Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[loseyourname]

i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

Yes! God yes! How can you have moral actions without a system of morality? Telling me "suffice it to say" tells me nothing. Why is it of benefit to us not to kill? And what can we kill and not kill? Can I kill a weed that is destroying my garden? Can I kill a man that is pointing a gun at my daughter? Can I kill a bacterium that is making me sick? I don't think humans have any intrinsic squeamishness about killing at all, unless the thing they are killing acts like them. The more anthropomorphic, the less willing we are to kill them. That's exactly why people have no issues with swatting a fly, but they get outraged when certain cultures eat dogs.

If you don't think we need an ethical system to deal with whether or not killing is good, well fine for you! Without a system, how exactly is it that you determine what is good and what is bad? Again, if it is just intuition, what do you do when your intuition doesn't agree with mine?

i don't really understand what you are saying here, but i'll try to answer anyway. i have not made any statement to the effect that 'the ending of any life is a bad thing' - (i'm not sure that it is - neither has AR). what i have said is that not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill, regardless of whether the being not being killed is deserving of not being killed. ecosystem degradation has nothing to do with killing, but is a consequence of the meat industry (as is animal suffering).

If all you are going to say is "not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill," you aren't going to get far. I don't base my concept of what is right by what is of benefit to me. Killing can be of benefit, too. It is of quite a bit of benefit to the man who kills his wife for the insurance, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. So this gives you no basis by which to say that eating meat is the wrong thing to do. It might not be of benefit to some, it might be of benefit to others. It is certainly of benefit to Inuits and Eskimos that have little else to eat.

posted by you:
Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that).

response by me (post #996):
this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.

Ok, cut it off right here, because before you got into Hitler, you were getting at something. What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?

so what is so inconsistent about the idea that if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

It is inconsistent to say that you simply want to alleviate ecosystem destruction or animal suffering and then not accept a solution that does these things while leaving the practice of eating meat intact. When you do not accept solutions unless they include not eating meat, it becomes clear that neither the alleviation of ecosystem destruction nor of animal suffering is your real aim. Your aim is simply to end the eating of meat, but you've run out of reasons to do so. Granted, it is still one way to bring about the results that you say you want to bring about. That's fine. But what reason is there to prefer this solution over other solutions? If someone else solves the problem a different way, what reason do you have to say that what they are doing is wrong?

well that's a nice thought, but you might want to check into some of the realities rather than simply uphold the idea that they aren't supposedto inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. you might check sites like the ones derek1 has listed (there is shortage of them):

I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. I don't doubt that it exists in some places, but I'll repeat what I said before. That is the case with any industry. Have you researched the activities of every seller of goods and services that you buy from to ensure that they do not contribute to the suffering of sentient beings? Finding them all out and boycotting them isn't a viable solution to me. I would rather promote and enforce existing laws and, should I find out that one particular company is guilty of infractions, then I will no longer buy from them. I'm certainly not going to boycott an entire industry. Decent farmers do not deserve to lose business because of the immoral actions of their competitors.

i am actually puzzled by an apparent 'inconsistency' in some of what you have said:

you don't seem to think that farm animals have rights, yet you want to kill them humanely. why is that?

I've said that I will recognize their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly. I will not grant them the right to not be killed.

you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with killing a creature unless they have a right to life (your prime example being a human, for whatever reason), yet you (like some other meaters here) 'try your best' not to kill insects and annelids. why is that?

I will not do it if there is no reason to do it. If they are in my way somehow (infesting my garden, eating the scraps from my floor, etc.) then I have no problem killing them. By the same token, if killing them will feed me and my family, then I will them. I just don't want to kill for no good reason.

why is there such a determination to kill animals that 'taste good' (because they don't have rights in your view), yet such insistence to terminate those lives 'humanely' or in the case of the bugs (who knows what they taste like!), not to kill them at all.

I have no problem with eating bugs, I just don't kill them for no reason. If you really need to ask why I would be more likely to kill an animal that can provide nourishment for me over one that cannot, I'm not sure why. I would think the answer is obvious.

do you feel that you yourself benefit by the act of not killing (even those that you do not grant your right to life)?
have you covertly granted these creatures rights (but don't want any of your friends to find out)?
or could it be that you are writhing in the throes of that paradigm shift?

Nope. In general, I don't do anything unless I have a good reason to do it. This doesn't just apply to the act of killing. If I have a reason to kill, I'll do it. I'm not opposed to the act itself.

 

[sheepdog]

systematic destruction

and some would prefer not to know anything about the reality that others have to endure.

It is a mentality that says, "I will live in my head, where I can make the world whatever I want it to be. My mental systems will be better and stronger than any systems ever devised. And there my systems will allow me to have from world whatever I want to have." Meat eating is but the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. All of Nature is drained and denuded to taters through the operation of these many, ceaseless mental systems. The waste and gross disrespect is stifling.

 

[russ_watters]

And why are stable, safe, growing, and prospering the criteria to use?

Because they all indicate the system "works." When Nazi Germany went down in flames, that's a "failure."

That said, you can set up any experiment in science to get any result you want - so I suppose if you want you could call instability, famine, and poverty your criteria and a system that "works" is one that causes these things. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems self-evident that not starving to death is, de facto, a good thing. Suffering is a bad thing (at least, I'd prefer not to suffer...). Similarly, it'd be pretty easy for me to successfully develop a model that doesn't accurately predict the orbits of the planets. But what would the point of that be?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.


And I missed this before:

i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say. Are you an anarchist? (but hey, at least it means you can't argue eating meat is immoral!)

In any case, the ethical theory tells you why an action is good. Otherwise, its just "I said so!" and anarchy is the result (and this discussion is pointless). An ethical code tells you what actions are good and unless you choose it arbitrarily (The Ten Commadments), why? is an important consideration.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, but not everyone agrees with your basis for morality... My personal basis for morality is that moral actions lead to minimal pain and suffering...

Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to.

Ok. Why is it that humans have the right not be eaten, whereas other animals don't have that right?

Whoever said that? Cannibalism is humans eating other humans. It is, in my view, perfectly acceptable for a lion to eat you. But if lions started eating (primarily) other lions, they'd hunt themselves into extinction. Similarly, cannibalism is detrimental to humans exactly because it is humans eating humans.

if you replaced "moral" with "useful" or "sensible", and nothing changed, what would be the value of the word "moral" in those statements?

Morality is the word who'se definition is "a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." When you take what is "useful" or "sensible" to make equations describing the motion of a cannon-ball, you get "physics." Similarly, when you take what is "useful" or "sensible" in the ideas of right and wrong conduct, you get "morals." Its simply the definition of the word.

1) "rights" are things that humans agree are "rights"; there ain't no other source: a "Supreme Being", the Constitution, John Locke, or what-or whoever... it's all by agreement. if humans assert that certain things are "rights" and a bunch of other humans agree to that, then those things are "rights."

But people don't always agree: what if I don't agree? How do we remedy that? Majority rule? Ever hear of "the Tyrany of the majority"...? No, morality must be predicated on something bigger and more fundamental than just a consensus.

2) if certain actions improve the "general welfare" and don't degrade it, those things might be called "useful" or "sensible", and some of the heat might be taken off the emotionally charged word, "moral."

There is no reason why the word needs to be emotionally charged. That's the definition of the word: that's what its for. Shall we call it "Bob" instead to remove this emotional content? (I've never heard anyone say that about the word "morality" before).

there might be times that killing animals, and even people, is "sensible" and "a good idea", but arguing morality is about the same "usefulness" as arguing which religion is "correct."

futile.

WHY? Maybe its due to what you are saying above: that morality is something just arbitrarily plucked out of the air. I can see the futility that would lead to, but can you see the anarchy that would lead to? It can't be that arbitrary. It just wouldn't "work."

I'd like to focus on your statement [loseyourname], "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem

It is, indeed... and your discussion that follows is exactly correct. The highlights:

The Nazis arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to cleanse the world of inferiors. The Turkes arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to exterminate the Armenians. Over and over again we see, generation after generation, what results from this. And now you are telling me you too find the best you can do is choose some system and live by that, answer these fundamental questions with yet another arbitrary system of meaningless thought.

That just isn't good enough. [emphasis added]

That is exactly why moral relativism fails - why arbitrary morality is invalid.

What has been cannot continue to repeat itself in endless wars and deadly application of "rights". Whether you can conceive of it or not, whether it suits your systems or not, we can and will find a better way. One that is not arbitrary. One that is absolute. Physical laws govern whether it is or is not wrong to kill, not some arbitrary system you dream up. Physical laws determine what we should or should not take from Nature. russ_waters is perfectly correct in saying that it can be determined empirically. The only problem is that the experiments are one-time-only, non-reversible paths to the future, no refund, no returns. We have to make good choices of which experiment to execute. It will be the only one.

Yes, I only alluded to this before, but this is, indeed, the problem with empirical investigation of rights: the experiments are all practical ones. When they fail, they fail badly and millions of people die as a result. That said, I think that morality, like science, is progressing and things like the UN, Wilson's 14 points, and the Marshall Plan, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are evidence of it in international politics. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - its not just de facto universal, it says universal because its a delcaration that human rights are truly universal (this idea was first put into politics in the U.S. Declaration of Independence). They are not arbitrary (which does not imply they can't be debated).

What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary. Vegetarianism arises out of a consciousness that answers these questions without an intellectual system, in the absence of all arbitrary frames of reference. This is true morality. That morality cannot be separated from the bodies of the animals eaten, nor from the bodies eating them. They are the system of that morality. There is only one such system, and it is absolute.

Now this part, I'm not sure I understand...

This is exactly, precisely, how the Nazis explained their morality. And by these standards they were right in the short run, and might have been correct in the long run if the Americans, British and Russians had not rained on their parade.

Considering how much we agreed on, I'm surprised you would say such a thing. But maybe its easily explainable - its historically inaccurate: Hitler's rule was chaotic from start to finish. It did not work and was not correct in any way, shape, or form. But even worse, Hitler's morality was not universal! It didn't apply to all humans, only his chosen few.

So not only did Hitler's theory fail, it wasn't even internally consistent.

I put it to you russ_watters, that there is no basis for judging morality, except that basis which you, or I, or someone else chooses arbitrarily. And if it becomes moral just because a lot of people agree that that is what moral is, welcome to the Inquisition.

History has proven morality to be a very destructive concept. This is why a moral vegetarian is an oxymoron.

Ok, its possible I misunderstood your earlier post: when you say all morality is arbitary, you're arguing against the very concept of morality? My take is that your argument is a good argument against arbitary morality, but not absolute morality or morality itself.

Arbitrary means without reason: morality based on what works has a reason and is therefore not arbitary.

it brings us back to dooga's question again (and again and again and again):

Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat? (post #901)

i do think that it must require considerable flexibility and plyability (or straight-forward avoidance) to try to reconcile this issue. it seems there are 2 main approaches:

1) avoid the reality (don't look at links, don't find out what happens to the animals, deny that anything the otherside presents is true)
2) argue the argument (try to find or insist there are flaws in the otherside's reasoning even if it means fabricating the otherside's reasoning LOL)

Ever wonder how execution isn't considered cruel and unusual punishment and method of execution makes a difference? This question isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. Its quite simple, as a matter of fact: death and suffering are two different things (indeed, some people choose to die to avoid suffering). Which brings us to this:

Ok, cut it off right here, because before you got into Hitler, you were getting at something. What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?

Yes! This is why so many vegitarian arguments are straw-men (even unintentional) - they utterly fail to grasp/address this point.

 

[Monique]

The waste and gross disrespect is stifling.

Oh yes it is. I recently became a vegetarian and the food has never tasted so good before. I find the food culture with giant sized portions of fast food meat a wastefull disrespect to the source of the meal.

To say that animal suffering does not occur is being naive. Not all cows and chicken and pigs grow up on an outdoor farm where they have the pleasure of grazing their own food and having some water from the pond. Instead they grow up in factories and have to endure long trips in trucks and what not. If they do I'd like to know which agency watches over the animal wellfare and that guarantees that the meat lying in the store comes from life-stock slaughted next to the pasture they grazed on.

 

[Monique]

You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves.

So, loseyourname, if you have not given up eating meat.. what are you doing to alleviate animal suffering and ecosystem destruction?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So, loseyourname, if you have not given up eating meat.. what are you doing to alleviate animal suffering and ecosystem destruction?

This is not about loseyourname, it's about the general principle of not eating meat. Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems; vegan hikers and picnikers and new home buyers are as much at fault for ecosystem destruction as meat eaters who do those same things). None of this depends on any particular action by loseyourname.

 

[learningphysics]

Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to. Whoever said that? Cannibalism is humans eating other humans. It is, in my view, perfectly acceptable for a lion to eat you. But if lions started eating (primarily) other lions, they'd hunt themselves into extinction. Similarly, cannibalism is detrimental to humans exactly because it is humans eating humans.

I don't understand this. There are other species that eat their own, and they haven't become extinct. Humans could easily eat some of their own, and continue to reproduce keeping the species alive...

I never said lions were allowed to hunt deer. However, the analogy fails to hold anyway... Humans can live without eating meat, lions can't.

 

[learningphysics]

This is not about loseyourname, it's about the general principle of not eating meat. Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems; vegan hikers and picnikers and new home buyers are as much at fault for ecosystem destruction as meat eaters who do those same things). None of this depends on any particular action by loseyourname.

Yes, and eating of humans can be done without causing suffering to the humans.

 

[Alkatran]

I don't understand this. There are other species that eat their own, and they haven't become extinct. Humans could easily eat some of their own, and continue to reproduce keeping the species alive...

I never said lions were allowed to hunt deer. However, the analogy fails to hold anyway... Humans can live without eating meat, lions can't.

Ah but that's where you're wrong. Human society would fall apart if no one trusted anyone (which, guess what, is going to happen if we start to eat each other.)

If we started to eat each other we'd end up traveling back down the technological chain. Lions eating themselves isn't so much a problem because they're already that low on the chain.

The thing is: Do you really think humans are 'above' eating meat? Under what conditions would it be moral? (You and a puppy are stuck at the bottom of the well. If you eat the puppy you are rescued, if you don't you both die.)

 

[Monique]

Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems

Ok, so tell me: how do YOU ensure that the meat you eat if from an animal that has not suffered? How would you know?

And it's not all about the way of dying, it is also about the quality of life the animal has had. As a meat eater, what can you do to ensure the meat you eat has had a good quality of life?

 

[Alkatran]

Ok, so tell me: how do YOU ensure that the meat you eat if from an animal that has not suffered? How would you know?

And it's not all about the way of dying, it is also about the quality of life the animal has had. As a meat eater, what can you do to ensure the meat you eat has had a good quality of life?

Define "quality life". By your definition it seems to be better to kill the cows while their young, before they go through this hell. (veil!)

 

[Monique]

Veil have already gone through hell in order to have tender meat, traditionally they were kept in a very small space so their meat would not become tough. If you want to eat veil: you may in my opinion, just don't lock them up so that they can't move a muscle.

 

[Francis M]

As is usual in this kind of thread it seems that 1000 posts later (not even) we've degenerated into an argument of who is morally superior vegitarians, vegans, people who only eat white meat (psudo vegitarians) or meat eaters. Can I ask people that pose this question to stop doing it as nothing more than a set up for trying to prove who's morally superior.

Fact?- our digestive system design shows we're omnivors, we can eat both vegetable and animal matter?

Fact- most people do eat both.

Fact- some choose to not eat red meat, go further and not eat meat or go vegan and not consume animal products (i.e. including eggs, and milk).

The argument of what's less or more cruel is judgmental and predjudiced based on a persons view point and can never be solved.

But just to add fuel to the fire let this omnivor (me) get cynical here a moment and see if I can add a reality check into this argument.

The next time anyone starts this "I'm better than you because I'm ______ or do _____" garbage.

1. Ask yourself how many small animals that live in the fields are killed each time the harvesting machine goes by.

2. How less/more cruel is it to kill a fish or bird rather than a cow or pig.

3. How many pests (insects, rodents, ect..) are killed to protect those crops and the land they grow on.

4. How much pollution does farming create, and damage the ecosystem I keep hearing brought up in this thread.

The next time before anyone steps up on their morally superior soap box and starts coming at anyone else with their cause of the day and getting smug I suggest they take the blinders off and get a good look at themselves, and start looking at how they can support their position by somthing more than the presumption that their better in hteir own minds. My god the unmitigated gall of some of the people in this thread is sickening.

 

[Monique]

But don't you think animal welfare should be good?

 

[Francis M 2]

Sorry about the rant. I didn't mean to go off like that but I'm just sick of people trying to argue morality based on wether or not they do or don't do such and such. It's a very ambiguous and unsupportable thing to just argue morality from a specific viewpoint. Some of these arguments boil down to I'm rigt because I say so. I should've first asked what the point of te question was. Are we talking about all killing is cruel to begin with? Are we talking about how animals are kept (general well being) before their killed? Are we comparing farming against hunting as far as envirornmental impact?

But don't you think animal welfare should be good?

I don't mean to sound flipant about this Monique but were do we draw the line on what animals well being we consider and which ones we don't. Or for that matter other organisms. This is exactly why the question first posted degenerates into the threads we see here.

BTW It's the same Francis M from before I just had to register from my home e-mail instead of work Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Monique]

I don't mean to sound flipant about this Monique but were do we draw the line on what animals well being we consider and which ones we don't. Or for that matter other organisms. This is exactly why the question first posted degenerates into the threads we see here.

One can go into many details, about bugs and microbes, but what I think that should be done is opening the book on livestock treatment. How are animals treated from being born to being slaughtered. I think the discussion should be opened and that farmers have to abide to welfare laws. I'm not an expert on the issue of animal culturing, it is a black box to me. What are the laws on livestock treatment, which agency inspects whether the laws are abided by and where do I find the information on how livestock is treated overall.

 

[Dissident Dan]

That said, you can set up any experiment in science to get any result you want - so I suppose if you want you could call instability, famine, and poverty your criteria and a system that "works" is one that causes these things. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems self-evident that not starving to death is, de facto, a good thing. Suffering is a bad thing (at least, I'd prefer not to suffer...). Similarly, it'd be pretty easy for me to successfully develop a model that doesn't accurately predict the orbits of the planets. But what would the point of that be?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.

Well, ethics is all about values, but you are assuming the values from the get-go, thereby having a "conclusion" that is just your premises.

To explain this further, you choose to consider human suffering, but not non-human suffering. This is a value choice, which is a goal of ethics, but it is presumed from the beginning in your argument.

Also, you define your ethical criterion in respect to whole societies, rather than individuals...what makes the society, as a whole thrive. I'm not saying that this is wrong or right, but that it is assumed in your argument from the beginning, thereby skipping a vast portion of ethical reasoning.

 

[learningphysics]

Ah but that's where you're wrong. Human society would fall apart if no one trusted anyone (which, guess what, is going to happen if we start to eat each other.)

This could be set up so that the vast majority of humans are unaffected, and only a select few from a restricted group can possibly end up as food. Most people would be unaffected, and needn't fear becoming food. Society would continue the same for the most part.

If we started to eat each other we'd end up traveling back down the technological chain. Lions eating themselves isn't so much a problem because they're already that low on the chain.

I really don't understand what you mean here...

The thing is: Do you really think humans are 'above' eating meat? Under what conditions would it be moral? (You and a puppy are stuck at the bottom of the well. If you eat the puppy you are rescued, if you don't you both die.)

I'll assume for the sake of this discussion that the life being eaten, experience 0 pain and suffering. I personally wouldn't eat the puppy... But I'd have to say in this situation it is morally acceptable to eat the puppy... But replace the puppy with a human, and it's morally acceptable to eat the human (as both would die anyway).

 

[sheepdog]

missing something

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.


And I missed this before: OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say. Are you an anarchist? (but hey, at least it means you can't argue eating meat is immoral!)

In any case, the ethical theory tells you why an action is good. Otherwise, its just "I said so!" and anarchy is the result (and this discussion is pointless). An ethical code tells you what actions are good and unless you choose it arbitrarily (The Ten Commadments), why? is an important consideration.

That's right russ_watters, you're missing something.

Eating vegetarian is morality. There is no separate morality used to judge something else. No, anarchy does not result. Nature is the result. Yes, this discussion is pointless, that you got right. An ethical code is itself the essential arbitrary. Ethics are arbitrary. Morality is arbitrary. None of these can possibility reveal what is good and what is not.

 

[sheepdog]

Hitler's reasons

Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to.

Reading this in isolation it makes complete sense to me. How you can defend morality a few sentences later is baffling.

Morality is the word who'se definition is "a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." When you take what is "useful" or "sensible" to make equations describing the motion of a cannon-ball, you get "physics." Similarly, when you take what is "useful" or "sensible" in the ideas of right and wrong conduct, you get "morals." Its simply the definition of the word.

Another good point. Every system is equally arbitrary

But people don't always agree: what if I don't agree? How do we remedy that? ... They are not arbitrary (which does not imply they can't be debated). ... Its historically inaccurate: Hitler's rule was chaotic from start to finish. It did not work and was not correct in any way, shape, or form. But even worse, Hitler's morality was not universal! It didn't apply to all humans, only his chosen few.

You are correct that we do agree upon much. But not on the point, the essence, of the matter.

My reading of the rise of the Nazis would indicate that, from a German's perspective they brought considerable relief from a much more chaotic situation.

But it isn't necessary to even consider the historical facts. All you need recognize is that Hitler was popular with Germans, i.e., they considered his activities "moral". What do you think they would have said, "He's an immoral butcher but I like him!" No, they said, "Here's someone finally living up to my moral standards."

Even moreso, you claim to be concerned with a universal, absolute, morality and at the same time you have decided that "universal" means all people, and does not include animals or other life forms. Websters defines "absolute" as "actual, real". Is that what you mean by absolute morality? The actual, real morality that was also invented and defined by humans for human benefit? What you call universal and absolute is no more absolute than a game of Dungeons and Dragons. Just be people invented and defined Dungeons and Dragons doesn't mean there actually are any real Dungeon or Dragons. What we invent and define is the opposite, the exact antithesis, of absolute.

Arbitrary means without reason: morality based on what works has a reason and is therefore not arbitary.

Websters, again, defines arbitrary as Exercised according to one's own will or caprice, and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the possession of power. Reasons do not make it any less arbitrary. Hitler had his reasons.

 

[sheepdog]

Goodness

This thread has considered the questions, "Should we eat meat?" and, "When is it wrong to kill?" These questions resulted in an explosion of mental systems called "ethics" and "morality" and such.

Then the question, "What should we take from Nature?" was asked. It is the same question as the previous ones framed more generally. It has the same answer, yet no answer came. Why not? Perhaps they were not prepared with a system with which to respond. Oh, well. I'm sure it's only a matter of time ...

Now I would pose yet one more question that generalizes upon the others again.

"Where is there Goodness?"

The vegetarian has considered this question and seen clearly that the overwhelming abundance of Goodness she finds outside of her head trivializes everything within it. The blinding all encompassing Goodness with which she is surrounded utterly and totally dwarfs the tiny noises in her head. It is then when the paradigm shifted, then when all mental systems disappeared, and vegetarianism inevitably followed.

 

[physicsisphirst]

OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say.

such helplessness, russ!
all i said was that we didn't need an ethical theory to deal with what was a rather simple situation. anyway, i elaborate a bit in the next post.

I think you just answered your own question with that logical contradiction.

Nazi Germany in particular was exceedingly unstable, and that was a direct result of Hitler's morality.

the 'logical contradiction' escaped me - what was it? the phrase "temporary stability"?

so are you now saying that a moral society is one that is essentially non-violent and exhibits longterm stability? I'm just curious (and am not necessarily in disagreement though i was under the impression that violent societies mentioned earlier were quite stable for considerable lengths of time).

Yes! This is why so many vegitarian arguments are straw-men (even unintentional) - they utterly fail to grasp/address this point.

really russ! all loseyourname has provided are some alternate ways of killing. the issue of suffering hasn't even been touched, even though i have pointed out that the suffering happens over a period of time far, far greater than it takes to do the killing. as monique points out in post #1151 it's not all about the way of dying, it is also about the quality of life the animal has had

but you guys won't even look at the links such as the ones derek1 presented:

http://www.hfa.org/campaigns/tribarticle.html
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/
http://www.EggCruelty.com
http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp
http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

don't you think that it makes sense to argue from a base of existing knowledge rather than producing theoretical constructs from the imagination and then getting all flabberghasted because some of us who do know what happens out there disagree with you?

 

[physicsisphirst]

Yes! God yes! How can you have moral actions without a system of morality? Telling me "suffice it to say" tells me nothing. Why is it of benefit to us not to kill?

i think there are many answers to this depending on your system of values, but you yourself said that you will not kill unless you have a good reason (eg you are endangered or you think it is nourishment). so my point still remains that you don't need any fancy ethical theories here - just a simple understanding that you will not kill unless you have a need to. the benefit to you presumably is that you consider killing without sufficient reason to be cruel or immoral or something like that and by not killing unnecessarily you benefit yourself by not being cruel or immoral or something like that. are we in agreement with this?

If you don't think we need an ethical system to deal with whether or not killing is good, well fine for you! Without a system, how exactly is it that you determine what is good and what is bad? Again, if it is just intuition, what do you do when your intuition doesn't agree with mine?

if you want to consider what i have just written an ethical system, go ahead. if you don't, it doesn't matter to me, because i think you have stated your criteria fairly clearly - you will not kill unless you have a sufficient reason to (like those bugs destroying your garden or those people attacking you etc). once again, is this sufficient for us to agree on, without insisting on some formal and complex ethical system?

If all you are going to say is "not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill," you aren't going to get far. I don't base my concept of what is right by what is of benefit to me.

i think to some extent you do. you are willing to kill bugs that destroy your garden. i think you are killing those bugs not so much for the benefit of your garden (and its "right to life"), but because you want to keep your garden.

What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?

yes we know that you have these ingenious ways of killing humanely and you hopefully want to do away with factory farming to remove both the suffering and the ecodamage. but if we didn't eat meat we wouldn't have these problems caused by the industries in the first place, right?

It is inconsistent to say that you simply want to alleviate ecosystem destruction or animal suffering and then not accept a solution that does these things while leaving the practice of eating meat intact.

well i don't really see why you think I'm not accepting these alternate solutions. if you want to eat meat, do as suggested by that guy in my earlier post. wait till the animal dies, then eat. make sure that there are only a few animals on small farms and you'll do the ecosystem a favor too.

When you do not accept solutions unless they include not eating meat, it becomes clear that neither the alleviation of ecosystem destruction nor of animal suffering is your real aim. Your aim is simply to end the eating of meat, but you've run out of reasons to do so.

do you arrive at this conclusion through a process of elimination or wishful thinking?

Granted, it is still one way to bring about the results that you say you want to bring about. That's fine. But what reason is there to prefer this solution over other solutions? If someone else solves the problem a different way, what reason do you have to say that what they are doing is wrong?

well you haven't exactly solved the problem, you have only suggested some solutions along the lines of the killing (you really haven't dealt with the eco-issue, at least not in these recent exchanges). i have also offered a solution by which both the eco-problem and the suffering will be terminated. are your arguments against my solution essentially:
1) there are other solutions
2) there is a secret agenda to stop all killing

I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. I don't doubt that it exists in some places, but I'll repeat what I said before.

i don't think you understand that we are not talking about charlotte's web here. we are talking about factory farms. if you would actually research some of this rather than spin 'logical arguments', you would see that your not having 'seen any mistreatment' is hardly something to base an opinion on.

the problem we have here is that you won't look, therefore you can avoid the reality.

I would rather promote and enforce existing laws and, should I find out that one particular company is guilty of infractions, then I will no longer buy from them. I'm certainly not going to boycott an entire industry. Decent farmers do not deserve to lose business because of the immoral actions of their competitors.

then the very least you can do is see

http://www.themeatrix.com/

it is produced by some of your "decent farmers" who have been driven out of business by factory farms. if you investigate, perhaps you'll at least be enthusiastic about where you get your meat from and who you support.

I've said that I will recognize their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly. I will not grant them the right to not be killed.

yes, yes that's fine. however, this at least answers the question i was asking - you at least grant them the "their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly". now, exactly on what basis do you feel that animals have a "right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly".

If I have a reason to kill, I'll do it. I'm not opposed to the act itself.

yes we've established that several times now. however, the question remains, why do you think animals have a right to be treated humanely?

 

[physicsisphirst]

The vegetarian has considered this question and seen clearly that the overwhelming abundance of Goodness she finds outside of her head trivializes everything within it. The blinding all encompassing Goodness with which she is surrounded utterly and totally dwarfs the tiny noises in her head. It is then when the paradigm shifted, then when all mental systems disappeared, and vegetarianism inevitably followed.

i think there is this wonderful convenience in staying within mental systems - one can live in this fantasy world and ignore reality (and links LOL).

however, i find it curious that even within these mental systems

1) russ seems to think that the violent societies i named in post #1134 were not stable (even though they were so temporarily). i am unclear as to what he considers to be a society that is stable. if violent societies are not stable, then is it possible that non-violent ones are?

2) loseyourname has revealed in post #1141 that recognition will be granted to animals for "their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly" which is interesting because in post #1012 he plainly says:

A person is an entity with rights. Animals do not have rights.

well, I'm not complaining of course - i see this not so much as contradiction, but rather as evolution.


in any case, i am very interested in learning what russ thinks is a stable society and knowing why loseyourname thinks that animals have the right to be treated humanely and have asked both these questions (but have not yet heard back from them, because at the time of this writing neither has seen my questions LOL).

 

[physicsisphirst]

What are the laws on livestock treatment, which agency inspects whether the laws are abided by and where do I find the information on how livestock is treated overall.

monique, the laws protecting livestock are very weak compared to dogs and cats generally. it is this way because people can make more money if they are allowed to get away taking shortcuts (eg you cannot castrate a dog without anaesthetic, but you can do this to cattle, sheep or pigs).

the laws are changing though as people become more aware of what actually happens "down on the farm". for instance, austria recently legislated very tough AW laws (an article from May of last year below on some of this).

progress may be slow, but it does seem to occur eventually when enough people learn what actually goes on.

in friendship,
prad


http://www.factoryfarming.com/issues_austria.htm
Austria enacts one of Europe's toughest animal rights laws

WILLIAM J. KOLE
Associated Press Writer
May 28, 2004

Hens will be free to run around barnyards, lions and tigers will vanish from circus acts, and Dobermans will sport what nature intended -- floppy ears and longer tails -- under a tough animal rights law adopted Thursday in Austria.

The anticruelty law, one of Europe's harshest, will ban pet owners from cropping their dogs' ears or tails, force farmers to uncage their chickens, and ensure that puppies and kittens no longer swelter in pet shop windows.

Violators will be subject to fines of $2,420, and in cases of extreme cruelty could be fined up to $18,160 and have their animals seized by the authorities.

Lawmakers, some holding stuffed toy animals, voted unanimously to enact the law, which takes effect in January and will be phased in over several years. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said Austria was sending a stern message to the rest of Europe and the world about respecting animals.

"Austria is taking the role of pioneer," Schuessel told parliament, vowing to press for similar legislation across the European Union. "This new law will give both producers and consumers a good feeling, and it lifts animal protection to the highest level internationally."

It's the latest example of how the animals rights issue is gaining attention across Europe:

* The European Commission has proposed a sweeping overhaul of EU regulations on transporting livestock across the continent to give more protection to the hundreds of thousands of animals that are shipped daily and to prevent deaths and abuse.

* In March, Hungary's parliament banned cockfighting and the breeding or sale of animals for fighting, and it made animal torture -- previously a misdemeanor -- a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.

* Last summer, the region of Catalonia, which passed Spain's first animal cruelty law in 1988, banned the killing of abandoned cats and dogs in animal shelters and raised fines for cruelty to as much as $24,200.

* Italy is considering a law that forbids sending horses to the slaughterhouse after their competitive careers are over, and Germany plans to phase out mass farming of caged chickens by the end of 2006.

Austrians' love for animals dates to imperial times, with the famed Lipizzaner stallions pampered as a source of national pride.

Aimed primarily at poultry and other livestock, Austria's new law also outlaws the use of lions and other wild animals in circuses and makes it illegal to restrain dogs with chains, choke collars or "invisible fences" that administer mild electric shocks to confine animals.

The measure enjoyed the support of all four main parties in the National Assembly, where Minister of Social Affairs Herbert Haupt drew laughter by holding up a stuffed toy dog while addressing lawmakers Thursday.

Haupt, a veterinarian, had pushed for the law since the 1980s. It still needs the president's signature, a formality given its unanimous passage.

"Animals and consumers are the clear winners with this law," said Ulrike Sima, a lawmaker specializing in animal protection issues for the opposition Socialist Party.

A key provision bans the widespread practice of confining chickens to small cages on farms and makes it a crime to bind cattle tightly with ropes.

Pet owners and breeders no longer will be allowed to crop puppies' ears or tails, a common practice with certain breeds such as Doberman pinschers. Sweden has banned the practice since 1989.

Invisible fences are out, too, though they're nowhere near as ubiquitous here as they are in U.S. suburbs.

"This is a first step in the right direction," said Andreas Sax of the Austrian animal rights organization Four Paws.

Sax said the law won't do enough to improve conditions for cattle and pigs, who often are injured in cramped pens with slatted floors, and he criticized some sections he said were too vague.

The Austrian Farm Federation opposed the law, arguing that it will increase costs for farmers and could lead to more imports of poultry from countries with looser restrictions.

Chicken farmers will be allowed several years to phase in the new rules. Those who recently invested in new cages will have until 2020 to turn their birds loose to run free inside fences.

The law calls for creating an animal rights ombudsman to oversee the treatment of animals on farms and in zoos, circuses and pet shops. Austria has an estimated 140,000 enterprises that breed or sell animals.

 

[Monique]

the laws are changing though as people become more aware of what actually happens "down on the farm".

I think we should have a topic on "what happens down on the farm".. everyone would be able to form their own opinion whether what happens there is acceptable or not.

Basing an opinion on the fact that shooting an animal through the head is a minimum pain death, does not say anything about the way an animal approaches that death in reality on farms.

 

[russ_watters]

I think we should have a topic on "what happens down on the farm".. everyone would be able to form their own opinion whether what happens there is acceptable or not.

Basing an opinion on the fact that shooting an animal through the head is a minimum pain death, does not say anything about the way an animal approaches that death in reality on farms.

I agree - addressing the actual conditions on the farm is a separate (though, admittedly, related) question from whether or not eating meat is OK.

 

[Zlex]

You know what Homer says; "If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of delicious meat."

**** 'em; I say, kill them and eat 'em. Sooner the better. Unenlightened lions and tigers say **** the cosmos every day.

You stick to murdering the young, green alfalfa sprouts, yearning to seek out the warm Sun, fine, it just means more assorted grilled meats for me.

Just remember that the next time you water your houseplants, and talk to them. To them, you're just another naked ape with a bottle of A1 sauce in his paws, only this time its 'Newmans' Best', and your only after the houseplants little cousins.

Hey, I have pet Goldfish, and I talk to them, too. Sometimes, they woefully watch me hog down a nice piece of grilled swordfish steak, and if they stare too long, I glare at them and say, "What are YOU lookin at? You guys are one sliced lemon away from me taking away your borrowed stardust, so watch yourself."

So, now you know what your houseplants feel like when you are cosmically munching down on that hygroscopically grown organic sprout sandwich.

 

[Francis M]

O.K. folks. Let's put the light on the right part of the subject here. It was hit upon earlier. It seems to me in these posts that we're getting to the heart of the vegitarian argument. Not so much that killing an animal for food is wrong or right but how we treat them up to that point. IS this the crux of the argument? If so then wether eating meat is right or wrong shouldn't be the question but should be is eating meat of animals treated badly right or wrong. OR are we still talking about wether killing period is right or wrong. We've fallen into a trap of projecting our reasoning, onto animals that don't reason the way we do (if you believe animals other than us are self aware and or reason. I think some are or very close, but that's another argument). But let's face it folks lions don't sit down with gazelles and work out some kind of contract on who or how many of the herd will get hunted and killed. They don't go just after the old. THey pick off the young of a herd also. Now where is the morality or ethics in that? There isn't any, it's the law of nature. Whaterver food is easiest to get, whatever you can get that gives you the most sustenance with the least expenditure of energy to get it. Enviornmental and evolutionary pressure regulate prey size and therefore regulate preditor size (population wise) not reasoning, not ethics, not morals. SO can we please stop projecting our emotions, our morals and our ethics onto other animals in this argument? It just doesn't support the argument for wether eating meat is good/bad, right/wrong.

yes we know that you have these ingenious ways of killing humanely and you hopefully want to do away with factory farming to remove both the suffering and the ecodamage. but if we didn't eat meat we wouldn't have these problems caused by the industries in the first place, right?
I hate to burst your bubble but WRONG.

Can we stop using "Factory Farming" just in reference to these huge slaughter houses. It needs to apply to the huge crops of wheat and corn I see also. These are aslo "Factory Farms" and can cause ecodamage as well. Eating meat and industry pollution are slightly connected issues in the fact that the industries connected with meat processing and raising meat pollute. But the garment industry pollutes. SO does the auto industry and the list can go on. That connection doesn't support your argument.