good for them either.
I like this page: http://www.weim.net/riley/raw2.htm
where it says:
Corn meal or other grain products are the first ingredients in many brands of dry dog food because "carbohydrates provide an economical source of energy in the diet of dogs," 3 not because it is necessarily good for them.
...
Dogs cannot digest some substances in grains as well as other plant materials.


I was trying to look up the ingredients in VegDog and it kinda tells you here:
http://vegepet.com/vdoginstr.pdf
I love this line:
Wolves and wild dogs eat uncooked food,
intact with vital enzymes.

Yeah, they eat uncooked MEAT.

I'm looking at these recipes too, and I can tell my dog would not eat most of this. He turns his nose up at most biscuits and most of this stuff is going to come out buscuit-like. My dog would just not eat oats, lentils, or garbonzos, and he certainly wouldn't eat shredded carrots, as the guide suggests you add to the food. Honestly when he doesn't like a food, he starves himself rather than eat the food. But, he;s more than happy to share some of my turkey sandwich (sans bread, which he spits out).

 

[learningphysics]

Wow. This is where the logic (of the ARs) leads, but I never expected to get here.

Well, I'm off to go kill abortion doctors and bald eagles. Anyone want to come?

A bizarre reaction! Hunting fish, chicken... all ok... but kill bald eagles... big no no?

 

[russ_watters]

A bizarre reaction! Hunting fish, chicken... all ok... but kill bald eagles... big no no?

Bald eagles are (were?) endangered. The majority position is that while its ok to eat for food, it isn't ok to wipe a species off the face of the earth.

 

[shrumeo]

Question: Did the cat do the right thing?

The cat did A thing. A thing that it does instinctually. Is it right or wrong?
Well, the cat is no longer hungry, so it was right for the cat.

Corollary: Did I?

Since you didn't interfere with the cat having his meal then good for you.
What were you supposed to do? Take the mouse away and do CPR, then go make the cat a veggie burger? That's being inhumane to the cat, who would likely starve rather than eat vegetables.

 

[learningphysics]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions. But a thought occurred to me: If the goal is to decrease the total suffering in the world, and we are allowed to kill in order to achieve this - then we need only wipe the Earth completely clean of all life forms. No suffering! (Schopenhauer, anyone?)

A couple of things to consider here... the suffering involved in eliminating of all life... and existence after biological death... reincarnation etc... It is not certain that life can be eliminated.

So if the goal is to reduce overall suffering long-term... then perhaps killing off all life on Earth won't do it... The Eastern religions believe in reincarnation and have the goal of preventing reincarntion and obtain a "nirvana" state.

If one accepts that the life in this world is all there is and all life can be eliminated with little suffering, then yes, it seems like a logical conclusion. May sound ridiculous... I personally think Schopenhauer was right.

 

[russ_watters]

...and this is why the "right to life" is not based on the absence of suffering.

 

[DaveC426913]

"But I can't see the diference between eating a steak and killing a shark."

Farm animals are kept in check artificially, and so their numbers will not directly impact the ecology.

I will however point out a major difference between eating shark and eating, say, cod.

Cod are prey animals. Their survival method is to live and breed by the millions. Harvesting cod has a relatively small effect on their population.

Sharks are predators. Like most predators, they tend to be outnumbered by their prey hundreds or thousands to one. And like most predators, they also breed relatively rarely, a few young a year.

Killing a single shark has an effect on the ecology hundreds or thousands of times larger than killing an equivalent weight in cod. It does not take very many sharks to be removed from the ecosystem before their numbers drop too low to be able to propogate their species.

Lesson for ethical eaters: when you go to a restaurant, avoid - and encourage your friends to avoid - predatory fish: shark, and swordfish being the most popular.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

As I was kneeling beside the Briggs engine in the equipment shed, a medium-sized black cat came out from somewhere in the dim rearward portions of the building. It mewed cheerfully, and with only a little hesitation, came up to me and let me pet it. I did this for a minute, the cat and me both enjoying ourselves, and then I went back to work. And so did the cat.

A half hour passed, but suddenly, while I was gapping the points, the cat reappeared. I didn't look at it immediately, but I could tell by its short, insistent mews that something was up. Once I had verified the point gap, I looked up in the cat's direction. Sure enough, he had a rodent (a mouse, probably, but maybe a vole) in his mouth. He was pretty excited about this, and when he saw that I was looking, he dropped the mouse on the floor and mewed at me, asking for approval.

"Good kitty," I said, as I toed the dead rodent with my right foot. I spent only a second at this (in fact, I do not enjoy looking at dead mice), then went back to work. The cat did the expected: He brought the mouse over to me, hunkered down by the wire roller frame, and quickly gorged the mouse down. He left nary a whisker.

Question: Did the cat do the right thing?
Corollary: Did I?

This may seem to be a pointless tangent, but it actually is crucial information. If you answer my questions, please also identify whether you are an animal rights advocate, a vegetarian, a meat eater, or anti-animal rights.

I'm a vegetarian who believes animal rights issues have different answers depending on the situation. Most animals are not equal to humans, but some could be equal or superior. My dog certainlly does more for society than the average serial killer. My dog greets my family at the door and puts a smile on someone's face daily.

The cat was acting from a cat's perspective. If you look at morals as products of evolution you can argue that the cat can't logically comphrend what it did wrong. My knowledge of cat psychology is non-existant, so the question is a bit difficult to answer.

What I'm discerning as the theme of your question is "Should humans go out of their way to save animals?" Well, what will these animals do for society if we save them? Certainly the benefit of meat-eating are insignificant compared to what those animals could provide living - joy for environmentalists, environmental enrichment.

In the instance of a human we should go out of our way because we can ask, "Would the human have the potential to realize what we did and repay us?" The answer is yes. An animal might be saved from a fire and claw the face of the hero who saved it. Animals are beautiful in their own way and people enjoy them, they do not need to be killed. Despite this, animals deserve some fundamental rights; it is only when they interfere with humanity that we need to do something.

Concerning the cat killing the mouse: it is probably more efficient if animals continue killing each other, at least until they evolve. I believe animals would prefer to be left alone in the wild with predators rather than to be fully controlled by society for their own protection. The cat did something wrong logically, but not from its perspective.

Did you do the right thing? Logically I would say you didn't. Realistically because of the cats intellectual weakness the issue probably has little significance. Since the cat is integrated into society, if it can be trained not to kill, that is what should be done.

My thoughts on these issues change, and the topic is complex; however, I stand by my vegetarianism. There are two choices:

Meat-Eating

1. To kill animals for meat;therefore, the contributions that animal could have made are eliminated.
2. To eat a product that is unhealthier than alternative lifestyles.
3. To choose to kill.
4. To enjoy the taste of meat - the only positive.
5. To contribute to an illogical method of dealing with hunger that, if it was stopped earlier, could've resulting in a vegetarian farming industry that is capable of feeding more individuals.

Vegetarianism

1. To eat healthy foods.
2. To not rely on gluttony as a futile attempt to provide self-fufillment.
3. To not cause the death of an animal; therefore, to gain the benefits that animal could provide in other ways.
4. To help bring the world closer to fighting starvation.
5. To condemn the beliefs of illogical religions bringing the world closer to a more logical conclusion.
6. To gain a feeling of pride for upholding a belief that you believe is morally superior.

And so on...

Note: I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I someone took offense to my comments. Also, I did not have time to check my spelling and grammar thoroughly, so please excuse my worse than usually punctuation.

 

[JPD]

Dooga

The presumed moral superiority is exactly what winds me up about vegetarians and vegans.
Please show evidence for your assertion that eating meat is unhealthier than alternative lifestyles. There is something else that winds me up about vegetarians and vegans - state the evidence and let that stand on its own.
An 'alternative lifestyle' is meaningless - its like saying 'I'm on a diet'.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a little OT, but its my fault for alluding to it:

Lesson for ethical eaters: when you go to a restaurant, avoid - and encourage your friends to avoid - predatory fish: shark, and swordfish being the most popular.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that we should avoid making other species extinct (though, for now, I accept it and follow it). I'm just not sure what its based on. Is it ecology? Is it simply a matter of keeping pretty/interesting/tasty animals alive so our kids can see them at the zoo and eat them?

Maybe that's a topic for another thread...

 

[russ_watters]

Note: I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I someone took offense to my comments. Also, I did not have time to check my spelling and grammar thoroughly, so please excuse my worse than usually punctuation.

No, its actually very reasonable, well thought out opinion. But I have one criticism:

There are two choices:

Meat-Eating

1. To kill animals for meat;therefore, the contributions that animal could have made are eliminated.
2. To eat a product that is unhealthier than alternative lifestyles.
3. To choose to kill.
4. To enjoy the taste of meat - the only positive.
5. To contribute to an illogical method of dealing with hunger that, if it was stopped earlier, could've resulting in a vegetarian farming industry that is capable of feeding more individuals.

Vegetarianism

1. To eat healthy foods.
2. To not rely on gluttony as a futile attempt to provide self-fufillment.
3. To not cause the death of an animal; therefore, to gain the benefits that animal could provide in other ways.
4. To help bring the world closer to fighting starvation.
5. To condemn the beliefs of illogical religions bringing the world closer to a more logical conclusion.
6. To gain a feeling of pride for upholding a belief that you believe is morally superior.

And so on...

That's your list, from the perspective of a vegitarian. Most are opinions, but I have some issues with some of the implied facts: First and foremost, while it is true that in practice vegitarians eat healthier than meat-eaters, the reson is that it takes more effort to eat healthy as a vegitarian - which in turn means that it is inherrently less healthy to be a vegitarian. Meat isn't iced cream: while if you simply stop eating iced cream and make no other changes to your diet, you will see only positive effects on your health, if you simply stop eating meat and make no other changes to your diet, you will see both positive and negative effects on your health. If, instead of turning vegitarian, that effort were put into eating healthier meat, those positives can still be realized.

Regarding "contributions" - as already discussed, the contribution factor is negligible with most meats.

Regarding gluttony: gluttony does not factor into this discussion. Most gluttons I know eat more potato chips and candy than meat. Ie, the meat isn't driving the gluttony.

And finally:

Dooga

The presumed moral superiority is exactly what winds me up about vegetarians and vegans.

As I said in a political argument last night: if people didn't think their opinions were morally superior to the other side, they'd hold the other side's opinion. This is a useless tautology and should not have been included on Dooga's list.

I eat meat for three basic reasons:
1. I like the taste
2. I can eat a balanced meal without thinking about how to make it a balanced meal.
3. I work out and need (want) extra protein in my diet - and protein shakes are disgusting.

 

[OneEye]

I personally think Schopenhauer was right.

Oh, my!

For those who haven't studied up on their Victorian German philosophers: Schopenhauer was a confirmed pessismist who came to the conclusion that it was mankind's moral duty to refuse to breed and thus extinguish the human species. Some modern animal rights activists call man a "virus" on the environment (implying that the world would be better off if the human race was extincted). Schopenhauer, by way of contrast, resented the "cruel trick" which nature played in pairing a handsome young man and vivacious young woman together, only to see their beauty wane after the goal of procreation was effected. Schopenhauer's solution to this situation was to refuse to participate - and he believed that all mankind should go along with this plan as a protest against the unfairness of the universe. (Personally, I think that he was just upset because he couldn't get a date on a Friday night - but what do I know?)

Basically, we have reached the Theravadic solution: Existence=suffering, so suffering must be ended through nonexistence. Some in the discussion may find this "fundamentalist Buddhist" idea appealing. But most of us, I think, are not pessimists.

(As a side note: One wonders how Buddhism and other reincarnationist scemes deal with the possibility of universal extinction of all species? Obviously, the law of karma would be frustrated, and the universalist tendencies of Buddhism would be upset. Hmmmm.)

Anyway, I would say that this is definitely the extreme view: That complete extermination of all life could be seen as an ideal solution.

Dr. Filostrato, are you out there?

 

[physicsisphirst]

So to get my RDA of B12 I'd have to eat a certain kind of yeast(is this a common yeast I can buy at the store and cook bread with?), risk interfering with actual B12 by eating certain japanese foods (that I might not like), live near the sea, or eat lovely blue-green algea (mmmm), or eat a ton of organically grown veggies, or just EAT MEAT and not worry about it.

LOL - you don't have to go to all that trouble and you don't do the bread thing with nutritional yeast (check it out at your local healthfood store). don't be so sure that eating meat saves you either:
Almost 40% of the U.S. population is deficient in vitamin B12 according to a recent study from Tufts University in Boston and a vast majority of them are completely unaware.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/27/vitamin_b12_deficiency.htm
now surely 40% of the population isn't strict vegetarian LOL
(and of course there is the usual stuff at the bottom about strict veggies going blind and suffering brain damage as a result this b12 thing - that's sort of mandatory)
(i thought we were talking about dogs anyway!)

Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.
does your dog chase, catch and eat the dogfood you provide?
i agree though that most dogs do like to chase and that, at least in the wild, they are 'taught' how to kill and then eat what they catch (by the parents).

I just figured you might have a problem with the thought that dogs (and humans) can't thrive without certain vitamins that NATURALLY come from animals sources so NATURALLY we are intended to eat these things. I would just like you to admit that a vegan diet is not natural for dogs (or even humans, but you don't have to admit that just yet.)

there is little point in 'admitting' something that isn't even remotely correct (besides, you need to qualify just what you mean by 'natural'). as i have shown you in earlier posts, humans do not handle animal proteins in any form particularly well. if you look at their physiology you see why. dogs are true omnivores, but that also means that they don't need meat (as you keep insisting) and this has been shown for quite some time.

But this place wants to sell you their dog food so they'll try to scare you into it.

well they aren't the only ones who say so. it seems to be a reality that makes usual additives look tame.

But just because most commercial dog foods aren't good for dogs doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is good for them either.

agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Dooga
The presumed moral superiority is exactly what winds me up about vegetarians and vegans.

but you can associate with them and never, ever have the slightest fear of being eaten!

in fiendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

it is probably more efficient if animals continue killing each other, at least until they evolve.

that is a fascinating perspective and in many ways, it makes some very real sense. (some nice stuff in that post too!)

it also explains wars perhaps to some extent - is it possible that humans are doomed to fight with each other (and the rest of the planet) until they evolve further? (remember that's what roddenberry's vulcans did - and historically, it seems that humans may be on that same path).

peaceful co-existence with minimal infliction of harm to other beings may be what evolution is about. as shangri-la's father perrault said to conway in lost horizon: "when the strong have devoured each other, the meek shall truly inherit the earth."

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, I would say that this is definitely the extreme view: That complete extermination of all life could be seen as an ideal solution.

Not only extreme, but it has no basis in western philosophy (I don't know much of Buddha): "right to life" in western philosophy is a positive thing. It has nothing to do with suffering.

 

[OneEye]

agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL

I guess the next logical question (for your line of thought as well as for mine is,) What gives you the right to tell your dog what to eat? More exactly, the question is not whether you should choose your dog's diet (which I do for mine, of course), but why you should not feed the dog a diet more to its taste, and consistent with its natural diet (i.e., the diet the dog would eat if you weren't around to feed it)?

You seem quite presumptuous in foisting your moral ideas off on your dog. You have already taken over the management of its life, and now you are managing its life in a fashion which is completely un-doggy. You are not allowing the dog to eat according to its scruples. Rather, you are forcing your morality on the dog. Are you so superior to your dog that you have some sort of natural right to do this?

Too bad the dog can't get a lawyer!

 

[OneEye]

Not only extreme, but it has no basis in western philosophy (I don't know much of Buddha): "right to life" in western philosophy is a positive thing. It has nothing to do with suffering.

Well, there have been pessimistic philosophers over the years. One thinks, of course, of Schopenhauer, and then of the Existentialists, and then of the Dadaists. And the current state of the animal rights movement either condemns mankind as a scourge on the Earth or subordinates human interests to those of all other species, thus demoting man to nature's lowest caste. So I wouldn't say that this pessimistic strain is altogether unknown in Western philosophy.

In fact, I would say that such pessimism is the ultimate bottoming out of any philosophy which begins with a naturalistic/humanistic position. But most people prefer not to dive down to the bottom, but rather to merely skim the surface, so long as self interest can be served.

 

[physicsisphirst]

What gives you the right to tell your dog what to eat?
why you should not feed the dog a diet more to its taste, and consistent with its natural diet (i.e., the diet the dog would eat if you weren't around to feed it)?
...
Too bad the dog can't get a lawyer!

so are you asking me or telling me? please clarify.

in friendship,
prad

 

[hitssquad]

why you should not feed the dog a diet more to its taste

Indeed.
http://www.google.com/search?q="dog+eating+poo"