Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[learningphysics]

A person would only find such statements ridiculuous, if he valued not traumatizing children, and valued not killing people for food.
But self-chosen kid beaters and cannibals would agree with those "freedoms" and would not feel any guilt; they think it's what they ought or need to do.

So are the kid beaters and cannibals morally right or wrong or neither?

 

[Dissident Dan]

this is a statement based more on opinion yet fact clearly shows humans have and most likely remain the most superior animal due to our biological.

We are superior at certain tasks, and other species are superior at other tasks. There is no such thing as "superior", in general.

 

[Kerrie]

We are superior at certain tasks, and other species are superior at other tasks. There is no such thing as "superior", in general.

you addressed only the first portion of my post, what is your response to the remainder?

 

[Dissident Dan]

you addressed only the first portion of my post, what is your response to the remainder?

Fair Enough.

dan, i think highly of you for advocating something you feel so strongly in, but is your goal to help educate others, or just to preach how wrong it is?

I want to reduce the suffering in the world. Cutting out the animal consumption helps both oneself and reduces the suffering that farmed animals face--the farmed animal end being the more significant point. I want people to be healthy and happy, but my main motivation is to reduce the suffering of so many animals suffering in animal agriculture, because they suffer so intensely and in such great numbers.

i would hope to educate, and it might be helpful to show others facts about how healthy a more vegetarian diet can be over the inhumane treatment at first, and what we can personally benefit from...pictures of slaughter houses just doesn't seem to penetrate the hearts of people like it does to you. i think once you can get people to see the health benefits, it might be possible to go further and enlighten more people about the inhumane treatment animals receive in the butchering factories, thus securing their choice of eating vegetarian.

The healthiness of vegetarian diets can be a strong motivator for some people, but my analysis leads me to think that highlighting ethics aspects is more effective at causing lasting change in a person's behavior. This is a strategic point. Also, it would be insincere for me to posit that my main concern is with people's health, when it is not my primary concern (although I do care). I also think that I would get even more of a "You choose to be vegan. I choose to eat meat" responses with that approach.

It's good to mention the health arguments, as has already been done in this thread, but I would not put them forward as the primary arguments.

 

[GeD]

Humans and many other species all have the ability to experience. Neither humans nor one of these other species is superior in that regard.

Then the biggest issue is whether humans are superior or not. If humans are superior to normal animals, then vegetarians are in the same boat as meat eaters.

So are the kid beaters and cannibals morally right or wrong or neither?

The existence of moral phenomena is still under dispute, but if you assume that they do exist, it still depends on which moral system is actually correct.

 

[GeD]

I want to reduce the suffering in the world. Cutting out the animal consumption helps both oneself and reduces the suffering that farmed animals face--the farmed animal end being the more significant point. I want people to be healthy and happy, but my main motivation is to reduce the suffering of so many animals suffering in animal agriculture, because they suffer so intensely and in such great numbers.

As noble as that may sound, it doesn't reflect what everyone else wants to follow, and also does not imply that every highly regarded moral system would want us to do that as well.

This means that even if you were successful in bringing about vegetarianism in western societies, it can only be called as such: enforcement - but neither a necessity nor nobility. Victory in this manner is only a testament of POWER, not of superior ideas.

 

[Dissident Dan]

This means that even if you were successful in bringing about vegetarianism in western societies, it can only be called as such: enforcement - but neither a necessity nor nobility. Victory in this manner is only a testament of POWER, not of superior ideas.

Would you say the same thing of the Civil Rights Act, child labor laws, etc?

 

[K.J.Healey]

Not to veer form the current discussion, and I'm not sure if this has already been discussed (87 pages to read is intimidating...) but..
Has there ever been any research on whether or not the human population could either:
A) Afford to feed themselves without using meat
What I mean is, could we financially do a conversion without the costs of non-meat products skyrocketing?

B) Survive on a non-meat diet?
Currently meat is a primary source of food which provides high levels of protien and high caloric content by weight. Would overpopulated or starved countries, such as China, N Korea, and the like, be able to keep their population from malnutrition and still be able to produce enough food to meet their nutritional requirements? I cannot think of a non-meat diet that is both inexpensive, healthy (in terms of survival), and could be self-harvested. (People have their own animals to consume).

Just wondering. I still am undecided on my stance. I eat meat, but only because everytime I try to go without it my red blood cell count drops drastically and I lose lots of energy.

 

[learningphysics]

Then the biggest issue is whether humans are superior or not. If humans are superior to normal animals, then vegetarians are in the same boat as meat eaters.

The existence of moral phenomena is still under dispute, but if you assume that they do exist, it still depends on which moral system is actually correct.

Ok... if we take moral phenomena as non-existent, then everything's equally ok, or equally bad. Eating meat, rape, murder, eating humans,sitting quietly doing nothing etc...

If we assume moral phenomena do exist then how do we determine which system is correct?

Which is your position?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Not to veer form the current discussion, and I'm not sure if this has already been discussed (87 pages to read is intimidating...) but..
Has there ever been any research on whether or not the human population could either:
A) Afford to feed themselves without using meat
What I mean is, could we financially do a conversion without the costs of non-meat products skyrocketing?

Actually, if more people ate the speciality products such as veggie "meats", the prices would come down, because the scale of production would go up and there would be more competition. As far as traditional plant foods, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, grains, etc., we would actually need to produce less plant food because we would not be feeding them to animals first (and you get a lot less food out of an animal than you put in). We would probably need to produce more of the types that we don't currently feed to farmed animals, but this would be more than made up for by the fact so many other plants no longer need to be produced.

B) Survive on a non-meat diet?
Currently meat is a primary source of food which provides high levels of protien and high caloric content by weight. Would overpopulated or starved countries, such as China, N Korea, and the like, be able to keep their population from malnutrition and still be able to produce enough food to meet their nutritional requirements? I cannot think of a non-meat diet that is both inexpensive, healthy (in terms of survival), and could be self-harvested. (People have their own animals to consume).

It is my understanding that most extremely poor people in 3rd-world countries eat hardly any meat, anyway. Instead of spending effort on the inputs that go into animal agriculture, we could spend that effort on producing food for direct human consumption. We could produce much more food given a certain amount of resources on animal-free diets, so feeding a hungry world is actually easier through vegetarianism.

Just wondering. I still am undecided on my stance. I eat meat, but only because everytime I try to go without it my red blood cell count drops drastically and I lose lots of energy.

I'm sorry to hear that. How do you know that your red blood cell count dropped? Did you get it tested in a lab?

If you eat a well-balanced diet, you will not have problems. I hope that you weren't eating just french fries and potato chips. Whether vegetarian or not, if you do not eat a variety of foods, you will have problems.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Actually, if more people ate the speciality products such as veggie "meats", the prices would come down, because the scale of production would go up and there would be more competition. As far as traditional plant foods, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, grains, etc., we would actually need to produce less plant food because we would not be feeding them to animals first (and you get a lot less food out of an animal than you put in). We would probably need to produce more of the types that we don't currently feed to farmed animals, but this would be more than made up for by the fact so many other plants no longer need to be produced.

You can't really qualify the "food" we give to animals as "food" that we ourselves could consume. If our diet looked similar to that of a cow/chicken's we'd all be unleathy from the overeating of grains.
Also, the thing about grains is that in volume of consumable product per square meter of crop it is a lot higher than any fruit, and most other vegetables. Also grains are less prone to disease and parasites, where fruits and vegetables have to be constantly monitored, thus requiring higher operating costs. I wonder what the actual values are of area of land used for cows+grains compared to the equal amount of final human edible product with other produce.

It is my understanding that most extremely poor people in 3rd-world countries eat hardly any meat, anyway. Instead of spending effort on the inputs that go into animal agriculture, we could spend that effort on producing food for direct human consumption. We could produce much more food given a certain amount of resources on animal-free diets, so feeding a hungry world is actually easier through vegetarianism.

Actuallym extremely poor countries have to do just about anything for their meat because its one of their few sources of protiens and needed fats. Its also essential for early development of a high-caloric diet. I'm not arguing that its impossible to feed these people without meat, I'm just proposing that it might be tougher due to the amount of needed foodstuffs to be produced for them to replace their current (though lacking) nutritional intake.

I'm sorry to hear that. How do you know that your red blood cell count dropped? Did you get it tested in a lab?

If you eat a well-balanced diet, you will not have problems. I hope that you weren't eating just french fries and potato chips. Whether vegetarian or not, if you do not eat a variety of foods, you will have problems.

No, my girlfriend at the time was vegetarian since she was 3. So I started the same diet, lots of fuits, greens, nuts (basically mediterranian diet). Over the course of 4 to 5 months I noticed a difference in my energy and ability to focus. I get my blood tested quite frequently because diabetes type-2 runs rampant in my family and I'm attempting to avoid it. I just have them do a full analysis (free at the hospital on base here). It's been a few years, but if i remember correctly my red blood cell count was at like 9 or 10? does that sound right? I can't remember.

EDIT : I just checked, it was the Total Hemoglobin Concentration in g/dl.

 

[sheepdog]

Good point.

What about the insects and other small lifeforms that we kill because of the need to keep vegetables and crops clean? Don't each of those lives (who are killed are more numerously than the animals we slaughter for meat) mean the same as cows, pigs, deer and sheep?

They do. Quite right. We should also not produce crops by intensive agriculture as we do. Unfortunately, we have to eat something. We can avoid the meat but not the fruits and vegies. But you are right. We should be aiming to eliminate all agricultural practices as well.

 

[sheepdog]

Absolutely. Save them all. Why not?

That would be phylumism! And don't forget Kingdomism; save the bacteria!

Yes, we should be working to avoid all of our effects. The slaughter of animals is only one of them.

 

[sheepdog]

No killing is inevitable, for us.

We just have to accept the fact that conflict and thus killing is a part of life (albeit, we try to avoid it if it will simply be a waste).

But all killing that we do is a waste, because none of it is inevitable, in the long run. Yes, it may be necessary now. But we can choose to devise the means to avoid it. It is our choice whether to kill or to avoid killing, anything and everything we kill. It is not just killing. It is about all of our effects. We may choose to have any effect we want, or we may choose to avoid to have an effect at all. None of our effects are inevitable.

 

[sheepdog]

No more farms.

When your produce comes from a third world country where even more animals are killed by agricultural farming because they do not have the standards like America does, then maybe you will see the crisis farmers truly are in.

Yes, the goal should be to eliminate farming as we know it completely, globally.

 

[sheepdog]

No killing is necessary.

We can agree that whether we are vegetarians or not, it will involve killing thousands of insect life and plant life, and even some animal life.

Absolutely untrue. This is the current situation. But there is nothing preventing us from choosing to work towards a future in which this is not true. There is nothing compelling us to do this killing, except that we have not devise the means not to -- yet. I absolutely do not accept the position that it is not in our capacity to devise the means to change our current situation. We have the capacity. Human creativity is unlimited. We only must choose to express that capacity to make it happen.

 

[sheepdog]

Superiorlessness

this is a statement based more on opinion yet fact clearly shows humans have and most likely remain the most superior animal due to our biological makeup.

And some humans are more superior than others based upon their superior biological makeup -- exactly the argument used by the Nazis leading to the exterminations. Perhaps you would not go so far, being willing to tolerate the inferiors so long as they were good to eat. Good for you!

Your feeling of superiority has no valid basis and no constructive purpose.

 

[Kerrie]

And some humans are more superior than others based upon their superior biological makeup -- exactly the argument used by the Nazis leading to the exterminations. Perhaps you would not go so far, being willing to tolerate the inferiors so long as they were good to eat. Good for you!

Your feeling of superiority has no valid basis and no constructive purpose.

knock off the sarcasm, or this thread will be shut down. i am guessing you are intelligent enough to understand the context of my message, stop twisting it to try and make me look bad because you don't like what i have to say.

it is fact human beings are superior, and superior doesn't mean better either. superior that we are an animal that has grown in huge numbers due to medical and agricultural advances. because of our superiority, we have problems, problems with overpopulation and trying to feed everyone adequately. to do so, we have devised animal and produce factories that use all sorts of chemicals that go into everyone's bodies, including yours unless you grow all of your own food.

next time instead of jumping on the attack bandwagon, ask for a little clarification.

 

[GeD]

Absolutely untrue. This is the current situation. But there is nothing preventing us from choosing to work towards a future in which this is not true. There is nothing compelling us to do this killing, except that we have not devise the means not to -- yet. I absolutely do not accept the position that it is not in our capacity to devise the means to change our current situation. We have the capacity. Human creativity is unlimited. We only must choose to express that capacity to make it happen.

? If it is possible in the future to eat plants without killing animals, then it is most likely possible to eat animals without killing plants.
Also, who stated anything about the situation never changing? I was focusing on the now - not some imagined future, and the fact that both vegetarianism and meat eating will involve killing animals, plants and insects.

 

[sheepdog]

I say what I mean.

knock off the sarcasm, or this thread will be shut down. i am guessing you are intelligent enough to understand the context of my message, stop twisting it to try and make me look bad because you don't like what i have to say.

it is fact human beings are superior, and superior doesn't mean better either. superior that we are an animal that has grown in huge numbers due to medical and agricultural advances. because of our superiority, we have problems, problems with overpopulation and trying to feed everyone adequately. to do so, we have devised animal and produce factories that use all sorts of chemicals that go into everyone's bodies, including yours unless you grow all of your own food.

next time instead of jumping on the attack bandwagon, ask for a little clarification.

There was no sarcasm. The idea of superiority is one of the most dangerous we can express. The Nazis are an excellent example but certainly not the only ones. I believe I understand your meaning exactly. Your clarification does not provide any further understanding. You are saying we are superior, in numbers, in intellect, in biology. You have made your position clear. It is false. Your sense of superiority is not valid and not constructive. There is no time when anyone taking such a position should not be contradicted. The consequences are too serious. The problems you describe are a direct result not of our actual superiority, but of our false sense of superiority. That is how dangerous it is. I will continue to take issue with the idea of our superiority at every opportunity, and I hope that I am not alone.

 

[sheepdog]

Kill neither

? If it is possible in the future to eat plants without killing animals, then it is most likely possible to eat animals without killing plants.

It is possible to eat without killing either.

Also, who stated anything about the situation never changing? I was focusing on the now - not some imagined future, and the fact that both vegetarianism and meat eating will involve killing animals, plants and insects.

Well, the question is, "Should we eat meat?" It seems nonsensical to interpret that question in the present since we do eat meat. Then the answer would be a simple, "of course we do." Seems reasonable to talk about about our future choices, not our present decisions.

 

[Kerrie]

Unfortunately, I find it necessary to discontinue this thread. I was really hoping it could continue more, but having my argument (and others) compared to a Nazi is considered worse then an insult. This thread was successful for many pages and many months, but having members throw insults regardless of how strongly they feel is not tolerated in this forum and is part of the membership guidelines.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Is meat good for you? Or is that rubbish? A new scientific report heats up the debate again. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1419827,00.html