Animal ethics

[Pussy Galore]

I recently started to read the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer that is very good in which he makes the argument that eating meat is not morally acceptable.


Singer is an utilitarian (an ethical theory created by Jeremy Bentham in which it's the consequences ad not the action itself that counts to know if an action is moral or not. The utilitarian doctrine also defends that the only desirable end is ''le bonheur'' that's french. In English I think it translates to welfare, happiness or something like that)


The main argument he makes in Animal Liberation is that he thinks that the utilitarian method should also consider non human animals's well being. Because, as Bentham said, the important to judge an action is not whether or not a being is intelligent, but if he suffers and most non human animals have nervous systems, hence suffer. He puts forward the concept of specism (same thing as racism or sexism, but for species) that we discriminate others just based on the fact that their are not human. He compares specism to racism because he doesn't what difference is between separating people based on their skin colour or of the specie from which they come from.


Also, that if intelligence or self conscience is the criteria to have moral value then there are human beings (handicaped, mentally ill people) that do not have it, so that according to the criteria it would be morally justifiable to eat them.


I would add (from an other book this one called No Steak by Aymeric Caron) that te meat industry is extremely bad for the environment. And to those who say that plants also are living I'd answer 2 things. First they don't have nervous system, so according to biology they don't suffer. And that anyway the meat you eat needs to be fed on plants so it's a fatality in that sens. Finally, that the quantity of food that the meat eats is supperior to the food it will give when dead.


According to that I have a couple of questions for meat eaters:
What justifies eating meat knowing that we can avoid that because they are sensible being and that we have other alternatives?


Honestly, would you eat a cat or dog? If not what makes it worst then eating a pig or a chicken?


What, according you, gives moral value to someone?


I hope my English is good enough to be readable and that it creates a good and healthy debate, not being dogmatic or anything. I'd like to discuss it because it is very taboo and that it's a question that I'm reflecting upon a lot.

[donniedarko]

I'm not that deep into the subject, but I'll give your questions a go.


What justifies eating meat knowing that we can avoid that because they are sensible being and that we have other alternatives?
Support business, predator vs prey, over population, culture, enjoyment

Honestly, would you eat a cat or dog?
It'd probably be difficult for me to eat a dog, but if it's a cultural thing maybe I would.

If not what makes it worst then eating a pig or a chicken?
I wouldn't say 100% no but a chicken or a pig has never been my best friend.

What, according you, gives moral value to someone?
It's all in degrees. Yes some life is more valuable than other life. I'm sure Singer doesn't have the same empathy to a spider than he does to a goat. Same way I don't have the same empathy to a cow that I have to humans.

If someone finds it morally impossible to eat an animal, then don't eat it. I don't find it morally impossible

[90sAce]

I'm not that deep into the subject, but I'll give your questions a go.


What justifies eating meat knowing that we can avoid that because they are sensible being and that we have other alternatives?
Support business, predator vs prey, over population, culture, enjoyment

I'd say that since humans are evolutionary designed for eating meat it's justifiable - the same argument could be made against driving cars since humans "don't have to", and it contributes negative effects to the environment.


Honestly, would you eat a cat or dog?
It'd probably be difficult for me to eat a dog, but if it's a cultural thing maybe I would.

I would personally.


If not what makes it worst then eating a pig or a chicken?
I wouldn't say 100% no but a chicken or a pig has never been my best friend.

I don't think that it is - in fact pigs intelligence is right up there with dogs


What, according you, gives moral value to someone?
It's all in degrees. Yes some life is more valuable than other life. I'm sure Singer doesn't have the same empathy to a spider than he does to a goat. Same way I don't have the same empathy to a cow that I have to humans.

Agree with you on this - one think which turns me off to some on the animal rights side, is that they seem to favor "cute" or "cool looking animals" like lions, or elephants over others.

If a lion or an elephant is killed (even on a controlled reservation setting) this generates more outrage than a cow or a pig's death, so this just seems species-ist to me.

[Pussy Galore]

What justifies eating meat knowing that we can avoid that because they are sensible being and that we have other alternatives?
Support business, predator vs prey, over population, culture, enjoyment

If we don't eat meat there will be businesses that arise producing non animal food because it is a basic need. Predator vs prey I don't know, I think that rationality gives us the possibility to make moral decisions that goes beyond the natural state of things. As for over population yeah it's a very goo argument, if we didn't hunt in any sort of way there might be some over population.

Honestly, would you eat a cat or dog?
It'd probably be difficult for me to eat a dog, but if it's a cultural thing maybe I would.

Shouldn't you go above culture on such questions? I'll give you an example, if you were living in the south in the early 19th century you would accept slavery?

If not what makes it worst then eating a pig or a chicken?
I wouldn't say 100% no but a chicken or a pig has never been my best friend.

So it would be worse killing someone you don't know then your best friend?

What, according you, gives moral value to someone?
It's all in degrees. Yes some life is more valuable than other life. I'm sure Singer doesn't have the same empathy to a spider than he does to a goat. Same way I don't have the same empathy to a cow that I have to humans.

If someone finds it morally impossible to eat an animal, then don't eat it. I don't find it morally impossible

You're right he doesn't, but he says that there is an impartial and objective way to decide what we should do and it's to reduce the quantity of suffering in the world, so if a spider can feel less suffering then a goat then if we have the choice we should eat the spider. And the question I'm raising is that maybe it's a question that goes further than personnal opinion. I don't know if you have seen the documentary Earthlings, but it shows how the industry works. How the chickens ar fed so much that their legs break because they become to fat to fast, how the non human animals have a very tiny life space, etc. Inflincting that on other sensible beings might deserve some sort of legislation.

[90sAce]

I recently started to read the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer that is very good in which he makes the argument that eating meat is not morally acceptable.


Singer is an utilitarian (an ethical theory created by Jeremy Bentham in which it's the consequences ad not the action itself that counts to know if an action is moral or not. The utilitarian doctrine also defends that the only desirable end is ''le bonheur'' that's french. In English I think it translates to welfare, happiness or something like that)


The main argument he makes in Animal Liberation is that he thinks that the utilitarian method should also consider non human animals's well being. Because, as Bentham said, the important to judge an action is not whether or not a being is intelligent, but if he suffers and most non human animals have nervous systems, hence suffer. He puts forward the concept of specism (same thing as racism or sexism, but for species) that we discriminate others just based on the fact that their are not human. He compares specism to racism because he doesn't what difference is between separating people based on their skin colour or of the specie from which they come from.

True, but again the insect argument below applies.

Classical Greek philosophers had a concept of hierarchy of species, which I agree with.


Also, that if intelligence or self conscience is the criteria to have moral value then there are human beings (handicaped, mentally ill people) that do not have it, so that according to the criteria it would be morally justifiable to eat them.

I believe that's incorrect - even a mentally retarded person does have consciousness - only a legally braindead person doesn't.


I would add (from an other book this one called No Steak by Aymeric Caron) that te meat industry is extremely bad for the environment. And to those who say that plants also are living I'd answer 2 things. First they don't have nervous system, so according to biology they don't suffer. And that anyway the meat you eat needs to be fed on plants so it's a fatality in that sens. Finally, that the quantity of food that the meat eats is supperior to the food it will give when dead.

According to that I have a couple of questions for meat eaters:
What justifies eating meat knowing that we can avoid that because they are sensible being and that we have other alternatives?

I mentioned the cars argument below - people can survive without cars, and they cause damage to the environment - but I don't believe this automatically makes driving cars not acceptable.


Honestly, would you eat a cat or dog? If not what makes it worst then eating a pig or a chicken?

I would love to.


What, according you, gives moral value to someone?


I hope my English is good enough to be readable and that it creates a good and healthy debate, not being dogmatic or anything. I'd like to discuss it because it is very taboo and that it's a question that I'm reflecting upon a lot.
There are a lot of slippery slopes your debate would lead to.

For example, why should we preserve endangered carnivorous species like sharks or lions? Why shouldn't we use animal population control and kill off all those species, so that only herbivorous species are left on the planet? (meaning no more killing for food in the entire animal kingdom, not just in humans).

[90sAce]

If we don't eat meat there will be businesses that arise producing non animal food because it is a basic need.

In theory sure, but it's pretty much an "all or nothing thing" - as in everyone would have to decide to stop eating meat, in order for it to have any effect on the industry - so my individual choice to eat meat on its own has no noticeable effect on the industry.


Shouldn't you go above culture on such questions? I'll give you an example, if you were living in the south in the early 19th century you would accept slavery?

Why stop at mammals, or birds or fish? Why not also include insects, or worms, or amoeba?


So it would be worse killing someone you don't know then your best friend?

I don't think it would be bad to eat a dog or a cat - people do own pigs as pets too, but we don't feel the same refusal to eat it.


You're right he doesn't, but he says that there is an impartial and objective way to decide what we should do and it's to reduce the quantity of suffering in the world, so if a spider can feel less suffering then a goat then if we have the choice we should eat the spider. And the question I'm raising is that maybe it's a question that goes further than personnal opinion. I don't know if you have seen the documentary Earthlings, but it shows how the industry works. How the chickens ar fed so much that their legs break because they become to fat to fast, how the non human animals have a very tiny life space, etc. Inflincting that on other sensible beings might deserve some sort of legislation.
Hypothetically what if humans just scavenged for food - as in only eating animals which died a natural death - as vultures do. Would you still have a problem with it just because it's "eating meat"?

[Pussy Galore]

True, but again the insect argument below applies.

Classical Greek philosophers had a concept of hierarchy of species, which I agree with.

What philosopher? And on what criteria did this particular philosopher based his hierarchy upon?


I believe that's incorrect - even a mentally retarded person does have consciousness - only a legally braindead person doesn't.
You know as well as I do that we do not know what consciousness or even the nature of it so it's a very abstract concept. I might argue that an adult dolphin is more self conscious of it's presence on earth then a human baby. But I don't think that self consciousness is a criteria that can judge what we can eat or not, I would agree with Singer with the capacity to suffer as the criteria.

I mentioned the cars argument below - people can survive without cars, and they cause damage to the environment - but I don't believe this automatically makes driving cars acceptable.
It isn't my main argument and I don't find the comparison to be very good. We don't really have any alternative for transportation then cars, bu we do have other alternatives to eat then meat. And my main argument is the one about the suffering for other sensible beings and, to my knowledge, cars don't suffer :p

I would love to.
Then at least you're consistent with your choice haha

There are a lot of slippery slopes your debate would lead to.

For example, why should we preserve endangered carnivorous species like sharks or lions? Why shouldn't we use animal population control and kill off all those species, so that only herbivorous species are left on the planet? (meaning no more killing for food in the entire animal kingdom, not just in humans).

That is a very good point, sharks and lion, even if they are juge predators would also have a right to live (not according to Singer and that's where I disagree with him). That is where I'm hesitating because it's true non human animals eat each other so should we kill the biggest predators because they might inflict more suffering? I don't know, I wouldn't think so.

My main point is more the way the meat industry is operating right now is horrible in the way the non human animals are killed, we deal an incredible amount of suffering that can avoided.

[Pussy Galore]

In theory sure, but it's pretty much an "all or nothing thing" - as in everyone would have to decide to stop eating meat, in order for it to have any effect on the industry - so my individual choice to eat meat on its own has no noticeable effect on the industry.

I was talking about if it becomes illegal (I know it's highly unlikely haha).
.
Why stop at mammals, or birds or fish? Why not also include insects, or worms, or amoeba?

Yet again, I'd say the capacity to suffer should be the judge.

I don't think it would be bad to eat a dog or a cat - people do own pigs as pets too, but we don't feel the same refusal to eat it.
Agreed.

Hypothetically what if humans just scavenged for food - as in only eating animals which died a natural death - as vultures do. Would you still have a problem with it just because it's "eating meat"?

Not at all, I'm not an activist or anything I just really question myself about it since I want to be a ''moral''person. I don't really care for the appellation meat, bacteria, plants, etc. I just really thinks that inflincting a huge amount of suffering to other sensible being, if you can avoid it, then you should do it.
.

[donniedarko]

If we don't eat meat there will be businesses that arise producing non animal food because it is a basic need. Predator vs prey I don't know, I think that rationality gives us the possibility to make moral decisions that goes beyond the natural state of things. As for over population yeah it's a very goo argument, if we didn't hunt in any sort of way there might be some over population.

Other business would arise but many ranchers who don't know anything else would die off, perhaps quite literally. Then many restraunts, ect.



Shouldn't you go above culture on such questions? I'll give you an example, if you were living in the south in the early 19th century you would accept slavery?
probably



So it would be worse killing someone you don't know then your best friend?
the point was more since these animals aren't pets there no emotional attachment for me.



You're right he doesn't, but he says that there is an impartial and objective way to decide what we should do and it's to reduce the quantity of suffering in the world, so if a spider can feel less suffering then a goat then if we have the choice we should eat the spider. And the question I'm raising is that maybe it's a question that goes further than personnal opinion. I don't know if you have seen the documentary Earthlings, but it shows how the industry works. How the chickens ar fed so much that their legs break because they become to fat to fast, how the non human animals have a very tiny life space, etc. Inflincting that on other sensible beings might deserve some sort of legislation.

I believe the way the industry works vs the morality of eating meat are two different things. Buy cage free, farm fed, ect.

[Pussy Galore]

Yeah, it is different you're right and it's where I'm not sure.


I'm 100% sure that the way the industry works now is unnacceptable, but I'm still quite hesitant on the question of eating meat in general. One thing for sure is that I LOVE eating it and that it is very very very hard no to and that I would love if ultimately it was ethical eating it hahaha

[jal90]

The main argument he makes in Animal Liberation is that he thinks that the utilitarian method should also consider non human animals's well being. Because, as Bentham said, the important to judge an action is not whether or not a being is intelligent, but if he suffers and most non human animals have nervous systems, hence suffer. He puts forward the concept of specism (same thing as racism or sexism, but for species) that we discriminate others just based on the fact that their are not human. He compares specism to racism because he doesn't what difference is between separating people based on their skin colour or of the specie from which they come from.
I am familiar with the concept of specism. I won't say that it's nonsense, but I'd say that it is hypocritical to read this from vegetarian/vegan theorists. Specism doesn't only work through negative discrimination, it works through positive discrimination as well. Allowing sharks and lions to eat meat because they don't have a sense of moral value -a sense of moral value that is twisted towards the premise of not eating meat, though- is a form of specism. It's a form of saying that we are special, that we are differentiable and we should act in consequence.

The other problem with specism is that it should apply to any species. Not to the ones that the theorist has arbitrarily set through premises that are far from being objectively right.

Also, that if intelligence or self conscience is the criteria to have moral value then there are human beings (handicaped, mentally ill people) that do not have it, so that according to the criteria it would be morally justifiable to eat them.
And if suffering is the criterion to have moral value then there are human beings who have parts of their body paralized and insensitive, so that according to the criteria it would be morally justifiable to eat them.

The problem of the suffering argument is that it is arbitrary and circular. It sounds like a convenient method to justify eating vegetables while condemning meat eating.

I would add (from an other book this one called No Steak by Aymeric Caron) that te meat industry is extremely bad for the environment.
So are many current crop systems. And being a meat-eater does not detract from trying to make environmentally efficient food industries. Many people who eat meat actively search for ecological products.

And to those who say that plants also are living I'd answer 2 things. First they don't have nervous system, so according to biology they don't suffer.
I think I answered this already. This is an arbitrary premise. Plants don't suffer, but they do have active ways to preserve their life. If we eat them, we are in conflict with their biological purpose.

And that anyway the meat you eat needs to be fed on plants so it's a fatality in that sens. Finally, that the quantity of food that the meat eats is supperior to the food it will give when dead.
If you consider individuals, you should consider individuals for plants as well. Either way this logic does not make sense.

According to that I have a couple of questions for meat eaters:
What justifies eating meat knowing that we can avoid that because they are sensible being and that we have other alternatives?
I can twist that question. What justifies not eating meat knowing that we can do it because we have the right tools in our body and it has a nutritional value? And I think this is the question that should be answered. Either way you are forcing me to accept a subjective premise based on your (or the author's) very own morals.

Honestly, would you eat a cat or dog? If not what makes it worst then eating a pig or a chicken?
It's not so much that it is morally better or worse. It has more to do with the concept of normality in human societies. Cats and dogs have a very different cultural appreciation here than they do in South Korea.

It's not worse than eating a pig or a chicken, however it is less normal in my social context. Therefore, I'm less inclined to do it.

What, according you, gives moral value to someone?
Uhm, nice question. Actually anything has some degree of moral value. That's why ecological farming is a thing that many people demand, regardless of their eating habits.

[Pussy Galore]

I am familiar with the concept of specism. I won't say that it's nonsense, but I'd say that it is hypocritical to read this from vegetarian/vegan theorists. Specism doesn't only work through negative discrimination, it works through positive discrimination as well. Allowing sharks and lions to eat meat because they don't have a sense of moral value -a sense of moral value that is twisted towards the premise of not eating meat, though- is a form of specism. It's a form of saying that we are special, that we are differentiable and we should act in consequence.

Yeah, I'm familliar with that argument and it's the best one to answer to Singer. Logically if the suffering of beings can be avoided by not letting non human animals fight each other then we should intervene to not let them fight which would be ridiculous. It's a true and valid argument, but I don't think it disproves vegetarism. You have the choice between eating being that suffers or being that, to our knowledge, don't suffer.

The other problem with specism is that it should apply to any species. Not to the ones that the theorist has arbitrarily set through premises that are far from being objectively right.

Singer would agree, but eating is a fatality for any living being. And we have to eat other living beings in order to survive. And to make that decision we should diminish suffering and to my knowledge the answer to that is not eating meat. If there was a way in which eating meat would not induct suffering then I would LOVE it.

And if suffering is the criterion to have moral value then there are human beings who have parts of their body paralized and insensitive, so that according to the criteria it would be morally justifiable to eat them.

Yeah, that is right the utilitarian ethics has some huge issues. It doesn't give any particular importance to the value of life in itself. It could justify killing a minority for the majoity's ''well being''. And life is more than that I agree.

The problem of the suffering argument is that it is arbitrary and circular. It sounds like a convenient method to justify eating vegetables while condemning meat eating.

That is not a very good argument, you could say that about anything. The sensibility, or the capacity to suffer is the moral anthropology for utilitarians to judge moral value. It shouldn't be rationality and freedom like Kant, but only the capacity to suffer. Benham is born in 18th century where vegeterianism didn't really exist so you can't say it's conveniant when the theory precedes the life style.

So are many current crop systems. And being a meat-eater does not detract from trying to make environmentally efficient food industries. Many people who eat meat actively search for ecological products.
fair enough, but can we agree that there should be some legal actions agains't the meat industry right now. For, at least, the way it's treating the meat in horrible conditions.

I think I answered this already. This is an arbitrary premise. Plants don't suffer, but they do have active ways to preserve their life. If we eat them, we are in conflict with their biological purpose.
Singer do not encourage us to kill plantes, but he says that, since eating is a fatality, we're better eating plants then meat because they don't suffer.

If you consider individuals, you should consider individuals for plants as well. Either way this logic does not make sense.
I answered that

I can twist that question. What justifies not eating meat knowing that we can do it because we have the right tools in our body and it has a nutritional value? And I think this is the question that should be answered. Either way you are forcing me to accept a subjective premise based on your (or the author's) very own morals.
Because we have rationality, reason the capacity to make decisions according to the well being of others then ourselves. And according to Singer if we can avoid suffering then we should do it. And you can have all the nutriments from meat without eating it, it's actually healthier so it's not realy an argument.

It's not so much that it is morally better or worse. It has more to do with the concept of normality in human societies. Cats and dogs have a very different cultural appreciation here than they do in South Korea.

It's not worse than eating a pig or a chicken, however it is less normal in my social context. Therefore, I'm less inclined to do it.

But that is not rally relevant to the question, the cultural différences from human beings should not affect some impartial moral quetions.

Uhm, nice question. Actually anything has some degree of moral value. That's why ecological farming is a thing that many people demand, regardless of their eating habits.
I'd ask you another one then: What justifies killing non human animlals, whilst killing humans is not accetable? What criteria makes the difference between the moral repercussions of these two?

I'd like to give you an other example. Lets say there is an aien species that comes to earth that is by far more intelligent then humans, would you think it's morally justifiable if the decided to eat us? If you eat meat you wouldn't have answers to that because you do exactly the same thing no? It would mean tat the species or the group that is the more powerfull decides how it's going. So it's not based on moral value, on what is right or just, but on who is the more powerfull.

What is the difference with Hitler deciding that the aryan race is the only pure race, that the jews don't deserve to live then deciding that whole species don't have the right to live? I'm yet again searching for the criteria.

[-KhaN-]

Its a natural thing, eating meat is needed as much as eating fruit, plants and other stuff is... I honestly hate when they try to present this as world problem #1, it has been happening forever, every being has its needs. Yes humans can live of green, but would it be as healthy? No. And what are you going to do with animals like pigs, sheep and so on? Release them into woods? How is getting killed by humans in matter of moments worse than being haunted down by pack of wolfs while you fight for any food every day? And wouldn't it also hurt our planet if we all started eating plants?

[The Rodent]

It's a good job these hippies weren't around a couple thousand years ago. Humans would have become extinct long ago.


This is the major fault with organised society: The twisting of what is natural against so-called morals.


Human beings cannot function correctly without the right diet. Like with every other animal, remove something from the diet that is needed, and the body becomes weakened and may even die.


You wouldn't stop a cat from eating meat, or a dog... or purposely stand in front of a lion because it was in hunting mode to put it off killing a wildebeest because it's "morally wrong to eat meat" would you?


Humans are designed to eat a balanced diet, which includes meat. Just look at our teeth and digestive systems. Teeth are a massive give-away as to what our diet should be.


The question of morality is moot. Eat meat, as nature intended.

[Pussy Galore]

Its a natural thing, eating meat is needed as much as eating fruit, plants and other stuff is... I honestly hate when they try to present this as world problem #1, it has been happening forever, every being has its needs. Yes humans can live of green, but would it be as healthy? No. And what are you going to do with animals like pigs, sheep and so on? Release them into woods? How is getting killed by humans in matter of moments worse than being haunted down by pack of wolfs while you fight for any food every day? And wouldn't it also hurt our planet if we all started eating plants?



If you have the natural desire of killing someone you will rationally suppress that desire because you have the capacity to reason and to make decisions.


I didn't try to present it as world problem #1 nor to convince anyone of anything I actually question myself about it and I'd like to discuss it.


There is a huge difference between letting a non human animal living in nature even if he will eventualy die then containing him in a small secluded place where they can't move properly, are overly fed, etc.


Actually, the non human animals are being fed plants in order to take some weight faster and the quantity of plant they are being fed is supperior then the quantity of meat they will ultimately produce so that is not a good argument.

[Citizen Rules]

Pussy Galore, thanks for making an interesting topic.

I rarely eat meat, but I do eat chicken dishes sometimes. My own personal view is, if we're going to raise, kill and eat animals, we should try to be humane about their care during the process.

This is for the hungry Ace;)
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/51/5f/3b/515f3bc51c6091f0d27ab65209817956.jpg

[Pussy Galore]

It's a good job these hippies weren't around a couple thousand years ago. Humans would have become extinct long ago.
First, categorizing people with labels like hippie is not really interesting or relevant. Also, you'd have to give evidence for what you say about the extinction



This is the major fault with organised society: The twisting of what is natural against so-called morals.
What is natural is not necessarily what is good.

Human beings cannot function correctly without the right diet. Like with every other animal, remove something from the diet that is needed, and the body becomes weakened and may even die.
You can lead a vegan life and be very healthy. There are tons of evidence for it, in meat there are some nutrients, some proteins, etc. that can be found in non animal products.

You wouldn't stop a cat from eating meat, or a dog... or purposely stand in front of a lion because it was in hunting mode to put it off killing a wildebeest because it's "morally wrong to eat meat" would you?
That is a very good argument.

Humans are designed to eat a balanced diet, which includes meat. Just look at our teeth and digestive systems. Teeth are a massive give-away as to what our diet should be.
I answered that.

The question of morality is moot. Eat meat, as nature intended.
If morality is moot than lets all kill each other, have no law, no respect for each other. Morality is humans realizing that they are not the only one who lives, that you ackowledge that others also matter. It's using something you might call ''natural'' our capacity to reason. Also, nature does not intend anything it's not a god that gives us a code from which to live.

[-KhaN-]

If you have the natural desire of killing someone you will rationally suppress that desire because you have the capacity to reason and to make decisions.


I didn't try to present it as world problem #1 nor to convince anyone of anything I actually question myself about it and I'd like to discuss it.


There is a huge difference between letting a non human animal living in nature even if he will eventualy die then containing him in a small secluded place where they can't move properly, are overly fed, etc.


Actually, the non human animals are being fed plants in order to take some weight faster and the quantity of plant they are being fed is supperior then the quantity of meat they will ultimately produce so that is not a good argument.

I guess the difference is, you are talking about big companies and things like that, were I'm talking about villages etc where animals have normal life. But don't big companies turn everything bad? :)

I don't know, I just don't see it as horrible for pig to be killed in order to feed people, it probably won't help that many "animal activists" are money grabbing dicks. You do make some points.

[linespalsy]

I disagree with many of the responses so far, but since I still eat (some) meat, I'll just answer your questions for now.

What justifies eating meat knowing that we can avoid that because they are sensible being and that we have other alternatives?

Starting from the simple assumption that harming animals qua harming animals is bad (most people probably agree with this to at least some degree), I think the best justifications would have to be contingent, requiring the careful weighing of different needs. Not that I think supporting business is ethical in and of itself (all you have to do is think of an unethical business to see why not), but if we look at it as a question as to the most ethical policy, then any large-scale changes to the status quo will harm those who can't transition. They have to be considered in any discussion of "needs."

So even though you stipulated answers "knowing that we can avoid" eating meat (and I think that I probably agree with you), arguments from necessity are the most compelling. Doesn't mean all such arguments are compelling, but I guess what it boils down to is that life on an interconnected world with finite resources is complicated enough that I'm not comfortable categorically ruling them out. Even a transition to a 100% vegan society would require some killing through pesticides or altering of natural habitats for cultivation, so I think it's important to hear out those arguments as well (even if a lot of them are bogus).


Honestly, would you eat a cat or dog? If not what makes it worst then eating a pig or a chicken?

I would not eat a cat or dog; I've recently stopped eating pork (and beef), though since there are still some circumstances under which I would be willing to I'm not going to call myself a vegetarian; I still eat chicken (and other poultry) though I've cut back a lot and have been seriously considering cutting it out completely. If anything (based on a vague hierarchy of sentience) eating a pig may be worse than eating a dog. And if we take into our ethical system environmental impact, eating a cow could well be worse. You didn't mention dairy and eggs, so I will. While I don't think eating either has to be unethical, as practiced they often are.

What, according you, gives moral value to someone?

Hierarchies of sentience and consciousness are always problematic and somewhat arbitrary (not least because we don't have a solid definition of either term) but they're also indispensable.

[Pussy Galore]

Yeah, but I think that most meat that is on the tablet at the grossery store comes from those big companies (I might be wrong)

[Cobpyth]

Interesting thread, PG! It's a topic that I've thought about myself for a long time. If I'm not mistaken, you have become a vegetarian (or even a vegan?) because of your moral convictions about this subject, right?

I'll say upfront that I'm still a very huge meat lover and eater, but I do have a lot of respect for people who are vegetarians and vegans by choice, because they don't want to contribute to the suffering of animals. I think it requires a lot of empathy to do that (especially if you like the taste of meat and give it up because of moral reasons).

I've also come to the conclusion that they're probably on the right side of this argument, morally/rationally speaking.

Every single argument in favor of westerners (in particular) eating meat that I've read so far can easily be refuted rationally. Here's a small example of a web page that does that. (http://www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/meatarg.html)

Notice that I'm not speaking about people in African tribes (for instance), because they often don't have any other options to stay alive than killing animals and eating them. They don't really have a choice.

I've never considered giving up meat, though and that's basically because I (as a human) am not purely a morally rational creature. It's not something we should be proud of or anything, but it's simply the truth.

In my course of morality philosophy only one of the five chapters was about how to rationally approach morality, while the other four were about "moral instincts", which tackles morality based on how we function neurologically and culturally as a species. There's an important rational component to humans that can guide us through these instincts in what we'd call a morally responsible way, but the "moral instincts" (which are formed genetically and culturally over many years) are still a part of us that we can't simply ignore. It just factually exists. It's part of who we (as a group and individually) are and it has its evolutionary utilities.

In the case of eating meat, my instinct of selfishness (which results in my unwillingness to give up eating meat) is simply overruling the instinct of empathy I have for the animal that has been killed so that it can be eaten by me.

I would be less eager to eat cats and dogs, because my empathy for them is larger than for chickens (for instance) and possibly also larger than my selfishness (which would result in not eating them). The same goes for eating fellow humans.

This doesn't mean that eating meat can be rationally justified by those instincts, but it helps us to better understand why so many people (including me) still refuse to give up meat. Everyone is influenced by their various intrinsical instincts in different ways.

A person can rationally "know" that a certain action is morally wrong, while still doing it anyway. It's part of human nature.

Again, this is not a rational/moral excuse or a justification for anything (it would be very dangerous if it was). It's just an observation that makes you look at human morals differently.

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

[Pussy Galore]

What justifies eating meat knowing that we can avoid that because they are sensible being and that we have other alternatives?

Starting from the simple assumption that harming animals qua harming animals is bad (most people probably agree with this to at least some degree), I think the best justifications would have to be contingent, requiring the careful weighing of different needs. Not that I think supporting business is ethical in and of itself (all you have to do is think of an unethical business to see why not), but if we look at it as a question as to the most ethical policy, then any large-scale changes to the status quo will harm those who can't transition. They have to be considered in any discussion of "needs."

So even though you stipulated answers "knowing that we can avoid" eating meat (and I think that I probably agree with you), arguments from necessity are the most compelling. Doesn't mean all such arguments are compelling, but I guess what it boils down to is that life on an interconnected world with finite resources is complicated enough that I'm not comfortable categorically ruling them out. Even a transition to a 100% vegan society would require some killing through pesticides or altering of natural habitats for cultivation, so I think it's important to hear out those arguments as well (even if a lot of them are bogus).

The conservative is a good argument that makes sense rationally, but I personally disagree with it. It is true that when change occur there are economical, social repercussions that sre negatives, but I think that sometimes the changes are worth it. In the 18th century the debate among philosophers and intellectuals was about monarchy, how is it legitimate, etc. Some like Edmund Burke tought that the monarchy wa important, that the revolution that happened in 1789 in France was disrupting the order, creating poverty, etc. He was right in the short term, but overall I think we can all agree that the elected government is a better alternative then a royal monarch. The same goes for slavery, the 60's emancipation movement, etc. You can argue that those are bad things, but I would strongly disagree.


Honestly, would you eat a cat or dog? If not what makes it worst then eating a pig or a chicken?

I would not eat a cat or dog; I've recently stopped eating pork (and beef), though since there are still some circumstances under which I would be willing to I'm not going to call myself a vegetarian; I still eat chicken (and other poultry) though I've cut back a lot and have been seriously considering cutting it out completely. If anything (based on a vague hierarchy of sentience) eating a pig may be worse than eating a dog. And if we take into our ethical system environmental impact, eating a cow could well be worse. You didn't mention dairy and eggs, so I will. While I don't think eating either has to be unethical, as practiced they often are.
You're absolutely right about the cows, I think it would be a good start or compromise for people just to stop eating cow. Non only is it the worst for the environment, but it's not good for people's health (compared to chicken that is relatively healthy).

What, according you, gives moral value to someone?

Hierarchies of sentience and consciousness are always problematic and somewhat arbitrary (not least because we don't have a solid definition of either term) but they're also indispensable.

Why are they indispensable?

[Pussy Galore]

Interesting thread, PG! It's a topic that I've thought about myself for a long time. If I'm not mistaken, you have become a vegetarian (or even a vegan?) because of your moral convictions about this subject, right?
About 10 months ago I started really asking myself questions about it, questionning my moral intuitions such as I would never eat a cat or a dog, but I don't have any kind of problems eating a pig, a cow or a chicken. What made one worst then the other? Then in philosophy classes we saw Epicurus that promotes life with the biggest amount of pleasure and the fewer amount of displeasure as possible. And then I realized that the amount of pleasure I have eating meat can't be compared with the displeasue a non human animal can feel by being killed. Then I started research, I found out about Singer and so on. But I LOVED meat, I ate it at almost every meal and I dislike eating beans, chickpea, etc. So I went gradually, started to eat only biological meat, but in a fewer quantity then gradually it lead to me being a vegetarian and it's been 2 months now and I admit that it is very hard, but I want to live according to what I judge is an ethical live.

Notice that I'm not speaking about people in African tribes (for instance), because they often don't have any other options to stay alive than killing animals and eating them. They don't really have a choice.
agreed

I've never considered giving up meat, though and that's basically because I (as a human) am not purely a morally rational creature. It's not something we should be proud of or anything, but it's simply the truth.
Yeah you could defend that, but what I would say is that you should try to give particular attention to what kind of meat you eat, (less beef as possible), from local farmer preferably that you know treats his animal with a minimum of respect, etc. I think it's a reasonnable compromise.

In my course of morality philosophy only one of the five chapters were about how to rationally approach morality, while the other four were about "moral instincts", which tackles morality based on how we function neurologically and culturally as a species. There's an important rational component to humans that can guide us through these instincts in what we'd call a morally responsible way, but the "moral instincts" (which are formed genetically and culturally over many years) are still a part of us that we can't simply ignore. It just factually exists. It's part of who we (as a group and individually) are and it has its evolutionary utilities.


In the case of eating meat, my instinct of selfishness (which results in my unwillingness to give up eating meat) is simply overruling the instinct of empathy I have for the animal that has been killed so that it can be eaten by me.


I would be less eager to eat cats and dogs, because my empathy for them is larger than for chickens (for instance) and possibly also larger than my selfishness (which would result in not eating them). The same goes for eating fellow humans.

This doesn't mean that eating meat can be rationally justified by those instincts, but it helps us to better understand why so many people (including me) still refuse to give up meat. Everyone is influenced by their various intrinsical instincts in different ways.

I also had a course on moral philosophy and it was the same, most of the class was about our moral intuitions or sensibilities, how neurologically devellop moral sentiments. 200 years ago when a man hit his wife or his child I'm sure it wasn't seen as a good thing, but it wasn't a big thing. Now we develloped some sort of empathy, of moral intuitions that goes agains't it and I'm glad so yeah it's very very important to take in consideration. However, I personally try not to base my actions upon them because they are kind of arbitrary and they constantly evolve, modify. I try to act according to what I rationally judge good even if it goes agains't my intuitions. But I can completely understand that it is not the case of others and I have to take in consideration this fact and not accuse people who disagree and try to convince them. I think we should try to transform the moral intuitions and it's by talkin about it with respect, calm and intelligence that we can do it.

A person can rationally "know" that a certain action is morally wrong, while still doing it anyway. It's part of human nature.

Again, this is not a rational/moral excuse or a justification for anything (it would be very dangerous if it was). It's just an observation that makes you look at human morals differently.

----------------------------------
You're right, but I think we should at least try to fight human nature. I agree with Kant on that he says that emotions, passions pushes us to act immorally (I obviously do not agree about what he thinks of morality, but how he arrives to his catgorical impératives is very interesting I think) and that our duty is to figh agains't our instincts, our passions to actually act morally, according to reason. I'm not saying I always achieve to go against my nature, but at least I try haha.

[Cobpyth]

About 10 months ago I started really asking myself questions about it, questionning my moral intuitions such as I would never eat a cat or a dog, but I don't have any kind of problems eating a pig, a cow or a chicken. What made one worst then the other? Then in philosophy classes we saw Epicurus that promotes life with the biggest amount of pleasure and the fewer amount of displeasure as possible. And then I realized that the amount of pleasure I have eating meat can't be compared with the displeasue a non human animal can feel by being killed. Then I started research, I found out about Singer and so on. But I LOVED meat, I ate it at almost every meal and I dislike eating beans, chickpea, etc. So I went gradually, started to eat only biological meat, but in a fewer quantity then gradually it lead to me being a vegetarian and it's been 2 months now and I admit that it is very hard, but I want to live according to what I judge is an ethical live.

This proves that you have a very strong personality and that you are a principled man. Respect!

You're right, but I think we should at least try to fight human nature. I agree with Kant on that he says that emotions, passions pushes us to act immorally (I obviously do not agree about what he thinks of morality, but how he arrives to his catgorical impératives is very interesting I think) and that our duty is to figh agains't our instincts, our passions to actually act morally, according to reason. I'm not saying I always achieve to go against my nature, but at least I try haha.

I think my biggest problem is that I don't take that duty as seriously as I probably should, because there's a lack of absolute authority when it comes to morality (outside of the law). I've never been a very self-disciplined or principled person. I'm profoundly careless when it comes to my actions. It often doesn't correlate with my personal beliefs and thoughts at all. I'm not sure where that disequilibrium exactly originates or originated, but I've noticed that I have it in a much worse form than most other people that I know. I truly respect (and partly also envy) people with a lot of self-control in that area.

[Kaplan]

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer wrote this column last month and I give him props because I'm sure many of his peers on the Right weren't supportive of his opinion: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/05/ending_zoos_and_meat-eating_wi.html

We often wonder how people of the past, including the most revered and refined, could have universally engaged in conduct now considered unconscionable. Such as slavery. How could the Founders, so sublimely devoted to human liberty, have lived with -- some participating in -- human slavery? Or fourscore years later, how could the saintly Lincoln, an implacable opponent of slavery, have nevertheless spoken of and believed in African inferiority?

While retrospective judgment tends to make us feel superior to our ancestors, it should really evoke humility. Surely some contemporary practices will be deemed equally abominable by succeeding generations. The only question is: Which ones?

I've long thought it will be our treatment of animals. I'm convinced that our great-grandchildren will find it difficult to believe that we actually raised, herded and slaughtered them on an industrial scale -- for the eating.


We are already in the process of designing meat grown in a lab. Right now it's super expensive and for those who have tried it, they've acknowledged it tastes pretty bad. But the day will come when they can design it to have perfect flavor and it will be cheap. That day will come. As for eating meat, I don't think it's immoral, but we have got to start treating animals better. And we've got to start treating the earth better. It'd be nice if humans would start realizing there's more to the world than the reach of their arm holding up their bloody smart phone in front of their face.

[Pussy Galore]

Cobpyth, duty might be a strong word, but yeah it's hard and I also am very lazy it depends on what, but the fact that you are understanding of the problematic is already good I think


Kaplan, I don't know if the practices of the future are so arbitrary. I don't think morality is that much of a random thing. Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, etc. kind of guessed the political system we would have after monarchy, Thoreau was agains't slavery, etc. Ethics is not an empirical science like physics or chemistry, but we can certainly imagine what path it will take. And in my opinion it always evolves, I think the next step will be respecting the suffering of sentient beings and to ackowledge our importance in the preservation of our planets (working agains't pollution, etc.)


The fake meat alternative seems really interesting to me, but I don't know much about it I will do some research on that!

[linespalsy]

Good response, allow me to answer.

The conservative is a good argument that makes sense rationally, but I personally disagree with it. It is true that when change occur there are economical, social repercussions that sre negatives, but I think that sometimes the changes are worth it. In the 18th century the debate among philosophers and intellectuals was about monarchy, how is it legitimate, etc. Some like Edmund Burke tought that the monarchy wa important, that the revolution that happened in 1789 in France was disrupting the order, creating poverty, etc. He was right in the short term, but overall I think we can all agree that the elected government is a better alternative then a royal monarch. The same goes for slavery, the 60's emancipation movement, etc. You can argue that those are bad things, but I would strongly disagree.

Mostly what I am trying to say is that arguments about "ends" are often worth little without taking into account "means." I just can't fully disagree with the "conservative" argument because for almost any goal I can imagine a price that might be too high. I won't quibble much since we agree that alleviating the suffering of animals is a worthwhile goal, especially if it can be done through nonviolent means (for example cutting back subsidies). On the other hand there are some concrete examples in animal ethics where I think (and suspect you would agree with me based on your response to Cobpyth's Africa example) the cost in human suffering is too high. Most of my examples involve conservation politics which is a very complicated issue, is not justified only or even primarily in terms of animal rights (though that's probably what a lot of westerners have in mind when they think of it), and is somewhat tangential to the ethics of eating meat, so I won't go into detail right now. If you're interested I'd recommend looking up "fortress conservation". This page (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~cjanders/) seems like a pretty good introduction.

Why are they indispensable?

Sorry, I was in kind of a rush when I responded and ended up conflating two things that I was thinking of, and also didn't go into enough detail. The first thing is that, as far as I can figure, sentience is indispensable for defining a moral agent. I guess a better term might be "intelligence" since you could argue that sentience is binary rather than hierarchical: either something has it or it doesn't. (Intelligence is a loaded word but I can't think of another one at the moment). This is important because It refutes reductive arguments from nature. More trivially such a distinction seems like it would have to come up in explaining why we owe some consideration to our food while, say, a shark doesn't.

That's one answer, but now I think the question you had more in mind was how to define a being worthy of our consideration, and that you're offering sensation (or capacity to suffer) as an alternative, more determinable hierarchy. I hadn't considered that before, so it's very intriguing and worth thinking about some more. I'm somewhat skeptical that it's sufficient on its own, though (maybe you don't think that it is either). As I understand it, defining one's moral imperative around the capacity of another being to feel pain seems like it would entail a form of utilitarian ethics, which leads to some non-trivial problems. For example if we define our moral imperative merely as "limiting pain", does that mean it's okay to slaughter pigs by euthanizing them? Also we might want to consider a somewhat broader concept of pain, for example emotional pain (is it ethical to separate a cow from its calf) and in such cases it seems like it would be very hard to operationalize "pain" without some recourse to relative intelligence or consciousness. Pain also raises the issue of possibly upending a hierarchy with humans at the top. If it were determined that a cow had a greater capacity for suffering than a human, would we then owe greater consideration to cows than to humans? I admit I haven't given it enough though, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you (and Singer), or you already have answers to such questions that don't involve hierarchies of "sentience" (again, admitting that was probably not the best word).

[Pussy Galore]

Good response, allow me to answer.

Mostly what I am trying to say is that arguments about "ends" are often worth little without taking into account "means." I just can't fully disagree with the "conservative" argument because for almost any goal I can imagine a price that might be too high. I won't quibble much since we agree that alleviating the suffering of animals is a worthwhile goal, especially if it can be done through nonviolent means (for example cutting back subsidies). On the other hand there are some concrete examples in animal ethics where I think (and suspect you would agree with me based on your response to Cobpyth's Africa example) the cost in human suffering is too high. Most of my examples involve conservation politics which is a very complicated issue, is not justified only or even primarily in terms of animal rights (though that's probably what a lot of westerners have in mind when they think of it), and is somewhat tangential to the ethics of eating meat, so I won't go into detail right now. If you're interested I'd recommend looking up "fortress conservation". This page (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~cjanders/) seems like a pretty good introduction.
in the case of african tribes I'd say it's acceptable because they do not really have other alternative and I don't think they realize the immorality of their gesture. Personally I can't blame someone for eating meat if he thinks eating meat is a good thing, what I'm trying to do is convince and show the implications of this choice. And that ultimately it will become largely accepted in society that the suffering of non human animals also counts.


Sorry, I was in kind of a rush when I responded and ended up conflating two things that I was thinking of, and also didn't go into enough detail. The first thing is that, as far as I can figure, sentience is indispensable for defining a moral agent. I guess a better term might be "intelligence" since you could argue that sentience is binary rather than hierarchical: either something has it or it doesn't. (Intelligence is a loaded word but I can't think of another one at the moment). This is important because It refutes reductive arguments from nature. More trivially such a distinction seems like it would have to come up in explaining why we owe some consideration to our food while, say, a shark doesn't.

I think what gives us consideration for our food compared to a shark is our capacity to reason, the capacity to understand the suffering of others and to avoid it if we can. I can of agree that hierarchy seems almost natural, but we seem, as the years pass, try to destroy it as much as we can. Before it was horrible there was the king at the top, then men more important then women, then white men more important then black men, etc. Now we kind of understand that such hierarchical distinctions don't really make sens. Non human animals migh be the next step.

That's one answer, but now I think the question you had more in mind was how to define a being worthy of our consideration, and that you're offering sensation (or capacity to suffer) as an alternative, more determinable hierarchy. I hadn't considered that before, so it's very intriguing and worth thinking about some more. I'm somewhat skeptical that it's sufficient on its own, though (maybe you don't think that it is either). As I understand it, defining one's moral imperative around the capacity of another being to feel pain seems like it would entail a form of utilitarian ethics, which leads to some non-trivial problems. For example if we define our moral imperative merely as "limiting pain", does that mean it's okay to slaughter pigs by euthanizing them? Also we might want to consider a somewhat broader concept of pain, for example emotional pain (is it ethical to separate a cow from its calf) and in such cases it seems like it would be very hard to operationalize "pain" without some recourse to relative intelligence or consciousness. Pain also raises the issue of possibly upending a hierarchy with humans at the top. If it were determined that a cow had a greater capacity for suffering than a human, would we then owe greater consideration to cows than to humans? I admit I haven't given it enough though, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you (and Singer), or you already have answers to such questions that don't involve hierarchies of "sentience" (again, admitting that was probably not the best word).
You're absolutely right about that and that is where utilitarian ethics find it's limit. It doesn't give intrinsic value to life andto calculate the amount of pain seems kind of counter intuitive. If shot someone in the back and he dies instantly without ever seeing me then it would be acceptable because he didn't suffer. There is something more then suffering to judge such questions I think, but it remains a very important aspect of life. So I'm not saying that suffering should be the ultimate judge of everything, but if wecan avoid inflicting it on others we should do it.

[Monkeypunch]

I keep finding myself more and more at odds with eating animals. The way we treat the cows, chickens, fish, etc. that we eat is terrible. They are living things, they DO have consciousness, hell, they even have personalities. Ever seen a cow being put out to pasture after a long winter? They are overjoyed to see the grass again, it's a wonderful thing to see. I feel horrible about putting other living beings to death so I can eat them when there's other sources of food available to me. I am conflicted, because I do eat meat, and I have issues with how the animals are treated. I have stopped eating red meat, I've stopped eating pork, and I've never liked fish, which is a start, but I still eat chicken because i do need the protein...but I would love to find another way.

[teeter_g]

I would not eat any animal that I would deem a pet. That includes certain animals in groups that I would normally eat like cattle or chickens. I had a pet cow once, didn't eat it, but I would go out and buy steaks while I had her. Had a pet chicken once, didn't eat it, but I would go out and buy nuggets. I think you see where I am going with this, right. I even had a pet deer once, but I hunt them every fall to eat. I never kill more than we can eat. We do grow and butcher our own meat. It's all part of the circle of life here on the farm.

[teeter_g]

My biggest problem with the entire thing is the people who are naïve enough to think that if you buy meat from the store it was made there and no one killed anything to make it. They make hunters out to be such horrible people but in all honesty hunters are much more merciful to their kills than the people who raise the animals that they eat on a daily basis that are bought from the store.

[foster]

Interesting thread, this makes me want to write a story about a future where eating animals is illegal and there are underground speakeasies where people go for bacon cheeseburgers.


What justifies eating meat knowing that we can avoid that because they are sensible being and that we have other alternatives?


There is something primal and eternal about eating meat. I think as humans, as animals, we have a right to explore and understand our primal nature. Hunting should not be illegal!! It's wrong to raise an entire generation of people with lies, telling them to act against their nature and to be something that they're not. It's unhealthy, we need to accept ourselves for what we are.

But I do think a lot of our industry is sick and unnatural, raising animals with an entire life of suffering is a crime against nature. I'd say it's a crime against god but I'm not part of that faith.

Has anyone read cold mountain? I think it was in the movie too.. a woman who raises sheep or lamb for slaughter. She is compassionate and loving as she raises and kills them.


Honestly, would you eat a cat or dog? If not what makes it worst then eating a pig or a chicken?


I don't care about cats, yeah sure I'd eat one if it was served to me at a guests house. But not a dog, not unless I was on an arctic expedition gone awry and it was either me or them.. at that point I would eat the dog.

What makes it worse you ask?
Dogs think like humans more than any other animal on the planet, even more than the monkeys we are related to. There have been studies on this, and the theories behind it are that dogs and humans have been together in close proximity for so many thousands of years that dogs have evolved to suit us.

Dogs are a gift from mother earth. They are loyal and loving friends that would die to protect us, loyalty should not be rewarded with wanton consumption of their flesh.


What, according you, gives moral value to someone?


What according to me makes someone a moral person.. is that what this is asking?

This is incredibly difficult to define and I'm positive there are many experts in this area that have fallen short in answering that question. What hope do i have? By fine I will try.. compassion, consideration, conscience, consistency.

[Pussy Galore]

I keep finding myself more and more at odds with eating animals. The way we treat the cows, chickens, fish, etc. that we eat is terrible. They are living things, they DO have consciousness, hell, they even have personalities. Ever seen a cow being put out to pasture after a long winter? They are overjoyed to see the grass again, it's a wonderful thing to see. I feel horrible about putting other living beings to death so I can eat them when there's other sources of food available to me. I am conflicted, because I do eat meat, and I have issues with how the animals are treated. I have stopped eating red meat, I've stopped eating pork, and I've never liked fish, which is a start, but I still eat chicken because i do need the protein...but I would love to find another way.


We are pretty much in the same situtation, I managed to also cut on the chicken, but it wasn't easy I'm sure you'll be able eventually to do so!

[Pussy Galore]

There is something primal and eternal about eating meat. I think as humans, as animals, we have a right to explore and understand our primal nature. Hunting should not be illegal!! It's wrong to raise an entire generation of people with lies, telling them to act against their nature and to be something that they're not. It's unhealthy, we need to accept ourselves for what we are.
So if it is in the nature of someone to have sexual intercourse with a child he shouldn't suppres it? If someone has the desire to kill an other human being he shouldn't suppres it? Morality is to put the boundries in which we should go agains't our nature and what I'm arguing is that the way we treat animals now is grave enough so the we should go agains't our nature.

But I do think a lot of our industry is sick and unnatural, raising animals with an entire life of suffering is a crime against nature. I'd say it's a crime against god but I'm not part of that faith.

Agreed, except for the crime agains't god part lol (I don't care for metaphysical hypothetical entities :P)

Has anyone read cold mountain? I think it was in the movie too.. a woman who raises sheep or lamb for slaughter. She is compassionate and loving as she raises and kills them.
Never heard of it I'll look it up


I don't care about cats, yeah sure I'd eat one if it was served to me at a guests house. But not a dog, not unless I was on an arctic expedition gone awry and it was either me or them.. at that point I would eat the dog.


What makes it worse you ask?
Dogs think like humans more than any other animal on the planet, even more than the monkeys we are related to. There have been studies on this, and the theories behind it are that dogs and humans have been together in close proximity for so many thousands of years that dogs have evolved to suit us.

Dogs are a gift from mother earth. They are loyal and loving friends that would die to protect us, loyalty should not be rewarded with wanton consumption of their flesh.
Why the fact that they are closer to human would give more value to their life?