View Full Version : Why I'm becoming a vegetarian
Animals are stupid. Really stupid. Not in the way that we sometimes call people stupid, such as that they mistakes or are bigoted or that they're not very good at their times tables, but fundamentally and inarguably irrational and stupid. We, as a species, have sent technology beyond the Solar System, bent fission to our will and created civilisation, all from nothing. Arguments that animals aren't stupid usually involve chimps poking sticks into holes to eat termites. We are clearly superior to animals, regardless of how fast they can fly, or how much weight they can lift as a proportion of their body weight, or how long they can stay underwater without coming up to breathe. In every faculty in which animals specialise in, we can use our minds to engineer, produce and operate the technology that will do the job better. We are all products of evolution, and yet we have achieved, and will achieve so much more than any other species ever will.
And yet this imbalance, this self-evident superiority is exactly why I want to stop eating meat. As I said, animals are stupid - if they've evolved to eat plants, they eat plants. If they've evolved to eat meat, they eat meat. If they've evolved to eat both, like us, then they eat both. When a lion kills an antelope for food, she isn't thinking about the suffering the antelope is going through to feed him, or any alternative ways the lion could feed itself without resorting to killing - all she's thinking about is the tasty meat of the antelope. She can't think about the ethics of doing so, because she's a lions, and lions are stupid.
In contrast, we can. Most of us ignore it, of course, but we still possess the powers of reasoning available to consider the ethics of eating meat. This reasoning is also what makes us superior to animals. Surely by the very fact that this reason, which lifts us so far above animals, also gives us the power to even consider that perhaps killing for food is wrong should give us pause? Furthermore, we also possess the technology required to make a meat-free lifestyle plausible for our omnivorous biology. We can a make a choice which animals cannot, and given that our rejection of irrational, mechanistic behaviour is what distinguishes us from animals, the rejection of killing for pleasure is a necessary step we must take in order to further separate that divide and increase the prestige of our achievements as human beings. To reject it is to embrace civilisation.
A Very Super Market
05-29-2011, 19:25
Here is a video of a deer eating a bird.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQOQdBLHrLk
We are not evolved to change the world around us. We are just evolved to be better at thinking, which isn't the same thing. A lot of our daily processes are very stupid indeed. Stupid and inefficient, but all the product of too much time on mother Earth. You cannot claim that we are above the biological logistics of life. Socializing is an evolutionary trait. Getting annoyed when people talk about dreams is an evolutionary trait. Intelligence is an evolutionary trait, but not so we could invent ethics. We were smart so that we could take advantage of the stupid, not so we could nurture them, cooing and whispering philosophical tracts.
I'm not terribly pro-meat, but we aren't obligated to our veggies through intelligence.
We are not evolved to change the world around us
Disagree. We evolved to have the capability to do so, as the dinosaurs who evolved and obtained lighter bone structure, feathers etc. also evolved the capability to fly.
Intelligence is an evolutionary trait, but not so we could invent ethics. We were smart so that we could take advantage of the stupid, not so we could nurture them, cooing and whispering philosophical tracts.
I agree that this has been the case for the majority of human existence, but the fact that we have evolved to be able to do X because of Y does not mean that X is acceptable.
not so we could nurture them, cooing and whispering philosophical tracts
I'm no animal lover, and I'm quite happy having nothing to do with them. That said, you're correct in that it's philosophy which has brought this about in me.
Arguments that animals aren't stupid usually involve chimps poking sticks into holes to eat termites. We are clearly superior to animals, regardless of how fast they can fly, or how much weight they can lift as a proportion of their body weight, or how long they can stay underwater without coming up to breathe.
It is easy to mix up the human mind with technology. Technology is an offspring of the human mind, but not a trait of it. Physically, humans haven't changed much the last 1000s of years or so. The ancestors of those people sending probes into space were people who thought thunder was coming from a specific god. Yet physically, they were largely the same. The most important differences should be the upbringing - the education.
Furthermore, if creatures such as dolphins were as smart as human beings, they would have a hard time manifesting it in a way that we could gauge it.
We can a make a choice which animals cannot, and given that our rejection of irrational, mechanistic behaviour is what distinguishes us from animals, the rejection of killing for pleasure is a necessary step we must take in order to further separate that divide and increase the prestige of our achievements as human beings. To reject it is to embrace civilisation.
We aren't all that terribly distinct from the other animals, really. It does not make sense to differ from other animals for the sake of it, either.
Louis VI the Fat
05-29-2011, 20:46
SO WHAT IM NOT GOING TO BE APOLOGETIC I WON THE EVOLUTION THEY LOST SUCKS TO BE THEM
people are free to make their own mistakes.
have at it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-29-2011, 20:53
I killed a lamb once, or rather I held it while someone else did, most horrible thing I've ever had to experience, but I still ate the meat afterwards. Being a vegetarian doesn't "help" animals, they'll still be killed for meat whether you eat it or not, the important thing is to face up to that and ensure they are treated as gently as possble up to their deaths.
Fisherking
05-29-2011, 21:19
You know that plants are very amazing. They can nurture other plants near by or they can try to repel them.
The more we study them the more that we discover that is just astounding.
They seem to be aware of themselves and the other plants around them. They are also aware of those who use them for food.
The major difference seems to be that animals can run for a threat but a plant is at the mercy of large predators because they can’t uproot themselves.
So it is mostly a matter of deciding which species you will murder for your next meal.
Or maybe you can just give up eating.
HoreTore
05-29-2011, 21:36
Meat tastes good. Very good.
Animals are food first and foremost. I too consider the ethics of eating animals. And to me, it is very ethical to do so. I see nothing wrong or bad about killing an animal whatsoever.
It is easy to mix up the human mind with technology. Technology is an offspring of the human mind, but not a trait of it. Physically, humans haven't changed much the last 1000s of years or so. The ancestors of those people sending probes into space were people who thought thunder was coming from a specific god. Yet physically, they were largely the same. The most important differences should be the upbringing - the education.
I chose technology as it was the easiest and tangible way of showing human achievement as being superior to that of monkeys. We have achieved other things as well, such as culture, language, humour etc., and these are less time and context specific than technology. Besides, even if physically we are the same, then we've moved on as a set of societies from primitive notions such as thunder gods to reach a modern, rationalist view of the world; in other words, improvements in technology have been concurrent, more or less, with improvements in society*. Both will certainly continue to "improve", and one of the improvements of the latter should be the idea that it is wrong to kill for pleasure.
Furthermore, if creatures such as dolphins were as smart as human beings, they would have a hard time manifesting it in a way that we could gauge it.
I'm taking animal intelligence at face value. If dolphins could be shown to be as intelligent as people, then that would be a different argument with different conclusions. Until they can demonstrate that, we should restrict ourselves to assuming that they are stupid, so as to not to get caught up arguing for a position which is probably is based upon a false assumption.
We aren't all that terribly distinct from the other animals, really. It does not make sense to differ from other animals for the sake of it, either.
Biologically, no, not at all. We all eat, shit and sleep. We are definitely special though, and although there's no divine reason for this (indeed, the lack of it actually increases our exceptional nature), and "with great power, comes great responsibility", to quote Uncle Ben.
I killed a lamb once, or rather I held it while someone else did, most horrible thing I've ever had to experience, but I still ate the meat afterwards. Being a vegetarian doesn't "help" animals, they'll still be killed for meat whether you eat it or not, the important thing is to face up to that and ensure they are treated as gently as possble up to their deaths.
I'm not squeamish, and never have been. I have always been comfortable touching meat and butchering it, and if someone asked me to joint a chicken then I would without any hesitation. However, the argument that as my personal decision likely won't stop any animals from being killed (And even if it did, it won't be for some time - it will take some time for me to transition fully to a vegetarian diet) is essentially the same fallacy as claiming that there's no point in voting as my vote won't have any impact.
You know that plants are very amazing. They can nurture other plants near by or they can try to repel them.
The more we study them the more that we discover that is just astounding.
They seem to be aware of themselves and the other plants around them. They are also aware of those who use them for food.
The major difference seems to be that animals can run for a threat but a plant is at the mercy of large predators because they can’t uproot themselves.
Plants are irrelevant.
So it is mostly a matter of deciding which species you will murder for your next meal.
I never once used the word "murder", as murder exclusively refers to the killing of a human being by another human being. Meat is not murder, and neither is the eating of plants.
Or maybe you can just give up eating.
Right, because saving the "lives" of plants is more valuable than saving the life of a human being. :rolleyes:
people are free to make their own mistakes.
have at it.
Sure, and I'm not posting this in an attempt to convince any of you. It's a declaration of something which I've been thinking about for the past couple of months, and an attempt to provoke discussion which isn't the constant BAKRUM PULITICZ .
EDIT:
Meat tastes good. Very good.
Definitely! Bacon barms are delish.
And to me, it is very ethical to do so. I see nothing wrong or bad about killing an animal whatsoever.
How so? Or are you just being facetious for effect?
HoreTore
05-29-2011, 21:46
How so?
Why on earth should it be bad to kill an animal? As I said, they are food first and foremost. They exist primarily to fill my stomach.
Greyblades
05-29-2011, 22:02
So... what made you come to this decision Subotan?
ajaxfetish
05-29-2011, 22:34
Plants are stupid. Really stupid. No, seriously, however stupid someone may think animals are, plants are stupider. We are clearly superior to plants, and this imbalance is why I want to stop eating plants. When an antelope kills some grass for food, it isn't thinking about the lives it is cutting short, or any alternative ways it could feed itself without resorting to killing - all it's thinking about is the tasty grass. It can't think about the ethics of eating plants, because it's an antelope, and antelopes are stupid.
In contrast, we can. Perhaps the thought that killing for food is wrong should give us pause? Perhaps we could use our technology to develop a life-form free diet? To reject the eating of plants is to embrace civilization.
Ajax
edit: Mushrooms are also stupid.
Louis VI the Fat
05-29-2011, 23:04
I AM NIBBLING ON THE FRONT PAWS OF A CUTESY LITTLE WABBIT RIGHT NOW
eddit: Mushrooms are also stupid.Nonsense mushrooms are enlightened beings when I eat them they make me smart then I come here and debate politics
THAT WABBIT IS STILL ALIVE I'M NOW GOING FOR THE HINDLEGS
LETS SEE IF THEY ARE COOKED ALREADY
Why on earth should it be bad to kill an animal? As I said, they are food first and foremost. They exist primarily to fill my stomach. See! I told you people when the Scandinavians don't recognise themselves in something they lose all empathy and their superiority complex takes over. Tsk.
I'M JUST COOKING THE HINDLEGS BY HOLDING THEM IN BOILING WATER BY FRIMLY GRASPING THE FURRY LITTLE CRITTER BY THE TAIL AND EARS AS HE DANGLES ABOVE THE POT HE'S PUTTING UP QUITE A FIGHT IS THAT A PANICKED LOOK IN HIS BIG BEADY EYES
Samurai Waki
05-29-2011, 23:10
And yet despite all this there is no proof that intelligence will allow us to outlast the inevitable...
How so?
Why on earth should it be bad to kill an animal? As I said, they are food first and foremost. They exist primarily to fill my stomach.
I asked for an argument, not a restatement of your conclusion.
So... what made you come to this decision Subotan?
A combination of two things, the influence of a friend, C. , and a course in philosophy, particularly utilitarianism and logic. I had a drunken rant at C. about animals (As C. feels very strongly about animal welfare, vegetarianism and such), and in the apologising process afterwards, C. gave me some arguments which I hadn't heard before in favour of vegetarianism, that I found myself surprisingly sympathetic to. Meanwhile, this was whilst doing a degree in philosophy which introduced me to both utilitarianism, which I'm strongly in favour of (Despite its problems), which in turn introduced me to the idea that we should apply the same principles which we apply to humans to animals - although my original reaction was along the lines of this, (https://i.imagehost.org/0617/hhhgggf.jpg)combined with what C. had said, I found myself pretty convinced. Finally, logic has changed the way I think (No, it has actually has - it's almost creepy how it has), and one of the consequences was a brand new dislike for contradiction. I agreed that eating meat was an ethically dodgy area, and yet I continued to eat it anyway, until I made a commitment to phase it out.
Plants are stupid. Really stupid. No, seriously, however stupid someone may think animals are, plants are stupider. We are clearly superior to plants, and this imbalance is why I want to stop eating plants. When an antelope kills some grass for food, it isn't thinking about the lives it is cutting short, or any alternative ways it could feed itself without resorting to killing - all it's thinking about is the tasty grass. It can't think about the ethics of eating plants, because it's an antelope, and antelopes are stupid.
Clever. It's not applicable though, for several different reasons:
1. You used the analogy incorrectly. The focus of the original analogy wasn't the antelope, but the tiger, to make a point about the behaviour of animals. In your analogy, the focus is on the antelope, but you're trying to make a point about the behaviour of plants.
2. Plants aren't sentient. They're certainly not conscious, and it's not clear that they feel pain.
3. The technology does not exist for me to survive without harming over living things. Is it a big deal? Not really. I explicitly stated that I was opposed to killing for pleasure - for necessity is a different story, and why I don't care if the Inuits kill whales or whatever. Besides, it's foolish to scorn the good for want of the perfect, especially when you consider that the perfect will necessitate saving the lives of millions of bloody nematodes.
In contrast, we can. Perhaps the thought that killing for food is wrong should give us pause?
That's a misrepresentation of my position. If I'd said that, then you could derive that pretty much anything was wrong. I said that as the very capabilities which separate us from animals also give us the abilities to create ethics in the first place and thereby consider that eating animals might be wrong, eating animals is arguably irrational.
I AM NIBBLING ON THE FRONT PAWS OF A CUTESY LITTLE WABBIT RIGHT NOW
Please Louis, surely you don't think I'm moved in the slightest by cuteness?
Nonsense mushrooms are enlightened beings when I eat them they make me smart then I come here and debate politics
Well, there's a difference between debating politics (Or any other controversial issues that shake the very foundations of its members' worldviews) in the pseudo-intellectual nature of the circlejerk that is the backroom, and debating politics where it actually matters in the real world...
But I digress, far too much for my own good.
And yet despite all this there is no proof that intelligence will allow us to outlast the inevitable...
Which is why we have to make the best out of the hand we've been dealt in the here and now.
Greyblades
05-30-2011, 00:56
A combination of two things, the influence of a friend, C. , and a course in philosophy, particularly utilitarianism and logic. I had a drunken rant at C. about animals (As C. feels very strongly about animal welfare, vegetarianism and such), and in the apologising process afterwards, C. gave me some arguments which I hadn't heard before in favour of vegetarianism, that I found myself surprisingly sympathetic to. Meanwhile, this was whilst doing a degree in philosophy which introduced me to both utilitarianism, which I'm strongly in favour of (Despite its problems), which in turn introduced me to the idea that we should apply the same principles which we apply to humans to animals - although my original reaction was along the lines of this, (https://i.imagehost.org/0617/hhhgggf.jpg)combined with what C. had said, I found myself pretty convinced. Finally, logic has changed the way I think (No, it has actually has - it's almost creepy how it has), and one of the consequences was a brand new dislike for contradiction. I agreed that eating meat was an ethically dodgy area, and yet I continued to eat it anyway, until I made a commitment to phase it out.
Ok, power to you, just do me a favour and make sure you come to us first if your friend pulls out a copy of dianetics. :grin:
HoreTore
05-30-2011, 01:09
I asked for an argument, not a restatement of your conclusion.
The argument is that they're tasty and delicious. How much more do you need....? What else than food should animals be...?
Greyblades
05-30-2011, 01:14
Pets, work animals, feriliser producers, test subjects, producers of raw materials for textiles, transportation, I could go on.
Gregoshi
05-30-2011, 03:01
A combination of two things...
Bummer. I thought maybe you evolved into a being of pure energy or something. Reality disappoints again. :shrug:
ajaxfetish
05-30-2011, 03:13
2. Plants aren't sentient. They're certainly not conscious, and it's not clear that they feel pain.
Yeah, that's what it always seems to come down to. And it's that 'not clear' bit, in particular. If they do feel pain, and we're just incapable of recognizing it, then we're doing much more harm by eating plants than eating animals. On the other hand, with improved slaughtering techniques, it would not be necessary that animals used for food feel pain. Would you consider a diet including meat killed painlessly to be ethically equal to a vegetarian diet?
Ajax
Well, [snip] in the pseudo-intellectual nature of the circlejerk that is the backroom [snip]
You've all been giving each other reach-arounds in here all this time?! WHY AM I ONLY NOW FINDING OUT ABOUT THIS!?
The argument is that they're tasty and delicious. How much more do you need....? What else than food should animals be...?
We don't HAVE to eat them, argument is pretty clear, we can do without. Not going to myself, it's tasty indeed. I do buy good meat though, not just for the taste
Major Robert Dump
05-30-2011, 06:52
You should try eating people. Just the really, really evil ones. I know people in corrections, and we could probably work something out.
Populus Romanus
05-30-2011, 06:57
Would you consider a diet including meat killed painlessly to be ethically equal to a vegetarian diet? Would you consider a diet of humans killed painlessly ethically equal to a vegetarian diet?
ajaxfetish
05-30-2011, 09:19
Would you consider a diet of humans killed painlessly ethically equal to a vegetarian diet?
I would avoid eating humans for religious, social, and medical reasons.
Ajax
Ironside
05-30-2011, 09:25
2. Plants aren't sentient. They're certainly not conscious, and it's not clear that they feel pain.
They do feel stress and it's also infectious (as in if you kill one plant, it's neighbouring plants will react on it).
3. The technology does not exist for me to survive without harming over living things. Is it a big deal? Not really. I explicitly stated that I was opposed to killing for pleasure - for necessity is a different story, and why I don't care if the Inuits kill whales or whatever. Besides, it's foolish to scorn the good for want of the perfect, especially when you consider that the perfect will necessitate saving the lives of millions of bloody nematodes.
Equating killing for food as killing for pleasure is quite devious. The Inuits can move nowadays, so they don't need to hunt the whales anymore. Personally, if you're planning to eat what you kill, then you're hunting for food.
That's a misrepresentation of my position. If I'd said that, then you could derive that pretty much anything was wrong. I said that as the very capabilities which separate us from animals also give us the abilities to create ethics in the first place and thereby consider that eating animals might be wrong, eating animals is arguably irrational.
That doesn't make people come up with good ethics.
Of the animals born to die as food (I can give you numbers later today, but chickens outnumber humanity by 5-6 times our numbers), how many decendants do you think they'll have when humanity stops eating meat?
Zero. Well, very close to zero. So your suggested mercy is a genocide on billions of sentient beings.
And this is what we call not thinking through all consequences of your suggested actions. The fate of the animals born to die are forever linked to humanity, whatever you like it or not.
The Stranger
05-30-2011, 09:26
i heard u should steer clear from cucumbers.
Ok, power to you, just do me a favour and make sure you come to us first if your friend pulls out a copy of dianetics. :grin:
Don't worry, if C. ever does, I'll run a mile.
Bummer. I thought maybe you evolved into a being of pure energy or something. Reality disappoints again. :shrug:
Dang, I wish. If I ever do become an energy being you'll be the first to know :yes:
Yeah, that's what it always seems to come down to. And it's that 'not clear' bit, in particular. If they do feel pain, and we're just incapable of recognizing it, then we're doing much more harm by eating plants than eating animals.
If they do feel pain, then that's too bad, as there's no alternative to eating plants. A fruitarian lifestyle is both incredibly impractical and dangerous.
If, theoretically, we could choose to do without plants, would it be wrong to keep on eating them? I have no idea. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't shape my behaviour in the present to the best of my knowledge and the current conditions.
You've all been giving each other reach-arounds in here all this time?! WHY AM I ONLY NOW FINDING OUT ABOUT THIS!?
Oh nooo, you haven't been missing out have you? :no:
We don't HAVE to eat them, argument is pretty clear, we can do without. Not going to myself, it's tasty indeed. I do buy good meat though, not just for the taste
It's a personal decision, and although I think it's wrong to eat meat, I certainly don't think that doing so makes you bad. I'm not zealous about it (or anything for that matter), or animal welfare beyond the typical criticisms of traditional medicines. Likewise, I'm not going to make a huge fuss if I find out that my food has been cooked with animal fat in a restaurant etc.
You should try eating people. Just the really, really evil ones. I know people in corrections, and we could probably work something out.
Pick an unpopular prisoner, and get the others to tenderise him by beating the crap out of him for me.
They do feel stress and it's also infectious (as in if you kill one plant, it's neighbouring plants will react on it).
If they do, it's certainly not on a level experienced by sentient creatures. And as I said, it's foolish to scorn the good for want of the perfect.
Equating killing for food as killing for pleasure is quite devious. The Inuits can move nowadays, so they don't need to hunt the whales anymore. Personally, if you're planning to eat what you kill, then you're hunting for food.
Let's look at two puzzle cases:
1. A certain T. Roosevelt is out in the Dakota badlands, travelling from his ranch back to Bismarck. He's ran out of provisions, his horse bolted during the night, so he's travelling a few hundred miles or so on foot with no food. He sees a buffalo wandering around on the plains, blows a hole between its eyes with his rifle and eats it. The meat allows him to survive and make it to Bismarck.
2. A certain Theodore R. is out in the Dakota badlands on a hunting expedition. He has plenty of supplies with him in case he doesn't catch anything, but as it happens, he comes across a buffalo wandering around on the plains. He blasts a bullet through its eye socket, and eats the meat.
The former is killing for food, even though the situation he has ended up in partly due to choice, whilst the latter is killing for pleasure. The key is that the former's actions are partly driven by necessity, whilst in the latter they are wholly derived from pleasure.
Of the animals born to die as food (I can give you numbers later today, but chickens outnumber humanity by 5-6 times our numbers), how many decendants do you think they'll have when humanity stops eating meat?
Zero. Well, very close to zero. So your suggested mercy is a genocide on billions of sentient beings.
And this is what we call not thinking through all consequences of your suggested actions. The fate of the animals born to die are forever linked to humanity, whatever you like it or not.
This is an argument I was already aware of, and although the strongest argument against vegetarianism. However, by saying "Oh, we are granting them the privilege of life", you're conceding an inch and potentially allowing people to take a mile. Abuse of animals could be justified along the lines of "Well, we gave them the privilege of life, we can do what we like, and they should be thankful".
i heard u should steer clear from cucumbers.
Way ahead of you. I can't stand the bloody things.
Way ahead of you. I can't stand the bloody things.
If they're bloody, then you may be putting them in the wrong end.
i heard u should steer clear from cucumbers.
Indeed http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2011/05/komkommertijd_eindelijk_spanno.html#comments heh komkommertijd
I'm taking animal intelligence at face value. If dolphins could be shown to be as intelligent as people, then that would be a different argument with different conclusions. Until they can demonstrate that, we should restrict ourselves to assuming that they are stupid[...]
Of course we should not - that is completely illogical. I brought up technology and dolphins precisely because it would not be easy to measure intelligence of dolphins (they can't really develop any techonology). I may only assume that what you are trying to say is that you will only consider animals that actually are 'stupid' (which could well be 99.99%) for this debate.
To expand on the dolphins, different 'tribes' of dolphins may apply different, clever hunting strategies. Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg6VXFOtRsU
Both will certainly continue to "improve", and one of the improvements of the latter should be the idea that it is wrong to kill for pleasure.
That it is wrong is your subjective opinion. Of course, the whole idea of 'civilisation' has a tendency of becoming a rhetorical device. If we define it as a society 'based upon' rational thinking, then you would have demonstrate why 'killing for pleasure' is wrong through argumentation. I do not see how you do this. What is the idea building on? What leads us to the conclusion that 'killing for pleasure' is wrong?
i heard u should steer clear from cucumbers.
Yeah, they have such an odd shape.
Furunculus
05-30-2011, 10:49
given that our rejection of irrational, mechanistic behaviour is what distinguishes us from animals, the rejection of killing for pleasure is a necessary step we must take in order to further separate that divide and increase the prestige of our achievements as human beings. To reject it is to embrace civilisation.
can't agree, i will continue to enjoy hunting on the rare occasions i get to experience it, and continue to consider my self civilised. but good luck.
To expand on the dolphins, different 'tribes' of dolphins may apply different, clever hunting strategies. Check it out:
That is incredible
Ironside
05-30-2011, 11:06
If they do, it's certainly not on a level experienced by sentient creatures. And as I said, it's foolish to scorn the good for want of the perfect.
And you're sure that you aren't already trying to do just that?
Let's look at two puzzle cases:
1. A certain T. Roosevelt is out in the Dakota badlands, travelling from his ranch back to Bismarck. He's ran out of provisions, his horse bolted during the night, so he's travelling a few hundred miles or so on foot with no food. He sees a buffalo wandering around on the plains, blows a hole between its eyes with his rifle and eats it. The meat allows him to survive and make it to Bismarck.
2. A certain Theodore R. is out in the Dakota badlands on a hunting expedition. He has plenty of supplies with him in case he doesn't catch anything, but as it happens, he comes across a buffalo wandering around on the plains. He blasts a bullet through its eye socket, and eats the meat.
The former is killing for food, even though the situation he has ended up in partly due to choice, whilst the latter is killing for pleasure. The key is that the former's actions are partly driven by necessity, whilst in the latter they are wholly derived from pleasure.
Yet, by consuming the meat, he can use his supplies later on.
I oppose the waste and overhunting, not the hunt itself. Several species will overpopulate without hunting for example. If the hunters does it partially for pleasure, good for them.
This is an argument I was already aware of, and although the strongest argument against vegetarianism. However, by saying "Oh, we are granting them the privilege of life", you're conceding an inch and potentially allowing people to take a mile. Abuse of animals could be justified along the lines of "Well, we gave them the privilege of life, we can do what we like, and they should be thankful".
Yes, indeed are the risk of "we gave them the privilege of life, we can do what we like, and they should be thankful" equal to wiping out 99,99% of the specie out of "mercy".
I'm sure if you take 10.000 humans that's been treated most badly, will all agree that ending the bloodline for 9.999 of them is completely worth it, if they will be treated ok. And that's the nice non-realistic version...
Babtized children will always come to heaven (since they have no addional sin), so the logical choise is?..
If they're bloody, then you may be putting them in the wrong end.
Hahaha! Either way, they're certainly less distasteful than marrows.
Indeed http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2011/05/komkommertijd_eindelijk_spanno.html#comments heh komkommertijd
I can't read Dutch...
Of course we should not - that is completely illogical. I brought up technology and dolphins precisely because it would not be easy to measure intelligence of dolphins (they can't really develop any techonology). I may only assume that what you are trying to say is that you will only consider animals that actually are 'stupid' (which could well be 99.99%) for this debate.
Mhm, precisely.
To expand on the dolphins, different 'tribes' of dolphins may apply different, clever hunting strategies. Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg6VXFOtRsU
I saw a documentary years ago about dead baby porpoises being washed up on the shore in Florida with substantial bruising. The programme went through all these different possibilities, such as whether it was boats hitting them, oil rigs, or submarines confusing them, but it turned out the culprits were dolphins. The dolphins were using the baby porpoises to play a game similar to volleyball using their snouts, and battering them to death. The show stuck with me, as it made me wonder whether what we'd consider to be exclusively human traits such as cruelty and malice are actually necessary for intelligence.
That it is wrong is your subjective opinion. Of course, the whole idea of 'civilisation' has a tendency of becoming a rhetorical device. If we define it as a society 'based upon' rational thinking, then you would have demonstrate why 'killing for pleasure' is wrong through argumentation. I do not see how you do this. What is the idea building on? What leads us to the conclusion that 'killing for pleasure' is wrong?
I don't deny in the slightest that I was using it at least partly as a rhetorical device. I'll still have a go though:
1. In a civilised society, we agree that killing people is something to be avoided. It is not entirely unavoidable, and sometimes necessary, but we would certainly agree that killing people for pleasure is wrong.
2. Killing for pleasure is wrong, because any pleasure that can be derived from killing a human is always outweighed by the permanent and massive loss of pleasure to the individual of being killed.
3. As rational creatures, we apply these principles universally. For example, it would be irrational to argue that whilst killing a Briton for pleasure is wrong, it is permissible to kill an Irishman for pleasure. A society that permitted blatant double standards such as this would be rightly considered to be uncivilised, regardless of the other achievements of that society.
4. Eating meat for pleasure i.e. when it is an optional part of our diet necessitates killing for pleasure.
5. The principle of universality established in 3 necessitates a consistent application of our principles, and as 2 established that killing for pleasure is wrong, it follows that eating meat for pleasure is wrong.
The leap is step five, and whether consistency should also be applied to animals.
can't agree, i will continue to enjoy hunting on the rare occasions i get to experience it, and continue to consider my self civilised. but good luck.
I was being poetic and melodramatic - of course I don't think that hunting and eating meat makes you uncivilised. Likewise, Himmler most definitely was. I do believe that it's a further step though, much as I believe freedom of speech, universal healthcare and the European Project all are. Thanks though!
Yet, by consuming the meat, he can use his supplies later on.
So he can stay out longer and kill more buffalo?
I oppose the waste and overhunting, not the hunt itself. Several species will overpopulate without hunting for example. If the hunters does it partially for pleasure, good for them.
I don't oppose culls - from what I've heard about the badger cull debate in the UK, the science seems to say that the spread of Bovine TB necessitates the depopulation of badgers within rural England. However, overpopulation really isn't a problem - if the deers eat too much food, then the wolves will also grow in population, until overgrazing kills off the deer, and also the wolves. It's like a business cycle for hippies.
Yes, indeed are the risk of "we gave them the privilege of life, we can do what we like, and they should be thankful" equal to wiping out 99,99% of the specie out of "mercy".
I'm sure if you take 10.000 humans that's been treated most badly, will all agree that ending the bloodline for 9.999 of them is completely worth it, if they will be treated ok. And that's the nice non-realistic version...
Babtized children will always come to heaven (since they have no addional sin), so the logical choise is?..
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you explain further?
I don't deny in the slightest that I was using it at least partly as a rhetorical device. I'll still have a go though:
1. In a civilised society, we agree that killing people is something to be avoided. It is not entirely unavoidable, and sometimes necessary, but we would certainly agree that killing people for pleasure is wrong.
2. Killing for pleasure is wrong, because any pleasure that can be derived from killing a human is always outweighed by the permanent and massive loss of pleasure to the individual of being killed.
3. As rational creatures, we apply these principles universally. For example, it would be irrational to argue that whilst killing a Briton for pleasure is wrong, it is permissible to kill an Irishman for pleasure. A society that permitted blatant double standards such as this would be rightly considered to be uncivilised, regardless of the other achievements of that society.
4. Eating meat for pleasure i.e. when it is an optional part of our diet necessitates killing for pleasure.
5. The principle of universality established in 3 necessitates a consistent application of our principles, and as 2 established that killing for pleasure is wrong, it follows that eating meat for pleasure is wrong.
The leap is step five, and whether consistency should also be applied to animals.
Now we're nearing. Since you have focused so much on the stupidity of animals - that they are our inferiors - it seems really odd indeed to apply rationalisation normally reserved for fellow human beings on them. Why stop at killing? We could say we should not steal their land, their trees their...yeah. Perhaps they should also be included in the NHS to free them from unnecessary suffering.
HoreTore
05-30-2011, 14:07
Killing humans is wrong because it hinders the human progress. A society that allows killing each other will not function as well as a society that doesn't allow killing, and as such killing other hmans hurt everyone, including yourself.
The same does not apply to animals. There is no advantage to be gained from not killing them, and as such it is perfectly fine to do so.
In fact, our meat-eating ways is the very reason why we are advanced creatures, as the proteins obtained from cooked meat lead to the evolution of a larger brain.
Killing humans is wrong because it hinders the human progress. A society that allows killing each other will not function as well as a society that doesn't allow killing, and as such killing other hmans hurt everyone, including yourself.
The same does not apply to animals. There is no advantage to be gained from not killing them, and as such it is perfectly fine to do so.
In fact, our meat-eating ways is the very reason why we are advanced creatures, as the proteins obtained from cooked meat lead to the evolution of a larger brain.
Isn't any society only as good as it treats it's most vulnerable, animals are living breathing things. There is no evolutionary reason for us to eat meat, there simply isn't. Not that we shouldn't imho but we don't have to. Subotan's logic is perfectly sound (and more meat for us yay)
Greyblades
05-30-2011, 14:40
Isn't any society only as good as it treats it's most vulnerable, animals are living breathing things. But most animals arent part of society, (save for a food source) those that are; we treat better than we do some people, and we dont generaly eat those (save for rabbits... or dogs, but the countries that eat dogs usualy arent considered a very good society, if they're considered one at all.)
HoreTore
05-30-2011, 14:40
There is no evolutionary reason to do so, no. But there are no reasons beyond personal feelings not to do so.
How we treat our most vulnerable? We have emperical evidence here. The societies who help the less fortunate, who has a safety net in place, are also the most advanced societies. There are numerous reasons for this, but being a socialist, I of course point to the low levels of social unrest and infighting you see where the difference between rich and poor is low.
The same, however, cannot be said of animals. Animals are treated like rubbish in the most advanced societies(like the US), while those who treat them well(like saudi-arabia) are backwaters.
Greyblades
05-30-2011, 14:48
...You obviously have never met a British cat/dog owner.
HoreTore
05-30-2011, 15:14
...You obviously have never met a British cat/dog owner.
As I was referring to the animals we eat, I can't see how cats and dogs are treated to be relevant.
The same, however, cannot be said of animals. Animals are treated like rubbish in the most advanced societies(like the US), while those who treat them well(like saudi-arabia) are backwaters.
Only in the more modern societies animal welfare is an issue to begin with, has no relevance to the topic don't shoot me. Imho the strong should have the decency to respect the weak, being food it doesn't get any lower that, that their purpose is to feed us isn't a ticket for abuse, animals have rights as concious living beings. Not that you say they don't but the 'animals serve only one purpose' always makes me kinda icky
Tellos Athenaios
05-30-2011, 15:28
Isn't any society only as good as it treats it's most vulnerable, animals are living breathing things. There is no evolutionary reason for us to eat meat, there simply isn't. Not that we shouldn't imho but we don't have to. Subotan's logic is perfectly sound (and more meat for us yay)
Actually there is. If you are bringing evolution into this it is quite clear the humans are omnivores, and it is also quite clear that we owe our mental faculties to our taste for meat and bone marrow. Just a FYI: if you try your jaws are able to exert similar levels of pressure and penetration as those of a great white shark.
Actually there is. If you are bringing evolution into this it is quite clear the humans are omnivores, and it is also quite clear that we owe our mental faculties to our taste for meat and bone marrow. Just a FYI: if you try your jaws are able to exert similar levels of pressure and penetration as those of a great white shark.
I'll try it but I am kinda low on great whites at the moment. We are omnivores, but there isn't any need to eat it now, we could evolve as vegetarians as we have the means to do so, think that's what Sub is at
I'll try it but I am kinda low on great whites at the moment. We are omnivores, but there isn't any need to eat it now, we could evolve as vegetarians as we have the means to do so, think that's what Sub is at
to what is in bold - holy contradiction batman!
and you can´t choose what you evolve into.
Greyblades
05-30-2011, 15:53
As I was referring to the animals we eat, I can't see how cats and dogs are treated to be relevant.
It's not relevant, but it was said because you didnt actually refer to farm animals in your post, at least not clearly.
You said:
There is no evolutionary reason to do so, no. But there are no reasons beyond personal feelings not to do so.
How we treat our most vulnerable? We have emperical evidence here. The societies who help the less fortunate, who has a safety net in place, are also the most advanced societies. There are numerous reasons for this, but being a socialist, I of course point to the low levels of social unrest and infighting you see where the difference between rich and poor is low.
The same, however, cannot be said of animals. Animals are treated like rubbish in the most advanced societies(like the US), while those who treat them well(like saudi-arabia) are backwaters.
Note the lack of the words "Commonly eaten" in front of the word "animal".
Tellos Athenaios
05-30-2011, 15:54
We are omnivores, but there isn't any need to eat it now, we could evolve as vegetarians as we have the means to do so, think that's what Sub is at
Well up to a point. Here you can pretty much buy twice as many vegetables and pretend it's all as yummy as meat or fish, but we as a species cannot. For instance if you happened to be lactose intolerant, it'd be quite unhealthy to discard your only source of various vitamins which only occur in animals and which your body can't really do without. In various other places meat and fish are simply needed because they are pretty much the only source of protein rich food available, or because it is practically impossible to gather as much calories in the environment yourself -- consider the practice of eating tarantula's in the Amazonian rain forest.
Well up to a point. Here you can pretty much buy twice as many vegetables and pretend it's all as yummy as meat or fish, but we as a species cannot.
So you can be a vegetarian here like Sub
CrossLOPER
05-30-2011, 17:23
Oh goodness... another "I can build a skyscraper" argument.
YOU can't do anything. Everything you do is a product of cooperation between the like beings around you, which I remind you is itself derived from the products of evolutionary traits gained through the same exact pathways as every other creature we know of. Without other human beings, you will become a mass of a man, unable to contribute anything. Access of information has lessened the effects of this, but the principle of it all remains the same.
You seem to be vaguely pushing forth a concept of "greater good" Humans have no such concept and overall, most strive only to survive. We are not the pinnacle of evolution. We have not changed very much in the past 75000 years and we are still susceptible to stagnation and the repercussions of our own arrogance.
That being said, I tend to avoid eating large amounts of meat and can't understand those who insist on eating large amounts of cow.
HoreTore
05-30-2011, 17:26
It's not relevant, but it was said because you didnt actually refer to farm animals in your post, at least not clearly.
You said:
Note the lack of the words "Commonly eaten" in front of the word "animal".
Note the word "vegetarian" in the thread title.
And since we seem to be telling everyone about our diet here, I thought I'd chip in: the main component of my diet is meat. I'd say 300g per day is an absolute minimum, and the average is probably around 5-600g. The only meal where I don't usually eat meat is breakfast - though since I have an exam tomorrow, I've prepared 200g of chicken filet I'll chuck down tomorrow morning...
It's mostly chicken, pig and fish(in the form of sushi), I'm no fan of lamb and I don't eat that much cow unless it's in the form of a steak
Ironside
05-30-2011, 17:26
So he can stay out longer and kill more buffalo?
Unless he can stop eating (or got access to a lot of future tech) when returning to civilization or is very, very, very hungry, that would not be a problem.
I don't oppose culls - from what I've heard about the badger cull debate in the UK, the science seems to say that the spread of Bovine TB necessitates the depopulation of badgers within rural England. However, overpopulation really isn't a problem - if the deers eat too much food, then the wolves will also grow in population, until overgrazing kills off the deer, and also the wolves. It's like a business cycle for hippies.
Hunting them for fun is evil, letting them run themself into a situation of mass death is good? :inquisitive: Yes, the population will stabilize (at least cyclic) with time, but if we have already given the animals a high value, it's inconsistant to simply let them destroy themself.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you explain further?
That your defense is a fart compared to a hurricane. In human terms, you're suggesting wiping out ghettos out of mercy, due to the maltreatment of the humans living there. How many would call such a person humane and not a competitor to the most evil person ever?
Edit:
Animals living for food globally:
Cows 400 millions
Goats 500 millions
Turkeys 600 millions
Pigs 1,1 milliards (or billions for you Americans)
Sheeps 1,3 milliards
Ducks 2,6 milliards
Chickens 52 milliards
Rounded some numbers and taken from a National Geographic.
Oh goodness... another "I can build a skyscraper" argument.
Not my argument I'm just defending it. Other than 'meat tastes good', how can you really justify eating other planet dwellers. At least aknowledge that it's a choice and not a necessity.
Actually there is. If you are bringing evolution into this it is quite clear the humans are omnivores, and it is also quite clear that we owe our mental faculties to our taste for meat and bone marrow. Just a FYI: if you try your jaws are able to exert similar levels of pressure and penetration as those of a great white shark.
That's what I told the coast guard, but they didn't take it well.
In any case, me being the other vegetarian on the forums, having not eaten meat for about six years (with an interval here and there), the first reason why I chose not anymore meat was not so much the fact that animals were killed (which is something we have been doing for at least the last 8,000 years), but rather the way in which they were killed.
In essence, I find it hard to swallow (heh) that when I eat meat, there is no real connection between the hunter and the prey. It goes to such a degree that we might be unaware of the fact that what we're eating was once a creature frolicking around in the wild, or at least, frolicking around with six other like-minded animals in a 2x2 pen. In any case, I don't think we should anthropomorphise animals and automatically assume that they are capable of feeling pain. There was a study pertaining to whether or not crustaceans like lobster feel pain if they are boiled alive. There is no real academic consensus concerning this, and as such I am hesitant to assume that animals are capable of realising they are in pain.
My reasons for not eating meat right now are probably that disconnection I mentioned earlier, as well as the fact that it's become something of a habit for me not to eat meat. Add to that the fact that my gastronomic philosophy can be boiled down to (padum-push) "I only eat what I would be able to kill myself", and I've hold that Buddhist ideal of not killing living creatures to a high standard, well, it doesn't give me too much space. I'm not complaining. It's fine as it is.
I don't think non-vegetarians are lesser humans, or less ethical than other people. It's unfair. Eating meat is only natural. It's our choice to act unnaturally. Don't forget that.
Greyblades
05-30-2011, 17:46
Note the word "vegetarian" in the thread title.
Didn't I say something about people eating dog a while ago? Eh its not important.
Not my argument I'm just defending it. Other than 'meat tastes good', how can you really justify eating other planet dwellers. At least aknowledge that it's a choice and not a necessity.
your first error is the stance that it somehow needs to be justified.
your first error is the stance that it somehow needs to be justified.
This thread wouldn't exist otherwise, these discussions aren't held over a piece of corn.
Strike For The South
05-30-2011, 21:17
These incisors are just for show
Meat is why our brains are so big and why we continue to get taller every
Because we CAN eat meat, we eat meat. Also, we are attracted to greasy foods (mostly animals anyways), so it tastes good in our tastebuds.
We can't eat glass (99.99% of us at least), so we don't eat it (except the 0.01% of the 0.01%)
I wouldn't eat fresh meat either though (though I am always up for the deal if I just hunted a cow).
~Jirisys ()
Bleh too many posts to reply to all of them.
to what is in bold - holy contradiction batman!
and you can´t choose what you evolve into.
We can choose our behaviour though. My point about the stupid animals thing is that it's a way of showing how civilised and un-animal like it is to voluntary choose not to eat meat as reason has led you to conclude that it is wrong.
Well up to a point. Here you can pretty much buy twice as many vegetables and pretend it's all as yummy as meat or fish, but we as a species cannot. For instance if you happened to be lactose intolerant, it'd be quite unhealthy to discard your only source of various vitamins which only occur in animals and which your body can't really do without. In various other places meat and fish are simply needed because they are pretty much the only source of protein rich food available, or because it is practically impossible to gather as much calories in the environment yourself -- consider the practice of eating tarantula's in the Amazonian rain forest.
Sure, hence my point of eating for pleasure. If there was some unfortunate with a whole host of allergies, including nut allergies, lactose intolerance, tofu intolerances, beans and pulses intolerance, then that individual would have to eat meat in order to maintain a healthy diet.
You seem to be vaguely pushing forth a concept of "greater good" Humans have no such concept and overall, most strive only to survive. We are not the pinnacle of evolution. We have not changed very much in the past 75000 years and we are still susceptible to stagnation and the repercussions of our own arrogance.
You're wrong in supposing that the idea of a "greater good" does not exist - if it doesn't, then why does society exist?
Hunting them for fun is evil, letting them run themself into a situation of mass death is good? :inquisitive: Yes, the population will stabilize (at least cyclic) with time, but if we have already given the animals a high value, it's inconsistant to simply let them destroy themself.
The latter is ethically neutral. Since humans will have had no impact on the situation, there are no morals to speak of. This is in contrast to situations were humans can have an impact on animal life.
That's what I told the coast guard, but they didn't take it well.
In any case, me being the other vegetarian on the forums, having not eaten meat for about six years (with an interval here and there), the first reason why I chose not anymore meat was not so much the fact that animals were killed (which is something we have been doing for at least the last 8,000 years), but rather the way in which they were killed.
In essence, I find it hard to swallow (heh) that when I eat meat, there is no real connection between the hunter and the prey. It goes to such a degree that we might be unaware of the fact that what we're eating was once a creature frolicking around in the wild, or at least, frolicking around with six other like-minded animals in a 2x2 pen.
So would you eat meat that you hunted for pleasure? I'm not criticising, just curious.
In any case, I don't think we should anthropomorphise animals and automatically assume that they are capable of feeling pain. There was a study pertaining to whether or not crustaceans like lobster feel pain if they are boiled alive. There is no real academic consensus concerning this, and as such I am hesitant to assume that animals are capable of realising they are in pain.
Definitely agree. That said, my reasoning is based more upon the actual act of taking sentient life for pleasure, as opposed to the pain, but YMMV.
I don't think non-vegetarians are lesser humans, or less ethical than other people. It's unfair. Eating meat is only natural. It's our choice to act unnaturally. Don't forget that.
Again, definitely agree, hence my Himmler example. There also might be an element of craftiness in not being zealous, as being finger-wagged at and told that you're a bad person and a lesser human for eating meat is going to change anyone's behaviour. C.'s attitude for example to non-vegetarians is extremely relaxed, and had C. been in my face about it (To a level that I would have expected given how passionate C. is about animal welfare), then I probably would have been a lot more resistant to C.'s ideas.
your first error is the stance that it somehow needs to be justified.
Surely we should seek to justify as many of our actions as possible? By denying the need for a justification for anything, you are denying the consequences of your actions.
Because we CAN eat meat, we eat meat.
Because we CAN skin people alive to make hats out of their skin, we skin people alive to make hats out of their skin!
EDIT: Whoops, forgot this:
That your defense is a fart compared to a hurricane. In human terms, you're suggesting wiping out ghettos out of mercy, due to the maltreatment of the humans living there. How many would call such a person humane and not a competitor to the most evil person ever?
Aha, I see. There is a distinction to be made though, even if we temporarily sideline the knee-jerk, automatic and correct reaction to put human life far above animal life. A factory farmed animal will be born, grow up in a cage, and then die. That is it. There are no opportunities for self-improvement or the fulfilment of aspiration (to temporarily and shamelessly anthromorphize the chickens). This is in contrast to a ghetto-kid, who has the potential, however slim, to do just that. This difference means that the value of the life of the ghetto-kid is more worthwhile than that of a factory farmed chicken.
Because we CAN skin people alive to make hats out of their skin, we skin people alive to make hats out of their skin!
Really? Ad Absurdum?
I meant food, not behaviour. Yes, we can eat other people. Other people have done it, it's just another product of evolution, our moral value of not eating other people; though it was practitioned in other cultures (carthaginians are supposed to be one of them; or etruscans, I forget which). We change though.
~Jirisys ()
Really? Ad Absurdum?
Regardless, his argument stands. There's a difference in doing what we could and what we should, right? You might feel like stabbing someone in the face after he slept with your girlfriend, but that doesn't mean that it's an ethical thing to do, right?
gaelic cowboy
05-30-2011, 23:53
Isn't any society only as good as it treats it's most vulnerable, animals are living breathing things. There is no evolutionary reason for us to eat meat, there simply isn't. Not that we shouldn't imho but we don't have to. Subotan's logic is perfectly sound (and more meat for us yay)
Yes there is Frag, humans are PREDATORS.
Don't believe eh then take a look at picture of any mammalian predator and compare there eye location.
Yes correct there at the front like a monkey a lion a bear or a dog and unlike a rabbit a sheep or a cow
ajaxfetish
05-31-2011, 00:17
The latter is ethically neutral. Since humans will have had no impact on the situation, there are no morals to speak of. This is in contrast to situations were humans can have an impact on animal life.
Well, that's quite the cop out. Is it ethically neutral to watch a woman being gang-raped and do nothing about it? When it's your lack of action, rather than your action, that results in a horrible outcome, you are not automatically absolved. Of course, our responsibilities towards other humans are not the same thing as our responsibilities towards animals, but consider: the farm animals that would undergo genocidal losses have us to thank both for their numbers and for their relative helplessness without human symbiosis. The deer that would overgraze their territories and then suffer massive numbers of death in the readjustment have us to thank for eliminating their other natural predators, and for developing much of their grazing territory into human communities. We are well beyond the point of having no impact on the situation. Furthermore, you're assuming the situation of the deer exists in isolation from humans. What happens when deer descend from the overgrazed mountains to search for food in human neighborhoods? What happens after human children start getting injured or killed by desperately hungry deer? You're taking a very simplistic approach to the issues in your attempt to absolve us of responsibility unless we are actively killing animals.
Ajax
CrossLOPER
05-31-2011, 01:25
You're wrong in supposing that the idea of a "greater good" does not exist - if it doesn't, then why does society exist?
As I stated, you are a social creature. Therefore, the answer is: practicality.
Rhyfelwyr
05-31-2011, 01:35
That your defense is a fart compared to a hurricane. In human terms, you're suggesting wiping out ghettos out of mercy, due to the maltreatment of the humans living there. How many would call such a person humane and not a competitor to the most evil person ever?
Well that's not a very fair comparison on a lot of levels that are pretty obvious.
These incisors are just for show
Meat is why our brains are so big and why we continue to get taller every
But how is this related to the ethics of it?
Anyway, I am responsible for a one-man genocide of the chicken species. Got to feed the beast. :yes:
Hmm... I wonder if sometime in the far future if we have become some sort of weird hippie-enlightened society, they will look upon our treatment of animals as a horror show. And all these people using 'rational' arguments and appealing to the natural order of things etc to defend it will be seen like those who did similar things to defend slavery.
Hmm... I wonder if sometime in the far future if we have become some sort of weird hippie-enlightened society, they will look upon our treatment of animals as a horror show. And all these people using 'rational' arguments and appealing to the natural order of things etc to defend it will be seen like those who did similar things to defend slavery.
Yeah, I reckon so. I've heard it phrased as a widening circle of concern: over history, we have become more inclusive about the beings we care about. Distinctions by slavery, caste, class, sex, nationality, sexuality etc have gradually become to be regarded as having little or no ethical force. Universalist morals - regarding all people with equal concern - are dominant. It's already spilling over to other species - many countries outlaw animal cruelty and harming animals while making movies, for example, has become unacceptable.
However, as someone who hasn't eaten meat for the last 28 years, I guess I would say that. For me it's quite a simple matter - many of the things that make my life enjoyable and give it value, I know are also felt by many kinds of animals (tastey food, the sun warming my body, the affection of my companions, even play). Even more commonly felt are the things that can make my life unpleasant (pain, discomfort, fear etc.).
Pre-domestication of animals and farming, humans and their domesticated counterparts (horses, cows, sheep, dogs, etc) only made up 2% of the total Wildlife population.
Since the domestication of animals, humans and those domesticated now make up 90% of all wildlife.
Not only we benefited, so did they and in this partnership, both are good.
If everyone became vegatarian, cows/sheep/pigs will become pests, and they were be killed or driven away. Their populations would significantly reduce as humans grow in proportion. As these animals are no longer farmed, their birthrate would pummel.
In short, eating meats keeps those animals with us today.
Regardless, his argument stands. There's a difference in doing what we could and what we should, right? You might feel like stabbing someone in the face after he slept with your girlfriend, but that doesn't mean that it's an ethical thing to do, right?
Depends for which person you are speaking. But that argument makes no sense in light what I said, and stop with the ad absurdum, it's getting annoying.
You are hungry, you eat, what you eat doesn't matter. Though your lack of vitamin B and protein will take it's toll soon. Heck, if we eat too much, we get cataracts and goute. It's all about balance, don't try to escape from your instincts with human's tiny willpower, you're only fooling yourself.
Pre-domestication of animals and farming, humans and their domesticated counterparts (horses, cows, sheep, dogs, etc) only made up 2% of the total Wildlife population.
Since the domestication of animals, humans and those domesticated now make up 90% of all wildlife.
Not only we benefited, so did they and in this partnership, both are good.
If everyone became vegatarian, cows/sheep/pigs will become pests, and they were be killed or driven away. Their populations would significantly reduce as humans grow in proportion. As these animals are no longer farmed, their birthrate would pummel.
In short, eating meats keeps those animals with us today.
Precisely, quid pro quo. If it benefits us that an animal may never go extinct, because we have to eat it.
Though how things have been going on today, we'll end up eliminating land for pasture and then it will become a desert. We don't need to stop killing as many animals, we need for people to die in larger quantities (light side, non-cynical answer: we need to control our population).
~Jirisys ()
Strike For The South
05-31-2011, 06:41
The ethics of it?
You don't like large scale slaughter? Buy local.
But we are made to consume animals make no mistake about that.
Fellas sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
Samurai Waki
05-31-2011, 07:36
We do have some evolutionary traits that make us lean more towards the carnivorous than herbivorous. The presence of Canine Teeth, and the amino acids in our stomach that breaks down meat are clear indications that we evolved to consume raw protein. However, we also have the appendix which indicates that at a time before our current form we favored grasses, and wild grains... the appendix no longer serves that, or any other function. I'm not saying you have to eat meat, because that's absurd, but meat tastes good to some of us, and I doubt you can convince many (including me) otherwise.
Amongst hunters today the practice of give a silent prayer and thanking the animal for their sacrifice is still widely used, we've created a symbiotic relationship with our food sources... especially wild game, and it's thanks to hunters that wanted their children to be able to hunt that have contributed the most to conservation efforts... PETA despite shouting the hardest contributes only a drop in the bucket for wildlife preservation compared to conservation groups.
However, as someone who hasn't eaten meat for the last 28 years, I guess I would say that. For me it's quite a simple matter - many of the things that make my life enjoyable and give it value, I know are also felt by many kinds of animals (tastey food, the sun warming my body, the affection of my companions, even play). Even more commonly felt are the things that can make my life unpleasant (pain, discomfort, fear etc.).
I really can't argue with this, but I just like meat and will continue to eat it. The steak at the supermarket is too impersonal to me to consider it, but I know it anyway
Hmm... I wonder if sometime in the far future if we have become some sort of weird hippie-enlightened society, they will look upon our treatment of animals as a horror show. And all these people using 'rational' arguments and appealing to the natural order of things etc to defend it will be seen like those who did similar things to defend slavery.
Only if the animals turned out to be more of our calibre than we think - having emotional lives comparable to those of humans. Of course, mental capabilities of animals should vary from species to species, so talk about animal treatment as a whole is going to be inaccurate regardless of which year we're in.
Slavery was about fellow humans, same is issues related to sexual orientation etc.
You are hungry, you eat, what you eat doesn't matter. Though your lack of vitamin B and protein will take it's toll soon.
I've been a vegetarian for six years. Come on, I'm waiting. When does the toll-man come?
I've discussed this with my doctor several times, and there is absolutely no problem for me, if I just maintain a good, steady diet.
Strike For The South
05-31-2011, 10:18
I've been a vegetarian for six years. Come on, I'm waiting. When does the toll-man come?
I've discussed this with my doctor several times, and there is absolutely no problem for me, if I just maintain a good, steady diet.
You are correct, but being a vegetarian is a luxury.
Not dispariging your beliefs, just saying
You are correct, but being a vegetarian is a luxury.
Not dispariging your beliefs, just saying
Strike, did you even read my post on the last page?
Strike For The South
05-31-2011, 10:23
Strike, did you even read my post on the last page?
Meh, unatural has to much of a negative connitation
I like my explanation of your beliefs better
Meh, unatural has to much of a negative connitation
I like my explanation of your beliefs better
I think that a lot of stuff that we do as humans could probably be classified as unnatural. Such as sitting in front of a screen for hours on end, eh?
Strike For The South
05-31-2011, 10:41
I think that a lot of stuff that we do as humans could probably be classified as unnatural. Such as sitting in front of a screen for hours on end, eh?
Well, that was a bit rude
I hope you get a warning for this devastating personal attack.
You know there are recreational sports you could be playing, instead of attacking me. Just trying to voice my well thought out opinoin. Why are you such a bully?
:toff:
Edit: Why are you not in the chat? If I'm not going to sleep I would enjoy someone to talk to!
Well, that's quite the cop out. Is it ethically neutral to watch a woman being gang-raped and do nothing about it? When it's your lack of action, rather than your action, that results in a horrible outcome, you are not automatically absolved.
I think you've misinterpreted me. It's not the lack of human action in the overpopulation case which makes the situation ethically neutral, it's that all the agents are amoral beings. This is in contrast to a gang-rape situation, where all the agents are beings with consciences.
Of course, our responsibilities towards other humans are not the same thing as our responsibilities towards animals, but consider: the farm animals that would undergo genocidal losses have us to thank both for their numbers and for their relative helplessness without human symbiosis. The deer that would overgraze their territories and then suffer massive numbers of death in the readjustment have us to thank for eliminating their other natural predators, and for developing much of their grazing territory into human communities. We are well beyond the point of having no impact on the situation.
Sure, but our impact is very indirect, and certainly not enough to make letting "nature take its course" and us eating animals morally equivalent.
What happens after human children start getting injured or killed by desperately hungry deer? You're taking a very simplistic approach to the issues in your attempt to absolve us of responsibility unless we are actively killing animals.
Like I said, I have no problem with killing from necessity - I don't even oppose the badger cull in England, which a lot of people over here, (Including non-vegetarians) are going mental about (Presumably because they have a Wind in the Willow's conception of badgers, as opposed to the correct "Honey Badger doesn't give a ****" approach)
In short, eating meats keeps those animals with us today.
Again, see my point about this argument in post #29
You are hungry, you eat, what you eat doesn't matter. Though your lack of vitamin B and protein will take it's toll soon. Heck, if we eat too much, we get cataracts and goute. It's all about balance, don't try to escape from your instincts with human's tiny willpower, you're only fooling yourself.
So, eating meat is OK so long as it's necessary part of our diet? Mhm k, I can go with that - only it is no longer a necessary component of a healthy diet, thanks to the wide variety of sources of protein available for people, including Quorn (which actually just tastes like meat), tofu, paneer, nuts, beans, pulses etc.
We do have some evolutionary traits that make us lean more towards the carnivorous than herbivorous. The presence of Canine Teeth, and the amino acids in our stomach that breaks down meat are clear indications that we evolved to consume raw protein. However, we also have the appendix which indicates that at a time before our current form we favored grasses, and wild grains... the appendix no longer serves that, or any other function. I'm not saying you have to eat meat, because that's absurd, but meat tastes good to some of us, and I doubt you can convince many (including me) otherwise.
I agree with everything you've just said, including that meat tastes good.
Amongst hunters today the practice of give a silent prayer and thanking the animal for their sacrifice is still widely used, we've created a symbiotic relationship with our food sources... especially wild game, and it's thanks to hunters that wanted their children to be able to hunt that have contributed the most to conservation efforts...
I think this goes back to what Hax was saying about detachment. For example, Theodore Roosevelt's impact is utterly bizarre - even though he was probably the first (only?) conservationist to get into the White House, he was also obsessed by hunting - e.g. in one trip over 40 days, he killed 147 animals, including four bears. The man was practically a force of nature. Even then, when it comes to hunting...I think it's wrong, and I would never do it, but I'm not sure that I can make the moral leap to advocating a ban on it. As you've said, hunters are an important force for conservation, and it's certainly not cruel in the same way cock-fighting or bear baiting is. Would it be cool if nobody hunted? I guess. But such a change would have to come about through changing social attitudes, as opposed to through legislation.
PETA despite shouting the hardest contributes only a drop in the bucket for wildlife preservation compared to conservation groups.
PETA is much more of a public awareness group then an organisation dedicated to actually looking after animals - other organisations do that. A lot of what PETA does is really daft (Sea kittens? WHY?!?), and I'm not going to defend them for advocating stuff I disagree with (E.g. veganism, fur coats, vivisection etc.).
EDIT:
Only if the animals turned out to be more of our calibre than we think - having emotional lives comparable to those of humans. Of course, mental capabilities of animals should vary from species to species, so talk about animal treatment as a whole is going to be inaccurate regardless of which year we're in.
Slavery was about fellow humans, same is issues related to sexual orientation etc.
Those issues were all justified by the assumption that the victims were "less than human" though. Do we really want to be caught on the wrong side of history?
Ironside
05-31-2011, 10:52
The latter is ethically neutral. Since humans will have had no impact on the situation, there are no morals to speak of. This is in contrast to situations were humans can have an impact on animal life.
While ajaxfetish cover it mostly, I'm just adding that it feels that you don't really care about the animals themself, but only the human-animal interaction when it comes to food.
Aha, I see. There is a distinction to be made though, even if we temporarily sideline the knee-jerk, automatic and correct reaction to put human life far above animal life. A factory farmed animal will be born, grow up in a cage, and then die. That is it. There are no opportunities for self-improvement or the fulfilment of aspiration (to temporarily and shamelessly anthromorphize the chickens). This is in contrast to a ghetto-kid, who has the potential, however slim, to do just that. This difference means that the value of the life of the ghetto-kid is more worthwhile than that of a factory farmed chicken.
It's not like we have more rigid systems than ghettos. Personally I would want the case system to disappear, but I'm quite certain that the casteless would prefer to exist if status quo or death are the only reasonable options.
I'm not opposing better conditions for the animals and your need to anthromorphize also gives another problem. If aliens are keeping us from transcendance for some reason and we're not even close to achiving it anyway, is that bad, from our position? So, is the loss of self-improvement or the fulfilment of aspiration bad, when the animal in question can't achieve it anyway?
Is someone truely living in slavery if they never realize it? Presonally I find this one quite eerie, from a human perspective.
Well that's not a very fair comparison on a lot of levels that are pretty obvious.
In that case, name them please.
Hmm... I wonder if sometime in the far future if we have become some sort of weird hippie-enlightened society, they will look upon our treatment of animals as a horror show. And all these people using 'rational' arguments and appealing to the natural order of things etc to defend it will be seen like those who did similar things to defend slavery.
Possibly, some time after the artificial meat market has taken over by pragmatic reasons and the silent genocide in the aftermarch is forgotten by most.
Those issues were all justified by the assumption that the victims were "less than human" though. Do we really want to be caught on the wrong side of history?
I wonder who it was that opened a thread with the statement "Animals are stupid. Really stupid."
It is why we should treat animals with respect, but it is not to say that we should stop eating them. For this, proofs or indications of high mental capabilities would be in order. Even if such capabilities turned out to be the case, we could turn to chickens and crustaceans (yum), or create stupid breeds.
Rhyfelwyr
05-31-2011, 14:38
Since the domestication of animals, humans and those domesticated now make up 90% of all wildlife.
Not only we benefited, so did they and in this partnership, both are good.
And the black man gained a lot from slavery. I mean they would just be living in huts in Africa if it wasn't for the slave trade.
The ethics of it?
You don't like large scale slaughter? Buy local.
But we are made to consume animals make no mistake about that.
Fellas sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
The scale of it is not relevant to me, since it is about the individual animals.
I still eat meat, but I can't really justify it when I think about it.
In that case, name them please.
Well for a start you talked about actively killing off the ghetto population, while with the animals we would just let their populations die out naturally because we would no longer mass breed them.
You guys are missing the obvious. C. just happens to be a hot philosophy major babe that Subotan is trying to bed. That's as good a reason as any to stop eating meat (for a while, anyway). Just stay away from the soya products. :yes:
If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?
Greyblades
05-31-2011, 19:34
People are made of meat, should we eat them too?
ajaxfetish
05-31-2011, 19:43
Those issues were all justified by the assumption that the victims were "less than human" though. Do we really want to be caught on the wrong side of history?
Well, the problem there of course is that the assumption was wrong. Other humans are not "less than human," but are in fact "human." Animals, on the other hand, are "less than human," as your own opening post so eloquently pointed out.
Ajax
People are made of meat, should we eat them too?
As long as you're not eating them for pleasure.:beam:
Hosakawa Tito
05-31-2011, 23:46
The ethics of it?
You don't like large scale slaughter? Buy local.
But we are made to consume animals make no mistake about that.
Fellas sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
No no no. A woman is just a woman. A cigar is a fine smoke.
You guys are missing the obvious. C. just happens to be a hot philosophy major babe that Subotan is trying to bed. That's as good a reason as any to stop eating meat (for a while, anyway). Just stay away from the soya products. :yes:
Ahhh, now it's all starting to make sense. Giving up prime rib in the hope for prime...
Populus Romanus
06-01-2011, 00:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUEpmbdZLw&feature=fvst
Couldn't resist.
Humans are born and bred to kill. And to eat what they kill. To do otherwise is to insult mother nature. Which makes me laugh, because vegetarians are always the ones who claim to "love nature" and all that.
Rhyfelwyr
06-01-2011, 00:36
Humans are born and bred to kill. And to eat what they kill. To do otherwise is to insult mother nature. Which makes me laugh, because vegetarians are always the ones who claim to "love nature" and all that.
I don't get these kinds of arguments.
You could justify pretty much anything by appealing to nature.
Couldn't resist.
Try harder next time.
Is it so hard to be decent, yes?
Louis VI the Fat
06-01-2011, 02:44
If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?Indeed.
And why would meat taste so good if we were not meant to eat it? Nectar tastes good to insects. Bamboo leaves are tasty to pandas. Dung tastes good to dung beetles.
Likewise, porkchops taste good to humans because they are the intrument the pig uses to induce us to eat him. Because, not only have we evolved to like meat, our meat has evolved to be liked by us, as much as flowering plants and bees have co-evolved together.
Pigs have evolved to taste good to man. Non-tasty pigs are extinct, didn't make the evolutionary cut. Simply because, contrary perhaps to first intuition, man has driven to (the brink of) extinction large animals unfit for human consumption, whereas animals who could evolve themselves to be tasty and nutritious to humans are thriving.
Edit: Populus is fourteen.
Tellos Athenaios
06-01-2011, 02:45
Such as rats in NY?
Such as rats in NY?
Even in NY, you'd be pressed to call them "large" animals...
Such as rats in NY?
Frenetic reproductive cycles withstand our ignoring their meat.
~Jirisys ()
Populus Romanus
06-01-2011, 05:38
Edit: Populus is fourteen.No I am not.
No I am not.
Two years more does not make your debating arguments and techniques astoundingly better.
Even my childish-ish attitude cannot be compared to some of the fellow orgahs here.
~Jirisys (NYC Rats should morphologically be considered a larger breed than that of the Miniature Schnauzer)
Banquo's Ghost
06-01-2011, 07:57
Soylent Green.
In the light of other current stories about a significant world shortage of food in a few years, what are the arguments against utilising all that spare protein? A voluntary euthanasia program would solve many of the first world's problems with debt and old age (largely spent senile and unhappy) and the subsequent processing of the meat product would provide a highly efficient protein supplement to cereals.
I don't see a downside myself (and I'm being serious).
Greyblades
06-01-2011, 11:15
a) we dont need it as we have enough food to feed the world twice over if it was properly distributed
b) as much as the directors might want us to believe there is no way anyone would manage to pull off giving human based food to the populus without the population of the world trying to lynch mob them once they found out (and they will find out).
c) it is extremely inefficient, you'd have to spend a mountain of soylent green to feed a person long enough for them to die naturally and when you do you'll end up with enough raw materials to maybe feed another person for a month.
I wonder who it was that opened a thread with the statement "Animals are stupid. Really stupid."
Just because they're inferior doesn't mean that they deserve to be treated badly.
It is why we should treat animals with respect, but it is not to say that we should stop eating them. For this, proofs or indications of high mental capabilities would be in order. Even if such capabilities turned out to be the case, we could turn to chickens and crustaceans (yum), or create stupid breeds.
Why is it necessary to treat them with respect, yet this respect does not carry over into not eating them?
You guys are missing the obvious. C. just happens to be a hot philosophy major babe that Subotan is trying to bed. That's as good a reason as any to stop eating meat (for a while, anyway). Just stay away from the soya products. :yes:
Aha! Finally someone noticed that I was very careful not to mention C.'s gender. Well, you're correct in that C. is a she, and she studies philosophy, but I have none of the intentions you assume I have. I'm good friends with C., and I'm very happy for it to stay that way - dating within the social circle at university always turns out badly. Regardless, this is something I am doing for myself, not C.
...And we've just reached the ultimate limit of what I'm prepared to discuss about my personal life on the .Org.
Well, the problem there of course is that the assumption was wrong. Other humans are not "less than human," but are in fact "human." Animals, on the other hand, are "less than human," as your own opening post so eloquently pointed out.
Ajax
This presents the opposite problem to Viking's statement - if they're less than human enough to justify eating them, why can't we just be cruel to them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUEpmbdZLw&feature=fvst
Couldn't resist.
I love Epic Meal Time, It's my favourite Youtube series! If you think that's odd, consider that what they're doing is no worse than what a small American diner will serve in meat to their customers every day - they're just being creative with it.
Humans are born and bred to kill. And to eat what they kill. To do otherwise is to insult mother nature. Which makes me laugh, because vegetarians are always the ones who claim to "love nature" and all that.
Oh dear, looks like we have someone who is nostalgic for the state of nature.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature#Hobbes.27_philosophy)
Indeed.And why would meat taste so good if we were not meant to eat it? Nectar tastes good to insects. Bamboo leaves are tasty to pandas. Dung tastes good to dung beetles.
Does this mean that since we find heroin pleasurable, we are meant to abuse it?
Samurai Waki
06-01-2011, 12:27
Humans are not born and bred to kill. Many of our adaptations to meat eating came about because we were unable to hunt effectively on our own. we would have been scavengers up until tool making, some ancient ancestor probably found out how to ambush prey with a sharpened stick and hunting took off from there. The killer instinct may have evolved because of our newly acquired abilities in obtaining meat, long periods of hunt and deprivation.
Though civilization didn't develop because we were excellent killers, on the contrary it's because we're excellent farmers. Grains have been the largest driving force in our development as a species.
Greyblades
06-01-2011, 13:20
It should be noted the grains werent prized as much for providing food but for making alcohol.
Tellos Athenaios
06-01-2011, 13:57
There is a downside to cannibalism for regular meal supply: disease. Yes, humans contain exactly all humans need in (sometimes more so than others) well balanced proportions -- but humans also contain more risky stuff like enzymes and accumulated toxins (in fatty tissue and organs) as well as pathogens.
One way to see how this is a problem even if you eat your humans well done, is the BSE saga. Essentially it turned out to be about cows eating parts of other cows mixed in their food.
Tellos Athenaios
06-01-2011, 14:00
Humans are not born and bred to kill. Many of our adaptations to meat eating came about because we were unable to hunt effectively on our own.
One technique persists: steal it from the real predators. That's how people still hunt in parts of Africa: stare down a few lions, take a hind leg and retreat into the distance before the lions call your bluff.
Just because they're inferior doesn't mean that they deserve to be treated badly.
Don't take things out of their context. :whip:
Why is it necessary to treat them with respect, yet this respect does not carry over into not eating them?
They react to pain stimuli, and given that they could possibly could experience pain in a similar fashion to humans, it would be unwise from a moral perspective to not treat them with respect. To kill them for their meat is a moral question of a different nature.
Of course, killing is brutal. Whether or not animals experience great pain before they die, I don't know as I have yet to be butchered at a slaughterhouse. Yet causing pain at one point for a specific purpose is different from mistreating animals purposelessly over time. One could draw a parallel to giving someone really painful medical treatment in order to save his/her live. The difference here lies in the purpose, obviously.
What still makes this parallel relevant, is the fact that possibly animals do not understand the concept of purpose, or intent. Perhaps they do not understand that the pain they feel at death, if any, is a part of their murder. In this case, it is irrelevant to them whether the pain they feel is part of medical treatment or part of their murder: they live in the present only (more or less), and feel pain right now - and that's it.
The only potential cruel part here, is then the pain. If it does not matter to the animals what the cause of the pain is, then it can in various ways be justified to kill them for their meat. The simplest and most generic way is to say that to cause pain to an animal for any other intent than malice is compatible with respectful treatment. Another way is to say that they will experiences pain sooner or later in life anyway, such that by murdering them - we save them from this pain, be it from future illness, a stressful death from a heart attack or brutal treatment by a predator (important as always, of course: living in the present only, depriving them of a longer life does not really count).
ajaxfetish
06-01-2011, 19:20
This presents the opposite problem to Viking's statement - if they're less than human enough to justify eating them, why can't we just be cruel to them?
Eating them has positives to balance the harm: both for our diet, and in many cases, for their reproductive success. Cruelty has no positives to balance it, plus it is likely to cause more harm to the humans inflicting the cruelty as well (I consider torture more morally repugnant and harmful to both victim and perpetrator than I do execution, for instance).
Ajax
ReluctantSamurai
06-01-2011, 21:34
I think it's quite amusing that the methods for justifying a vegetarian diet hasn't changed in the 35 yrs. since I was in college. Same argument...different day...bigger pile:laugh4:
Trying to put some moral high ground spin on things is weak, IMHO. AFAIAC, we, as humans are not any better than any other creature on this good earth, and in fact, we are the only species capable of completely obliterating the planet. I fail to see where technology makes us any better.
My advice (to borrow from a famous Nike commercial) is to JUST DO IT! If it makes you feel better all around...more power to you. Just stop trying to put a moral twist on something that every other species on this planet gives absolutely no thought to...how to eat. I was a strict vegetarian for many years and I was in quite good health throughout. Nowadays, I enjoy an occasional steak lathered in onions and mushrooms, or grilled chicken and ribs, but my diet is still basically vegetarian.
Epic Meal Time rules. Vegetarians are lame and untrustworthy.
I'll be back to post again in two years or so.
Louis VI the Fat
06-02-2011, 01:22
Epic Meal Time rules. Vegetarians are lame and untrustworthy.
I'll be back to post again in two years or so.Awesomeness. Epic.
You are my god.
Epic Meal Time rules. Vegetarians are lame and untrustworthy.
I'll be back to post again in two years or so.
Two years is just enough so the org doesn't explode on your epic posts.
~Jirisys ()
Don't take things out of their context. :whip:
Huh?
They react to pain stimuli, and given that they could possibly could experience pain in a similar fashion to humans, it would be unwise from a moral perspective to not treat them with respect. To kill them for their meat is a moral question of a different nature.
Of course, killing is brutal. Whether or not animals experience great pain before they die, I don't know as I have yet to be butchered at a slaughterhouse. Yet causing pain at one point for a specific purpose is different from mistreating animals purposelessly over time. One could draw a parallel to giving someone really painful medical treatment in order to save his/her live. The difference here lies in the purpose, obviously.
Killing animals in the slaughterhouse is not in itself morally wrong - my point is that the suffering that animals feel from being killed (I.e. the forced end of life, even if we discount the fact that they might feel pain) outweighs any pleasure which we may derive as people from the consumption of their meat.
What still makes this parallel relevant, is the fact that possibly animals do not understand the concept of purpose, or intent. Perhaps they do not understand that the pain they feel at death, if any, is a part of their murder. In this case, it is irrelevant to them whether the pain they feel is part of medical treatment or part of their murder: they live in the present only (more or less), and feel pain right now - and that's it.
Even if they could consent, it would still be wrong - we don't allow voluntary cannibalism after all. Also, killing animals isn't murder.
The only potential cruel part here, is then the pain. If it does not matter to the animals what the cause of the pain is, then it can in various ways be justified to kill them for their meat. The simplest and most generic way is to say that to cause pain to an animal for any other intent than malice is compatible with respectful treatment. Another way is to say that they will experiences pain sooner or later in life anyway, such that by murdering them - we save them from this pain, be it from future illness, a stressful death from a heart attack or brutal treatment by a predator (important as always, of course: living in the present only, depriving them of a longer life does not really count)
I don't see how much killing animals for meat to eat for pleasure is that different to cruel behaviour. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that people who eat meat are in any way equivalent to dog kickers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog), but that there are certainly enough parallels to make me feel uncomfortable between eating an animal that has been killed far away for pleasure, and killing animal in itself for pleasure.
Eating them has positives to balance the harm: both for our diet, and in many cases, for their reproductive success. Cruelty has no positives to balance it, plus it is likely to cause more harm to the humans inflicting the cruelty as well (I consider torture more morally repugnant and harmful to both victim and perpetrator than I do execution, for instance).
Ajax
The diet argument is no longer relevant, given that there are plenty of alternatives and even substitutes. Besides, the animals are only being allowed to reproduce so long as they continue to produce meat that will satisfy human tastes - if pork suddenly went out of fashion, then lots of pigs would be slaughtered for no other purpose than for matters of taste.
Trying to put some moral high ground spin on things is weak, IMHO. AFAIAC, we, as humans are not any better than any other creature on this good earth, and in fact, we are the only species capable of completely obliterating the planet. I fail to see where technology makes us any better.
That we have the tech to do so makes us better. If we actually did so, that would of course be bad, but the skills which we possess are unique and make us fundamentally superior.
Epic Meal Time rules.
I said as much.
Vegetarians are lame and untrustworthy.
...And meat-eaters are vicious and malevolent.
See, mud-slinging works both ways :3
Awesomeness. Epic.
You are my god.
Two years is just enough so the org doesn't explode on your epic posts.
~Jirisys ()
So, thoughtful posts from people you disagree with, or even those who you do agree with are lame, but knuckle-dragging, Manichean statements are "epic"? Tsk.
Fisherking
06-02-2011, 15:55
@ Subotan
You speak of technology. Our technology shows us that plants are living sensing beings that have likes and dislikes and become emotionally upset as well as sensing physical pain.
Technologically we have shown that even sub atomic particle perceive outside influences.
So, how do you think it is more ethical and humane to eat plants than it is to eat animals? Is it only because you belong to the order of animals, rather than plants?
How is it more ethical to murder one rather than the other?
The shamen and tribal elders have always said that everything is alive, even the stones of the earth.
Technology is showing that to be true.
You can choose to eat or you can choose to break your self down into your components. It is no more right and correct to forgo meat than it is to forgo vegetables.
To say otherwise is just to delude your self with hypocrisy.
Huh?
You asked whether one would like to end up on the wrong side of history when it comes to the mental state of animals - and of the two of us, given your intro; you'd be the most likely one to do that. (the parallel to slavery is the following, from 1834:
Subotan: Slaves are stupid. Really stupid. [...] But we should not keep them as slaves. They should be allowed to use their stupidity as they like.
Viking: Not so sure that all forms of slaves are stupid - but we should treat them with respect. Look, here's news article in the paper where the author describes how he observed slaves reading a book. Maybe not all of them are so stupid after all.
Killing animals in the slaughterhouse is not in itself morally wrong - my point is that the suffering that animals feel from being killed (I.e. the forced end of life, even if we discount the fact that they might feel pain) outweighs any pleasure which we may derive as people from the consumption of their meat.
Now you are using utilitarianism, which demands that this weighing of consequences actually makes sence (it doesn't, that is my viewpoint).
Even if they could consent, it would still be wrong - we don't allow voluntary cannibalism after all. Also, killing animals isn't murder.
In this particular debate, it absolutely makes sense to label this particular killing as murder - it is both deliberate and planned. If we for a second say that animals (more or less!) only live in the present, then we have established a great gap between humans and animals (of course, I still object to putting all animals into one category). It is with this gap that one can justify their murder, and it is because of this gap a references to voluntary suicide, cannibalism etc. fails without further elaboration. With this gap, humans and animals are simply not in the same moral category.
I don't see how much killing animals for meat to eat for pleasure is that different to cruel behaviour. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that people who eat meat are in any way equivalent to dog kickers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog), but that there are certainly enough parallels to make me feel uncomfortable between eating an animal that has been killed far away for pleasure, and killing animal in itself for pleasure.
Well, as I've said: with this particular assumption, pain is pain for the animal - it doesn't matter why. It is not cruelty because we are not interested in causing the animal pain - it may appear as a side effect of our goal, which is to eat them. I know that this particular line of reasoning has some problems. For instance, if we cannot be certain that the death will come almost in an instant (such as with hunting, were a poor shot from time to time leaves a wounded animal running around in the wild), the argumentation becomes considerably weaker. Yet on the other hand, if we can be very certain that either death or lack of consciousness leading to death is quick, then we are near the point where we can produce the QED stamp.
If we combine the previous line of reasoning with the one where the pain that the animal could experience had it not been killed, then one can also cover the eventuality of hunting much easier. If the animal was not killed, it could die of protracted illness, a brutal assault by a predator or a similar painful death. One thing is clear: the animal is going to die, and it could well be that the majority of species X are going to die a painfull natural death, such that hunting them down could for most of them be an easier way out.
ajaxfetish
06-02-2011, 19:32
The diet argument is no longer relevant, given that there are plenty of alternatives and even substitutes. Besides, the animals are only being allowed to reproduce so long as they continue to produce meat that will satisfy human tastes - if pork suddenly went out of fashion, then lots of pigs would be slaughtered for no other purpose than for matters of taste.
Two problems with your first response, so cavalierly dismissing the contribution of meat to the human diet. First, I question whether the alternatives are as efficient. Second, the presence of alternatives does not neutralize the benefit. Chopping down trees to build houses benefits humanity, even though alternatives such as stone, concrete, etc. exist. We get a benefit from eating meat (even if those calories and nutrients could have come from elsewhere), while we do not benefit from cruelty to an animal. (edit: in other words, is there some alternative or substitute we could turn to to replace the benefit we get from cruelty to animals? No, because there's no benefit to be replaced)
As for your second, if I'm interpreting it correctly, you're saying pigs don't really benefit from human cultivation, because the possibility exists that we'll stop cultivating them. First of all, that doesn't even make sense unless the cultivation benefits them in the first place. Second, it's similar to saying that Canada doesn't really benefit from having an allied and friendly superpower across its only land border, because America could decide to attack Canada. Just because there exists the possibility that the current situation may someday change, that doesn't mean that the current situation should be dismissed out of hand. (edit: and considering that humans have kept domesticated pigs for thousands of years, and that pork, ham, and bacon are all popular and traditional foods in my area, I don't think the chances of the change you suggest are very strong)
Ajax
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.