Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Dissident Dan]

Although I agree that animals are mistreated and tortured in order to feed billions of people on this planet, I do not believe it answers the question “Should we eat meat?” Sure, one could argue that eating meat leads to the mistreatment and torture of animals, but in truth these are two issues that can be separated?

With today's systems, I don't think that it can...and, even if an animal is raised humanely, there is still the matter of the slaughterhouse, which is not exactly a happy place. I doubt that you could give them lethal injections. Would you want to eat meat with poisons designed to kill in it?

I think it’s not that we should eat meat, but that it’s perfectly OK to eat meat. Humans, after all, are omnivores and as such we have the option to choose meat or not.

We have lots of choices...to rape or not to rape...to go to work or watch T.V. Sometimes there are right and wrong choices.

So, I would like to re-direct the question a little bit. If we didn’t torture animals, would eating meat be okay? For instance, is farming mollusks (clams, oysters, mussels) a form of torture? If not would it be okay to eat these sources of meat?

Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments. As far as the farmed-animal concerns, they do not appear to be sentient creatures, so I do not see the harm in that category. I'd have to double-check on their nervous system structures before being completely sure.

 

[JD]

To Dan

Sorry - they're all living things Dan. As are plants. As are bacteria. (etc)
What on Earth are 'today's systems'? You expect to be treated as an individual yet you tar an enourmous sector in many countries with the same brush.
The slaughterhouse is not a happy place, no. How about if we waited for the animals to die of natural causes and then ate them? Or how about hunting?
You say 'sometimes there are right and wrong choices' Yes, there are, but morality is personal. My right choice could be your wrong one, and vice versa. My freedom may not be to your liking but I'm not living my life through your eyes am I?
You appear to find niggling faults with everything presented to you, every question asked. But you don't provide any solutions that meat eaters would find acceptable.
You say 'I'd have to double check on their nervous system structures before being completely sure' Why not check before posting your response?
When you say 'Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments.', with all due respect, so what? Again, picking holes. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves the health issues - we're adults so let us worry about that one. I have to say that you may not be aware of how mean this makes you sound. I don't know you of course but the world is full of people who operate under the guise of caring deeply about the earth, and not only drain the energy of the people they talk with, with half-baked theories of how the world should be, but also really regard people as being of little importance.

 

[Dissident Dan]

To Dan
Sorry - they're all living things Dan. As are plants. As are bacteria. (etc)

I have never used being alive (by the scientific definition) as being a correct criterion for determining whether or not to give consideration to something. It is sentience, the capacity for feeling.

What on Earth are 'today's systems'? You expect to be treated as an individual yet you tar an enourmous sector in many countries with the same brush.

I am talking about industrialized agriculture. If you look at the way animals are grown and slaughtered, there is over 90% uniformity, and incredibly cruel, at least in the USA. A majority of agriculture is done this way in many other 1st-world nations, as well, but I do not know if the saturation is as high in the USA.

The slaughterhouse is not a happy place, no. How about if we waited for the animals to die of natural causes and then ate them? Or how about hunting?

I was saying that I do not know of any completely humane way of killing.

You say 'sometimes there are right and wrong choices' Yes, there are, but morality is personal. My right choice could be your wrong one, and vice versa. My freedom may not be to your liking but I'm not living my life through your eyes am I?

If a choice is something that should be personal, I'm not quite sure that it would fall uner the category of morality. I believe that there are things that are definitely right or wrong, regardless of who's doing them. For example, it should not be a person's perogative to rape another person. The criterion that makes this a concrete mroal issue that should not just be left to personal choice is the same criterion for the vegetarian argument that I am presenting-the choice adversely affects others a great deal. A person does not have the right to force his will upon a woman and rape her. Likewise, a person does not have a right to force his/her will upon an animal and imprison and tortue him/her.

You appear to find niggling faults with everything presented to you, every question asked. But you don't provide any solutions that meat eaters would find acceptable.

I can't help it if you don't find the solutions I present acceptable. Sometimes it is hard for people to accept the correct course of action.

When you say 'Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments.', with all due respect, so what? Again, picking holes. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves the health issues - we're adults so let us worry about that one.

I am merely pointing out important flaws in given situations. To neglect these would be irresponsible. These are not minor side-issues. They are very important issues. Arguably, the health issue is a personal choice, but the environmental issue affects us all.

I have to say that you may not be aware of how mean this makes you sound.

Well, I'm sorry if I sounded mean. Please let me know specifically what sounded mean so I can be aware of that in the future. My main purpose for posting in this thread is to try to spread kindness, so I do not want to sound mean.

 

[donnie]

I guess the real issue is to save the species which are about to be wiped out (like whales, sharks, panda bears, Bengal tigers, and many others)
Last time I checked nor cows, nor chickens were on the brink of extinction...
So that would be the difference between eating a steak and eating a shark. Also when you eat shark you eat only one fin, while from a cow you can get a larger number of steaks...

But who's to say it's the cow we'll be trying to save in 50 years' time? Don't we cause our own problems? But I guess it's in our nature to be omnivores - being at the top of the food chain and stuff. What makes all this suck though is when we ABUSE our post as meat-eaters and lose respect for what we're eating.

 

[Raven]

We have lots of choices...to rape or not to rape...to go to work or watch T.V. Sometimes there are right and wrong choices.

The suggestion you're making is that choosing to eat meat is ethically/morally wrong. I beg to differ. I think carnivores and omnivores are making an ethically correct choice to eat meat. It is all part of creating a balance in nature. Obviously carnivores and omnivores serve as control factors to keeping the population of herbivores down. In my point of view eating meat is a principle of correct conduct in act of preserving nature. We all survive through the process of life and death (like it or not, humane or inhumane). It is simply the way the "system" of nature works.

However, I will also argue that nothing is controlling the overpopulation of humans on this planet to prevent us from abusing the planet's resources (plants, animals, space, energy, you name it). In my opinion, the demands and needs of 6 billion people (and growing) is a huge cause to many of our evironmental problems -- the mistreatment and torture of animals included.

Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments. As far as the farmed-animal concerns, they do not appear to be sentient creatures, so I do not see the harm in that category. I'd have to double-check on their nervous system structures before being completely sure.

I missed what you meant about "resource conservation argument" -- please explain.

It seems, however, that in your opinion mullusks may be acceptable forms of meat if the nervous system thing you have to check is cleared. How about eating eggs? Certainly eggs are not sentient, but also a form of meat. Would escargo be okay? I'm not too sure about their sentience, but again a possibility?

I think we will probably disagree on whether eating meat is "right" or "wrong" (as you put it), but I have to wonder what sentient beings would be okay to kill and eat based on your point of view. The general definition of sentient is something having the faculty of sense or perception. In that case, would it be wrong to kill ants, flies, crickets, maggots, whiteworms, scorpions, etc.. I do know that some cultures do eat bugs. Heck, I even know a restaurant called "Typhoon" near LAX airport that serves some of the bugs I named. Do you object to killing bugs for food? They are sentient by definition.

 

[JD]

I have never used being alive (by the scientific definition) as being a correct criterion for determining whether or not to give consideration to something. It is sentience, the capacity for feeling.

But how can you (or anyone else for that matter) differentiate? Plants react to stimuli. If you're concerned about suffering, you shouldn't eat anything that once lived.

I am talking about industrialized agriculture. If you look at the way animals are grown and slaughtered, there is over 90% uniformity, and incredibly cruel, at least in the USA. A majority of agriculture is done this way in many other 1st-world nations, as well, but I do not know if the saturation is as high in the USA.

You keep coming back to this. I keep saying that if people source their meat correctly from stock where animals are reared properly, where is the problem?

I was saying that I do not know of any completely humane way of killing.

Are there any ways of dying which are "acceptable"?

If a choice is something that should be personal, I'm not quite sure that it would fall uner the category of morality. I believe that there are things that are definitely right or wrong, regardless of who's doing them. For example, it should not be a person's perogative to rape another person. The criterion that makes this a concrete mroal issue that should not just be left to personal choice is the same criterion for the vegetarian argument that I am presenting-the choice adversely affects others a great deal. A person does not have the right to force his will upon a woman and rape her. Likewise, a person does not have a right to force his/her will upon an animal and imprison and tortue him/her.

But how can morality not be personal? You see the world through your own eyes, not through those of anyone else. Do you consider intention and context?

I can't help it if you don't find the solutions I present acceptable. Sometimes it is hard for people to accept the correct course of action.

Oh how I wish I was up on as high a pedestal as you. The view must be breathtaking. How can one live with such misguided idiots combing the surface of the earth?

I am merely pointing out important flaws in given situations. To neglect these would be irresponsible. These are not minor side-issues. They are very important issues. Arguably, the health issue is a personal choice, but the environmental issue affects us all.

Well in that case you had better request that a large number of activities cease henceforth. Nuclear power generation, passenger air flights, the use of the internal combustion engine, rock concerts, televisions, x-ray machines...

Well, I'm sorry if I sounded mean. Please let me know specifically what sounded mean so I can be aware of that in the future. My main purpose for posting in this thread is to try to spread kindness, so I do not want to sound mean.

You seem to want to control how people behave, yet your title would tend to suggest that you hate being controlled yourself.

 

[JD]

Don't get me wrong - I do not like to see animals raised in poor conditions. They need a good environment with a sound diet. They need to feel as little stress as possible (a little keeps us all alive) and, to provide humans with meat, they need to be slaughtered as quickly, cleanly and painlessly as possible. Death is not something that any of us look at with any great glee.

What I do not accept, however, is vegetarians and vegans using the conditions in which some animals are raised as an argument for trying to stop people eating meat. It doesn't wash.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I doubt that a 6-month old vegetarian is a liar, seeing as how the child can't speak yet.

Well, I said ALL vegetarians are liars, so that would include 6 month old little veggie brats.

If you mean that all adult vegetarians have lied before, you are probably correct, because probably all adults have lied before...but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

HA! That's shows how much you know. Vegetarians are more apt to lie at any age because studies have shown their low protein diet suppresses an area of the brain responsible for truthfulness.

If you are saying that people who say they are vegetarians really aren't, then you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about or are just interrupting the conversation because you get a kick out of it.

I would never do that, c'mon. My point is that Jkowski's GF's aunt has to be a liar because she says she ain't having sex, and besides being liars vegetarians are reknown horndogs.

 

[Averagesupernova]

OMG. I'm already a horndog and I eat a lot of meat. Would becoming a veg make me even worse?

 

[Les Sleeth]

OMG. I'm already a horndog and I eat a lot of meat. Would becoming a veg make me even worse?

See, what is happening is all that dead rotting flesh in your gut is interfering with your sexual appetite. So get rid of that crap and look out! :surprise:

Also, if you think about it, that gives the veggies a reproductive advantage, which make them more attractive to natural selection, and means one day veggies will rule the world.

 

[KnowledgeIsPower]

Animals eat animals. Why on Earth shouldn't humans?
Being a vegeterian is simply politically correctness gone mad.

 

[Rader]

Mad cow disease mutates

Animals eat animals. Why on Earth shouldn't humans?
Being a vegeterian is simply politically correctness gone mad.

I could give you a reason if you like. They just announced on CNN Europe that they think mad cow disease, has now has mutated to a human form. In case you do not know it eats your brains. The last thing we need on this forum is posters with no brains. Just kidding the news is true though, long life to you.

 

[kerri]

Realistic vegetarian logic:

If we stop eating domestic pigs, cows, and chickens they won't be suddenly "free and happy", they will cease to exist, probably heaved into a big pile and incinerated. What farmer is going to feed and house thousands of large, smelly and completely dependant animals as *pets*?

Animal husbandry has no place in a vegetarian world (unless you are a hindu.) Therefore advocating universal vegetarianism is tantamount to advocating the extinction of all animals bred to serve no other purpose than to become food for humans.

This effectively rules out arguing for vegetarianism from an animal rights perspective. A more sensible position for animal rights activists would be; "we should be very nice to farm animals and try to ensure their lives are as free from institutionalized torture and abuse as can possibly be acheived, then we should slaughter them (humanely) and eat them (with reverence)."

Secondly, wild animals do not frolic about in an utopian garden until they die peacefully of old age. They spend each day constantly on guard and ready to flee from predators until they are too old or lame to outpace or outsmart whatever bobcat, killer whale, hyena or pack of wolves has been chasing them. Then they die deaths too horrible to describe. The predators themselves struggle along until they are too old to hunt and then die of starvation. If I were a seal or a polar bear I would prefer a bullet to the head to most of the alternatives. And, having had my lights put out in such a fashion, it wouldn't matter to me, personally, whether I was completely devoured or left to rot. So we can't argue that we are doing the cute little animals of the forest some kind of favour by not eating them.

Therefore, going vegetarian "for the animals" doesn't make much sense. The only sound logic one can use to support choosing a vegetarian diet, then, is a selfish one. What benefit can humans gain from a meatless diet?

The obvious answer is, there would be more food to go around, because the cows wouldn't be using up all the arable land (ie. simply put, arable land can yield ten times as much food for humans if used as crop land instead of grazing land).

Anyway, if the question "should we be vegetarians" means "does it make more sense in terms of the sustainability of our *human* habitat and the longevity of our *human* species" then, yes, we should, because eating meat uses up our food resources 10 times faster than not eating meat.

But human beings generally think of their own quality of life in terms of a big juicy tantalising steak sitting on a plate right in front of them - not in terms of what kind of rubbish their present enjoyment of an extravagent waste of resources is going to force their great-great-great-great-grandchildren to make do with. So if the question is "should we be vegetarians to enhance our own experience of life", then, no, we shouldn't, because what individual is overwhelmed with concern for his or her distant descendants when the hot dog guy at the baseball game comes by?

(Personal note: I've been a vegetarian for fifteen years. Always been suspicious of soy. I have the sniffles but am otherwise as healthy as my carnivorous friends. I don't think there should be any such thing as cows or chickens.)

 

[Les Sleeth]

If we stop eating domestic pigs, cows, and chickens they won't be suddenly "free and happy", they will cease to exist, probably heaved into a big pile and incinerated. What farmer is going to feed and house thousands of large, smelly and completely dependant animals as *pets*? . . .

(Personal note: I've been a vegetarian for fifteen years. Always been suspicious of soy. I have the sniffles but am otherwise as healthy as my carnivorous friends. I don't think there should be any such thing as cows or chickens.)

I think it's pretty funny when we vegetarians stand up for the rights of flesh eaters.

 

[Fliption]

Wow. Thirty two pages and I just now feel like answering the question.

Should we eat meat?

Yes, when we are hungry.

 

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

as for the effects of soy, the research is now in that shows the damage soy can do. The medical community has finished many years of study on thousands of men who have died of aids and have found that the estrogens in soy products prevented the development of the anterior portion of the pituitary which is found in all heterosexual males but not in homosexual males. So if you want to know why there are so many homosexuals now as compared to earlier times all you have to do is look no further than the stupid anti meat crusaders who all want us to eat soy. roy blizzard

 

[Les Sleeth]

as for the effects of soy, the research is now in that shows the damage soy can do. The medical community has finished many years of study on thousands of men who have died of aids and have found that the estrogens in soy products prevented the development of the anterior portion of the pituitary which is found in all heterosexual males but not in homosexual males. So if you want to know why there are so many homosexuals now as compared to earlier times all you have to do is look no further than the stupid anti meat crusaders who all want us to eat soy. roy blizzard

Yeah but according the one authority (Clint Eastwood), only steers and queers come from Texas, so doesn't that prove a MEAT-gay connection?

 

[Averagesupernova]

You know it is really funny how U.S. farmers are constantly told by the USDA that there is a surplus of grain and yet people talk about how many more people we could feed if we eliminated the animals. But that is a whole other thread, I won't drag it into this.

 

[Zantra]

There's no way I'm reading 32 pages about meat So if I'm repeating what's been said, you know why!

I don't know if it was this thread or another, but a reference was made to the hitchiker's guide to the galaxy series and the part about the cow asking him not to eat him.

I guess the bottom line is that We've evolved from a society that eats meat out of necessity and for survival, to one that eats it out of a sense of habit. It's no longer as justifiable as it once was. So when we eat meat, we have to consider that the consumption is more for convenience and self gratification then for survival.

That said, I'm going to go grab a burger

 

[digiflux]

"Just Life Forms"

“I mean to say, we have to eat living things to survive and why should eating a lettuce be any different from eating a cow? Are cows of greater importance than lettuces? Surely its all important. Oh no, lettuces aren't cuddly. They could be though with a little pair of glasses and a dress.”

JD: I responded to this in an earlier post but here goes again: Could you burn to death a dog or a cat or a horse, chicken, pig et... as easily as you could a virus? “They are all life forms”.

So come on, JD. Don’t just argue for the sake of argument. Going over covered ground is tiring.


“but morality is personal.”

JD: Tell that to your local district attorney.


“ Is there any evidence that a lion feels remorse when killing a deer?”

No, and they don't post on the net either. So what's the point?

“Not only are your so-called facts pretty well wacked, I would suspect you are skating on pretty thin ice concerning your privledges on this board based on the comments on the above quote.”

Averagesupernova I stand by my comment on ranchers. I know them. I have lived among them for over 17 years and have personally witnessed their brutality and cruelty.

Dissident Dan: GOOD JOB! JD is trying the old “we are all life forms” argument that I have heard a million times before. It’s really not a very thoughtful position and I applaud you for your patience in answering him.


“what makes all this suck though is when we ABUSE our post as meat-eaters and lose respect for what we're eating.”

donnie: I agree but humans have lost their respect for nature in general. This is the crux of the problem. The Native Americans had a good natural balance that lasted for 10’s of thousands of years. White-man’s religious beliefs are at odds with Nature. It separates humans from all other life forms. The reality is exactly the opposite.

 

[avemt1]

"everything has to take life to keep life"
Is this a fundamental rule of existence?
It seems so in my point of veiw.

My feelings on this thread are that all the quotes, taking thirty two pages, have been a total waste to the point. We need to stick to the scientific method even in the most confusing moments of a subject's conjecture.

I have also seen things being repeated many times over. If we read all the information in this thread i believe you would fall asleep after 10 minutes. This is highly inefficient and costs the sponsors more to run the site.

thank you for reading this I hope you are enlightened to the world.

 

[russ_watters]

I've argued this one before:

Could you burn to death a dog or a cat or a horse, chicken, pig et... as easily as you could a virus? “They are all life forms”.

I'll concede that there is a difference betwen a pig and a head of lettuce that makes a different morality apply if you concede there is a difference between a human and a pig that makes a different morality apply.

Or, if you prefer, you could concede instead that there is a similarity between a lion and a human that makes the same morality apply when dealing with the pig.

 

[Mazuz]

We know through first hand experience the type of suffering that exists for animals, we are animals. We have a brain, and awareness.. and so can suffer.

Plants don't have brains or awareness any more than rocks do. They don't have a capacity for suffering in our sense of the word. If you want to say plants can some how suffer you can equally say that the sun can suffer, that mountains can suffer... have fun.

What is particularly wrong with eating meat is that by doing so we are generally supporting the meat industry which endorses suffering. I'm sure this has been covered somewhere in the last 100 pages :P

And perhaps even worse is that the meat industry is destroying the environment at a rate much faster than the agricultural industry. If for no other reason imagine all the pounds of "plant life" that goes into one pound of "animal life". In fact this is a good argument against someone who wants to say that eating plants causes suffering too, meat eaters kill more plants! :P

I don't so much have a problem with eating meat. I have a problem with causing animals to suffer, and I have a problem with destroying our planet. Anyone who doesn't care about these things needs a reality check ;)

 

[pace]

russ_watters, then how about we say it's a similarity between what you say, and how black people was treated through racism before? Does it make it anything better or more right ? No.
Lions are bound to the same principles of freedom and social necessity as we are. It doesn't make any sense that we have to copy them. Your argument ends up to: because someone does something, it makes it right for others to do the same, which is bs of course. Besides Lions has it much tougher than us, so it's uncomparable situations anyways.
The situation we're into isn't an argument for continuing our actions. It's a poor excuse to how we've become. But it's something we can stop easily.The essence of the question isn't how things is, it's about what we can do.

 

[russ_watters]

russ_watters, then how about we say it's a similarity between what you say, and how black people was treated through racism before? Does it make it anything better or more right ? No.

That argument has been used before and its a straw-man. Blacks are clearly not pigs or heads of lettuce. The fact that uneducated bigots used to think different is irrelevant.

Lions are bound to the same principles of freedom and social necessity as we are. It doesn't make any sense that we have to copy them.

We're bound to the same principles but we can't have the same actions (copied or otherwise)? Isn't that a contradiction?

Your argument ends up to: because someone does something, it makes it right for others to do the same, which is bs of course.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply pointing out that it is contradictory to say that we should apply our morality to animals because we are the same, yet not apply our actions because we are different.

Besides Lions has it much tougher than us, so it's uncomparable situations anyways.

And "tougher" matters to morality how?

The situation we're into isn't an argument for continuing our actions. It's a poor excuse to how we've become.

How we've become? When in human history were the majority of humans ever not meat eaters? It seems to me that vegitarians are trying to change human behavior from what has been normal throughout human history (not to mention evolution). To me, that requires a pretty clear and profound justification.

But it's something we can stop easily.

Quite right - but like I said, I'll need a pretty strong reason why we should suddenly alter our behavior after 5 billion years of evolution.

 

[Polemotheos]

No one is safe. I turned vegetarian for a few weeks and during that time I was turning purple. look at this from http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/soydoerge.htm I am outraged and I'm going to take it out on the farm animals. Anyways, I don't know how anyone can possibly know if vegetarians are healthy. I was pretty sick eating those toxic pellet raisins and soy products all those weeks. from http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art14546.asp

Asians at first believed soy was a poisonous plant. It is definately a thyroid downer. So if you consume soy make sure you also consume sea vegetables like kombu, sea palm, wakame, nori, which happen to be thyroid uppers. And try to only eat soy in its fermented forms.

There is a more important question then whether we are vegan or not. And that is are we sustainable. The current agracultural practices of today destroy the land within 50 years. They distroy our water suppies and they kill or deform thousands of creatures. One part per billion of pestiside reside in water kills aligator eggs. Most chemicals they use are nurotoxins.

I am a vegan, and I support sustainable agraculture. Organic, biodynamic.. etc. I eat fruits and vegetables and grains and beans most people have never heard of. Have you ever cut open an apple and it had pink flesh? Have you ever had yellow watermellon? Have you ever had anazazi beans or quinoa? You see, a biodynamic vegan diet is all inclusive. The only things I do not eat are; pesticides, cholesteral and saturated fat. If you have a protein fedish just remember hemp seed and whey are better protein sources then any animal.

 

[Mazuz]

When in human history were the majority of humans ever not meat eaters? It seems to me that vegitarians are trying to change human behavior from what has been normal throughout human history (not to mention evolution). To me, that requires a pretty clear and profound justification.

First of all humans haven’t been around for 5 billion years, more like a few million. Humans have never had a choice in what to eat until now, for the most part. Basically whatever contained the most fat and protein was what we needed in our diet, and that was meat.

However many of our ancestors ate a large amount of insects as well, and if you are willing to go back just a little bit I’m sure we have evolved from creatures that ate mostly insects.. But you probably don't want to think about that...

I for one don't think how we have evolved is always a guide for how we should live, though granted it is important to understand. If our ancestors were murderers should we be? If our ancestors were rapists should be? If our ancestors practices ritual sacrifices should we?

The truth is we eat meat because we like it.. which is a good enough reason for a lot of people, and it is also the reason people smoke cigarettes and eat potato chips. The "because I like it" reason rules most people.

In all fairness a certain amount of meat in our diet I’m sure is healthy. It can probably be substituted for other foods however, but I don’t have that information. But just because something is good for us doesn’t make it right. It may be good for me to eat you for instance. Or it may be good for me to take your healthy heart when mine begins to fail. And even if eating meat is good for an individual’s health does that justify what the destruction of our planet is going to do to individuals in the future? I can’t conclude eating meat is “good for us” when we take just a little step back.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I've argued this one before: I'll concede that there is a difference betwen a pig and a head of lettuce that makes a different morality apply if you concede there is a difference between a human and a pig that makes a different morality apply.

Or, if you prefer, you could concede instead that there is a similarity between a lion and a human that makes the same morality apply when dealing with the pig.

So, you say the differences are grounds for different treatment when it suits you and say that the similarities are grounds for similar action when it suits you. What you are doing is taking differences that are irrelevant with regard to this thread (this thread is about eating animals, so as as it concerns recipients of an action, it is about being eaten) and using them to defend cruelty, and yet you are using a weak link in the similarities between humans and lions (appetite and instinct, perhaps?) to defend cruelties, despite the obvious and relevant differences (cognitive capacity).

The similarity that is relevant as recipients of actions is the ability to experience. As creatures with the ability to experience, we should not be killed or tortured. The difference that is relevant as actors is our (humans')cognitive abilities. We have increased ability to understand, empathize, and think about morality. Thus, we should act differently from lions. I doubt that you would disagree as it pertains to most topics--I doubt that I would catch you defending rape as a method of reproduction or fighting with other males over territory or females. I think that you are just rationalizing the eating of animals because of your desire to be correct and your desire to not change.

 

[Chronos]

I eat meat. I presume farmers raise animals to be food for the same reason. Is it wrong to raise animals to to be eaten? I have no idea. I would guess there would be far fewer of them otherwise. Perhaps they would be extinct. Perhaps highly advanced aliens raise us for food. Perhaps we just think we live long lives and die peacefully.

 

[digiflux]

Meat

I'll concede that there is a difference betwen a pig and a head of lettuce that makes a different morality apply if you concede there is a difference between a human and a pig that makes a different morality apply. Or, if you prefer, you could concede instead that there is a similarity between a lion and a human that makes the same morality apply when dealing with the pig.

When I see posts like this one I understand exactly what “avemt1” means. This gets tiring...

Plants don't have brains or awareness any more than rocks do. They don't have a capacity for suffering in our sense of the word.

We don’t know this to be true. Suffering can take on many different forms. Humans can suffer greatly without feeling physical pain... Otherwise I agree with just about all Mazuz says.

That argument has been used before and its a straw-man. Blacks are clearly not pigs or heads of lettuce. The fact that uneducated bigots used to think different is irrelevant.

Many people (highly educated, non bigots) see the parallel between the animal industry and slavery. Black people who eat meat are incensed by the argument but it does have merit.

How we've become? When in human history were the majority of humans ever not meat eaters? It seems to me that vegitarians are trying to change human behavior from what has been normal throughout human history (not to mention evolution). To me, that requires a pretty clear and profound justification.

Slavery and torture were, and still are in many cultures, “normal” human behaviors. Some things about human nature should change. It begins with laws which then become ingrained into the culture. THIS is “normal” human behavior...

Quite right - but like I said, I'll need a pretty strong reason why we should suddenly alter our behavior after 5 billion years of evolution.

Morals should evolve too...

The truth is we eat meat because we like it.

Mazuz: You have hit the nail on the head. People are to weak to change. They behave more like my dogs. If it tastes good, down it goes...lol. Their justifications for eating meat are a self indulgent ruse.

Speaking of self indulgence: http://

 

[digiflux]

Link

Lemme try again. If it still doesn't work just copy and past it. It's a must see! hahahaha...

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/george_w_bush_picking_his_nose.htm

 

[poolwin2001]

I don't agree that we should stop eating meat for reasons like saving animals spieceies being extinct but there are many other reasons to do so.
We have to compulsorily study biology till STD 10 and i learned something about Bio magnification(i think it is called that)=more and more pesticides/insecticides etc are sprayed on crops,when we eat plants, these chemicals in low ppm(ppt?) arent degraded and cumulate and cause harm,get passed on to the next generation etc etc
If we eat meat,we eat beings on whom biomagnification had already acted and so on...
There was also something about robins being killed which lead to the DDT ban

 

[Alkatran]

Top priority should be the continuation of life on earth. We should be more worried about mosquitoes going extinct than the cute n cuddly panda, which doesn't really contribute much, going extinct. If the pandas die off, who suffers? A few people get sad.

If mosquitoes die off, who suffers? Any animal that was eating mosquitoes. That's... a lot of animals.

Also, believe it or not we have a delicate balance going here. If you stop deer hunting for even a year the deer overpopulate, car-deer accidents increase, deer start leaving the forest looking for food, ETC

I can't imagine how bad it would be if we just stopped hunting these animals.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Also, believe it or not we have a delicate balance going here. If you stop deer hunting for even a year the deer overpopulate, car-deer accidents increase, deer start leaving the forest looking for food, ETC

I can't imagine how bad it would be if we just stopped hunting these animals.

Deer populations were fine before we got here.

Aren't there hunting seasons to make sure that they aren't hunted to extinction? And you're talking about overpopulation. Anyway, this has little to do with the purpose of the thread.

 

[Alkatran]

Deer populations were fine before we got here.

Aren't there hunting seasons to make sure that they aren't hunted to extinction? And you're talking about overpopulation. Anyway, this has little to do with the purpose of the thread.

It has everything to do with the purpose of the thread. I consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most. That's how I'm going to make my decision, could the planet handle a massive halt in meat eating?

Think of it this way: If we stop eating meat we need more room for crops. That means we need to either move or get rid of the animals currently on the field. How do we do that? Be eating them and NOT REPLACING them.

And saying deer populations were fine "before we got here" has little relevance. We ARE here now. The population has adapted to keep the balance it has with the hunting season. Yes, if the hunting season was year round it would mean the end of deer, but the same goes for if it was removed. There would be massive amounts of death due to disease, hunger, etc. Better for some to get shot (much better than starving to death) than for all to hunger.

By the way, if the deer overpopulated, they would become a nuisance, trying to eat at the crops we need.

 

[stefan80302]

It has everything to do with the purpose of the thread. I consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most. That's how I'm going to make my decision, could the planet handle a massive halt in meat eating?

I'm sorry to disagree with you Alaktran but I think when you say i consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most i think you mean human life. Everything humans do to prolong their existence is infact imorral. We kill animals, destroy the land, burn the forests, drain the lakes, warm the atmosphere. Further on, i think the planet can handle anything we trow at it, unless we change its orbit it is going to be here long after we are gone.
sorry for not having a concrete point but i just needed to respond.

 

[Alkatran]

I'm sorry to disagree with you Alaktran but I think when you say i consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most i think you mean human life. Everything humans do to prolong their existence is infact imorral. We kill animals, destroy the land, burn the forests, drain the lakes, warm the atmosphere. Further on, i think the planet can handle anything we trow at it, unless we change its orbit it is going to be here long after we are gone.
sorry for not having a concrete point but i just needed to respond.

I figured someone would bring up that point. That's why I based all my arguments around what would go wrong for animals.

Face it, humans are one the higher versions of life. Highly Intelligence, capable of large scale change. A dog will spend it's entire life eating, sleeping, etc. ... Then again, so will your average person.

I kill billions of bacteria every day, I'm sure. I crush mosquitoes if they decide to bite me (I let them be if they don't both me). I brush off a spider crawling up my leg. Is this wrong? If nothing ever crushed a mosquito wouldn't they get out of hand?

Anyways, my point is, if we make a RADICAL change like completely stopping consumption of meat the animal population will EXPLODE. There will suddenly by double (or more!) the number of herbivores that we eat around. What happens next? Well carnivores have an easy few months ahead! The population explosion moves up the food chain (herbivores go down to normal and lower when carnivores get high). I can't see very many 'good' situations arising from a sudden change like that. Wolves in the streets and such.

 

[siliconhype]

Good point...

I am studying Science 10 here in a Canadian High School. We are running over the beginning of the textbook - looking at ecology. I have learned about certain ways scientists categorize ecosystems and relationships between biotic and abiotic members of the ecosystem (some, at least); and one way of looking at relationships is to graph or represent the transfer of energy from one organism to the next. I have learned something interesting here: aparently, the energy we take from our food (measured in Kj) lessens as the food we consume aproaches the top of the food chain. Note to take here: eating a shark will give you much less energy than consuming what the shark ate, consuming what the shark ate, ate, or cosuming what the shark ate, ate, ate... catch my drift? In coclusion, cosuming plants, which get their energy from the sun and nutrients in the terestrial system will give us optimal energy transfer. What do you guys think? Is this true?

- V

An alternative reasoning i developped independently (perhaps this has already been debated?), is that, perhaps by consuming mamals (eating meat) allows us to bypass the metabolic preparation of the matter we have consumed, simply, (and i might be thinking too simply here) because the animal we are eating has performed the digesition and transformation of plant matter into protein and hormones, through its own metabolism, for us; thus we do not need to alocate much energy to our metabolic system which would, otherwise, use it to break down and transform plant matter into protein and hormones.

 

[siliconhype]

Top priority should be the continuation of life on earth. We should be more worried about mosquitoes going extinct than the cute n cuddly panda, which doesn't really contribute much, going extinct. If the pandas die off, who suffers? A few people get sad.

If mosquitoes die off, who suffers? Any animal that was eating mosquitoes. That's... a lot of animals.

Also, believe it or not we have a delicate balance going here. If you stop deer hunting for even a year the deer overpopulate, car-deer accidents increase, deer start leaving the forest looking for food, ETC

I can't imagine how bad it would be if we just stopped hunting these animals.

It wouldn't be that bad... the wolf will hunt them. There is always a way, in nature.

 

[siliconhype]

It has everything to do with the purpose of the thread. I consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most. That's how I'm going to make my decision, could the planet handle a massive halt in meat eating?

Think of it this way: If we stop eating meat we need more room for crops. That means we need to either move or get rid of the animals currently on the field. How do we do that? Be eating them and NOT REPLACING them.

And saying deer populations were fine "before we got here" has little relevance. We ARE here now. The population has adapted to keep the balance it has with the hunting season. Yes, if the hunting season was year round it would mean the end of deer, but the same goes for if it was removed. There would be massive amounts of death due to disease, hunger, etc. Better for some to get shot (much better than starving to death) than for all to hunger.

By the way, if the deer overpopulated, they would become a nuisance, trying to eat at the crops we need.

you'r reasons might be valid, to a point, but your thinking is a bit facetious. We didn't alwasy eat deer, and we haven't developed the gun to hunt the deer so easily and readilly until very recently in natural history. Therefore, don't you worry about deer overpopulation.

 

[siliconhype]

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on Earth stopped eating meat.

Thats a load of carp. Excuse my spelling mistakes. These are food chains we have created. There is no option anymore, we have pretty much disturbed everything. Why do you think nation leaders have meetings on the issues of ecology and natural resurces? Because there is no war to wage and they are bored? Why do we wage war first of all? For resources; directly or indirectly, for the same resurces under question here, food and space (among other things).

- V

 

[Alkatran]

you'r reasons might be valid, to a point, but your thinking is a bit facetious. We didn't alwasy eat deer, and we haven't developed the gun to hunt the deer so easily and readilly until very recently in natural history. Therefore, don't you worry about deer overpopulation.

That's bull and you know it. We've hunted deer for a long time (centuries), and human civilization has changed A LOT since the beginning.

This is what I mean:
http://www.texasdeer.com/deer.htm

This research also shows that wildlife professionals foresee that without their ability to hunt or trap, the current population of some species will increase phenomenally. When asked by how much their budgets would have to increase to maintain the same level of service if they could neither hunt nor trap, most wildlife professionals stated that no increase in funding would make up for the loss of those two methods.

 

[Alkatran]

Thats a load of carp. Excuse my spelling mistakes. These are food chains we have created. There is no option anymore, we have pretty much disturbed everything. Why do you think nation leaders have meetings on the issues of ecology and natural resurces? Because there is no war to wage and they are bored? Why do we wage war first of all? For resources; directly or indirectly, for the same resurces under question here, food and space (among other things).

- V

I didn't say to do nothing. I said an ultimatum on meat wouldn't work.

 

[Alkatran]

It wouldn't be that bad... the wolf will hunt them. There is always a way, in nature.

That's what I said. Not only would the deer population explode, but the wolf population would explode afterwards. Wolves run out of food. Wolves start hunting pets... maybe worse.

 

[siliconhype]

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

Good health to all.

See i don't know about that thory, to me doctors saying that you should drink so much water a day is starting to sound like sponsorship of "Pure Life" water, a Nestle brand.

How much water do people drink in a natural ecosystem? My theory is this: When hungry eat, when thirsty drink, don't listen to anything anybody says, it's you who lives in your body. Unfortunately i also do believe that our bodies' desires can be tampered with through psychological means, resulting in a false desire to consume certain substances, when in fact it should not be so.

- V

 

[siliconhype]

That's bull and you know it. We've hunted deer for a long time (centuries), and human civilization has changed A LOT since the beginning.

This is what I mean:
http://www.texasdeer.com/deer.htm

So you are saying we are hunting as much deer as prehistoric/pre-industrial human? Oh really?

- V

P.S.

To bring focus back to the original topic, i will say this: by this method you have presented in your original post - we have not done anything exept relocate a naturally occurring very large number of chickens and cows and other species from their environment, into enclosed ones we have made. Why? Why do you think this theory doesn't sound right?

 

[siliconhype]

That's what I said. Not only would the deer population explode, but the wolf population would explode afterwards. Wolves run out of food. Wolves start hunting pets... maybe worse.

Wolf start hunting pets? Maybe worse? Clue: "worse" implies evil, evil is a human concept - and a relatively new one at that, it is not a natural concept. You are confusing nature with philosophy. (of course there is much to say on this topic, and here is where i think it should be taken up, if interest allows, in a different post)

- V

 

[siliconhype]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rader
For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

Good health to all.

See i don't know about that thory, to me doctors saying that you should drink so much water a day is starting to sound like sponsorship of "Pure Life" water, a Nestle brand.

How much water do people drink in a natural ecosystem? My theory is this: When hungry eat, when thirsty drink, don't listen to anything anybody says, it's you who lives in your body. Unfortunately i also do believe that our bodies' desires can be tampered with through psychological means, resulting in a false desire to consume certain substances, when in fact it should not be so.

- V

Wow, sometimes i surprize myself, i appologize for not paying more attention to your words, i think i basically repeated what you meant.

 

[siliconhype]

I say skip the part where they test one pinky, brain and monkeys and just go straight to human testing. There's plenty of us we can spare a few people. Maybe clones but that just wouldn't be the same as real experinced humans.

"There's plenty of us we can spare a few people."

That's what Hitler thought too...

- V

 

[Dissident Dan]

I wish that people would read some of the previous posts before posting.

The food chain/overpopulation argument is thus broken:

99.99% of the food we eat is NOT from wild animals. We breed them to eat them. We feed them plants. We would actually need to grow fewer plants to feed our selves directly than we do to feed to animals which we eat.

-------------------

Also, it does not matter that we are the smartest. That doesn't give us the right to do whatever else we want to others. By that reasoning, we can do whatever we want to mentally retarded people, and, hypothetically, if extraterrestrials more intelligent than ourselves came here, they would have a right do whatever they want to us. Obviously, this is absurd.

Intelligence does not determine the value of someone's life. The only things that matter are capacities for pleasure and suffering. These give value (positive or negative) to an entity such as a human or a pig.