Animal ethics

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.

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

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

__________________

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.

I would personally.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

True, but again the insect argument below applies.

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

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

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.

I would love to.

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).

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.

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

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.

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"?

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


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.

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

Then at least you're consistent with your choice haha

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.

I was talking about if it becomes illegal (I know it's highly unlikely haha).
.
Yet again, I'd say the capacity to suffer should be the judge.

Agreed.

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.
.

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



probably



the point was more since these animals aren't pets there no emotional attachment for me.


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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I answered that

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.

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

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.

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?

__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

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.

__________________

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.

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

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


What is natural is not necessarily what is good.

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.

That is a very good argument.

I answered that.

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.

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.

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.

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)