# Assumption by some vegetarians that "meat is murder" - How do you argue with this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2009, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987 "2009-03-02T10:14:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/41 "2009-03-02T17:32:10Z")
> [@Bill\_Door](#): > > Think about the process of raising soybeans, rice, or any other vegetable for human food. Acres of land are tilled and cultivated. Do you think they send people into the fields to chase away the animals that already live there? The slaughter of field mice, meadow moles, bunny rabbits, hedgehogs, shrews, woodchucks, even baby deer is horrendous. There are certainly hundreds of animals killed plowing a single acre. > > Compare this to raising free range cattle on pasture. The death toll is much lower. Of course, you’re guaranteed to kill at least one, but what of the hundreds you don’t kill. Is a cow intrinsically more valuable than a rabbit? Please don’t forget the insects that die in their thousands. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/42 "2009-03-02T17:46:47Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > So I either admit that dogs have “rights”, or admit that I’m OK with dogs being tortured to death. Nice false dilemma you’ve created. _ **Yawn** _ Anyway, I think **Half Man Half Wit** covered that quite adequately in post #5. Except that wasn’t what I argued. I’m quite aware my argument doesn’t prove that animals have rights; that’s why I made the conscious decision not to use the word ‘rights’ in my post and instead spoke of ‘moral consideration.’ **Half Man Half Wit** seemed to be arguing that we don’t have to extend morality at all to animals, if we don’t choose, and I am arguing that this claim has implausible consequences. We should extend moral consideration to animals; the only open question is how far this consideration should extend. And I don’t buy the argument from post #5. The idea that the suffering of a tortured animal is in and of itself totally irrelevant, and only morally significant insofar as it contributes to humans treating each other badly ignores something important about the moral significance of gratuitous pain. ---
**Author:** ![TooSchoolforCool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tooschoolforcool/32/19621_2.png) [@TooSchoolforCool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TooSchoolforCool)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/43 "2009-03-02T17:50:08Z")
This debate doesn’t seem to have started off very sincerely. “Murder” obviously is a word with many different concepts and connotations attached to it. Simply saying that it is strictly defined as only including humans is, however, sort of begging the question. Whenever you think you can resolve some moral or factual matter by looking up the definition of a word in the dictionary, you should immediately know that something has gone wrong in your thinking: words and their definitions are conventions used to express ideas: but they can’t possibly resolve disputes over substantive issues. What’s going on here is that animal rights people want to extend the IDEA of murder: i.e. the ethical abhorrence of killing a person, to animals. Simply calling it murder flat out is their way of asserting this belief in the shorthand: though for people that don’t agree, definately comes off as manipulative or presumptive, and its worth noting that as well. But their basic argument is that animals have enough of the same capacities that humans have such that applying the same concept of “murder” is legitimate: i.e. there are REASONS we find “murder” to be morally abhorrent, and these reasons turn out to apply to some animals enough to be synonymous. Of course, whether they really can or should use the word “murder” is really a red herring. We could just call it “foofarung” for all anyone cares. As long as people understand what they’re getting at, it doesn’t really matter if you object to a less than strict usage of the word “murder” or not. If we catch an attempt to beg the question and use an emotionalized word in a context that we don’t agree to, good, but that doesn’t end the actual moral debate. Just like with the abortion debate: you can’t resolve the question of whether an embryo has moral interests simply by looking in a dictionary and claiming that it’s technically a “human life” and then noting back to some moral textbook which says that all “human life” should be protected, and call it a day. This simply jumps over the entire debate. Ah I see Marley has already caught onto this. But here’s another wrinkle even off what he said… > [@Marley23](#): > > The best argument has already been given, in my opinion: it’s impossible to live without killing animals, whether through killing them directly for meat, taking away their habitat through expansion of our own, or by the deaths of animals during farming. We can minimize our impact and attempt to avoid cruelty to animals, but beyond that, you’re left with ideas that are rather laughable, like ‘humans should all practice subsistence farming and eat what they grow themselves.’ Many humans have stopped doing that because they are much more likely to survive, not to mention enjoy a greater quality of life, under the system we have now. So here’s the problem I see with this argument. It’s ALSO pretty much impossible to us (humans in society) live without killing HUMANS. That is, in our society we’re constantly valuing risks or even inevitable harms to the lives of some people over others. Every time you get in a car to drive, you’re increasing the chances of an accident and death for yourself as well as other drives and pedestrians. Industrial pollution is a necessary component of our functioning as a modern society that makes lots of great things (including health care to prolong life!)… but it also inevitably kills people as well. The price of our society, living the way we live, can be measured in human death in a very real way. We might argue that we’re living in a society which is better than the alternatives insofar as it minimizes human harm and death, and that we always try to avoid it, but this is still the reality. Now, of course, most of us barely even think about this reality, because we still have a moral code and a sense that we should do whatever we can to be as careful as possible, and not absolutely gratuitous about the harms and risks we take (as well as thinking that many of these necessary risks we take also help mitigate other risks to life and happiness). And that’s great. But the argument of animal rights people is that the killing and suffering we inflict on animals really is absurdly gratuitous and necessary: more than we can actually justify. The fact that we can only ever minimize, not ever eliminate, animal suffering is thus sort of irrelevant. It’s not an argument that can be taken seriously as an actual response to a _moral_ objection. If a god for some reason designed the world such that it was necessary to outright murder other human beings in order to survive (say, by making it necessary for us to eat human brains to get special nutrients produced there), we might have to sadly acquiesce to this reality… but it wouldn’t then excuse morally ADDITIONAL wanton murders and infliction of suffering that were not, in fact, really necessary for the purpose of our survival. I’m not a hardcore animal rights person, though I do think that we can’t discount animal suffering as morally irrelevant (I don’t think that killing an animal, however, is generally wrong, especially if its painless). But it never ceases to surprise me that so many people seem to think that “but wait, if that were true, then that would require a small amount of effort or a change in the way I’m accustomed to living! And thus it’s highly suspect!” is a serious response or counter to an ethical argument. And yet in these discussions, that’s not only an argument a lot of people make, but it seems to be what many people in their gut find to be the MOST compelling idea in the entire debate! As if morality was nothing more than a system by which we simply justify what we are already doing, and which never asks any especially difficult or major things of us unless it’s poorly reasoned. Would this attitude ever be accepted as compelling or even non-sociopathic in any other venue? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/44 "2009-03-02T17:55:59Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Sorry, but I think my point stands (erislover put it more eloquently). Substitute “creatures” for “things”, you as a human are still deciding what this non-sentient thing with no self-awareness… As long as we’re playing with definitions, “sentient” means “having the ability to perceive through sense.” All animals are sentient; a cow doesn’t have eyes and ears just for decoration. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/45 "2009-03-02T18:07:54Z")
> [@TooSchoolforCool](#): > > But the argument of animal rights people is that the killing and suffering we inflict on animals really is absurdly gratuitous and necessary: more than we can actually justify. The fact that we can only ever minimize, not ever eliminate, animal suffering is thus sort of irrelevant. It’s not an argument that can be taken seriously as an actual response to a _moral_ objection. Which is why I compared the difference in the reduced suffering to animals and the increased suffering of humans which might be caused by altering those practices. (Granted, I picked an exteme example.) The suffering a switch to pre-industrial age subsistence farming, which I’d say is still practiced in a lot of places, would harm a lot of humans, and the benefit to animals would not be justified in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/46 "2009-03-02T18:17:41Z")
> [@TooSchoolforCool](#): > > “Murder” obviously is a word with many different concepts and connotations attached to it. Simply saying that it is strictly defined as only including humans is, however, sort of begging the question. Whenever you think you can resolve some moral or factual matter by looking up the definition of a word in the dictionary, you should immediately know that something has gone wrong in your thinking: words and their definitions are conventions used to express ideas: but they can’t possibly resolve disputes over substantive issues. In quite a few cases I would disagree with this, because improperly using words is exactly what makes people think there is some substance to be argued when there isn’t; but, in this case, I agree that arguing over the word “murder” is not productive. The word is used for its shock value, but the point stands without it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/47 "2009-03-02T18:25:57Z")
> [@martu](#): > > Please don’t forget the insects that die in their thousands. Including those in your fresh veggies. There are quite a few extremely tiny worms and such in most fresh veggies. Creatures that are in the “Animal Kingdom”. ---
**Author:** ![geezermom67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c4cdca/32.png) [@geezermom67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/geezermom67)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/48 "2009-03-02T18:27:55Z")
> [@Bill\_Door](#): > > Think about the process of raising soybeans, rice, or any other vegetable for human food. Acres of land are tilled and cultivated. Do you think they send people into the fields to chase away the animals that already live there? The slaughter of field mice, meadow moles, bunny rabbits, hedgehogs, shrews, woodchucks, even baby deer is horrendous. There are certainly hundreds of animals killed plowing a single acre. > > Compare this to raising free range cattle on pasture. The death toll is much lower. Of course, you’re guaranteed to kill at least one, but what of the hundreds you don’t kill. Is a cow intrinsically more valuable than a rabbit? I have a few problems with the math here…first, don’t people who eat beef also eat veggies and grain? So, they are killing all the animals from the farming process plus the cow. Second, even if you had a person who only ate beef, how likely is it that they are eating free range cattle? Only a small percentage of cattle are free range for their lifespan, and even the free range cattle often are grazing on previously forested areas cut down for that purpose. What percentage of farmed grain in the US is fed to cattle? So, a vegetarian with some grain and veggies on their plate has probably caused some death of the animals that were displaces or killed in the farming process. A meat eater, with grain, beef and veggies on their plate has caused the death of those animals from the farming of the veggies and grain, the animals that were killed so that even more crops could be produced to feed the cow they ate, and the cow itself. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/49 "2009-03-02T18:27:57Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Speaking strictly from the standpoint of _my_ worldview, people who claim that “Meat Is Murder” are mildly insane and should be watched for possible self- and other-endangerment. Every one I’ve encountered can be described that way. These are not every day vegetarians, these are delusional fanatics. Instead of just choosing to live their own life the way they see fit and be quiet about it, they want everyone else to live life the way they see fit and are quite “in your face” about it. But that’s based on my experiences, YMMV. Rather than argue with them, I like to rile them up. Politely ask them what their position on abortion is, especially partial-birth abortion. When asked if you’re actually going to eat that murdered animal on the bun, say, “yeah. What are you gonna do about it?” People freaking hate **“what are you gonna do about it?”** You want to rile someone up, especially when they are in no position to do anything about something that bugs them, ask them “what are you gonna do about it?” . Keep an eye on that vain in their forehead. Agree with them. Pull a [Denis Leary](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ8vIkBJNlg) on them and say something like “Egg plant tastes like egg plant, but meat tastes like murder, and murder tastes pretty good!” Being an unrepentant carnivore really pushes their buttons. These people are not rational, so screwing with them is permitted. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/50 "2009-03-02T18:31:15Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Being an unrepentant carnivore really pushes their buttons. These people are not rational, so screwing with them is permitted. In other words, you’re not required to defend your views because you’ve decided your opponents are not rational. Phew. Does this apply only to people who specifically go the extreme “Meat is murder” route, or to anybody who questions the ethics of eating meat? ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/51 "2009-03-02T18:31:50Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Eating turnips is vegicide. > > And deservedly so. This. Why is killing a plant any better than killing an animal? In order to have lunch, something must die. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/52 "2009-03-02T18:33:54Z")
> [@HoboStew](#): > > This. Why is killing a plant any better than killing an animal? Do you have a cite handy that plants feel discomfort (when raised in inhumane conditions) or pain? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/53 "2009-03-02T18:34:34Z")
> [@TooSchoolforCool](#): > > Of course, whether they really can or should use the word “murder” is really a red herring. We could just call it “foofarung” for all anyone cares. Or, they could use the perfectly accurate word “slaughter” instead. “Murder” is a loaded term, and is intended to evoke a particular response by comparing the slaughter of animals for food, with the unlawful killing of people. If you have a solid argument for ethical vegetarianism, you shouldn’t need to play word games to get your point across. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/54 "2009-03-02T18:39:29Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Or, they could use the perfectly accurate word “slaughter” instead. “Murder” is a loaded term, and is intended to evoke a particular response by comparing the slaughter of animals for food, with the unlawful killing of people. While analogies of any kind tend to sidetrack arguments, there’s nothing wrong or dishonest about using a different terms to describe a particular practice if your aim is to get people to think about it in a new way. Otherwise you’re basically arguing that every issue is framed correctly under the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/55 "2009-03-02T18:45:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Does this apply only to people who specifically go the extreme “Meat is murder” route, or to anybody who questions the ethics of eating meat? Per my post I’m talking about the “in your face” types. The ones that will approach strangers at a god damn county fair and start haranguing them about the lamb burger they just bought at a stand.\* \*This happened to my brother, my nephew & I some years back. Why this woman picked us I know not, but she was quite furious when we were finished with her. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/56 "2009-03-02T18:53:56Z")
> [@TooSchoolforCool](#): > > This debate doesn’t seem to have started off very sincerely. Indeed. Calling the vast majority of the human race “murderers” is unlikely to sway many minds, and is very likely to invite aggressive, emotional arguments as people become defensive. It is one thing to have an honest discussion about the morality of our treatment of animals; it is quite another to be insulted by members of PETA. > [@](#): > > But their basic argument is that animals have enough of the same capacities that humans have such that applying the same concept of “murder” is legitimate: i.e. there are REASONS we find “murder” to be morally abhorrent, and these reasons turn out to apply to some animals enough to be synonymous. You are not going to convince many people when you start out accusing them of “morally abhorrent” behavior. Furthermore, the Animal Kingdom encompasses such a huge range of creatures, it will be very hard to cover all animals when you argue against eating them. Unless your REASONS for finding “murder” to be abhorrent have to do with causing harm to motile, eukaryotic, heterotrophic organisms that lack cell walls. What I’m getting at is you can’t just say that killing animals is bad. You have to separate _some_ animals from _others_, and in doing so must justify that categorization. I believe it is self-evident to most normal humans that people belong in the category of “not okay to kill under normal circumstances”. To include any other animal in that category requires a reasoned, debatable argument, not cries of “MURDER!!!” from holier-than-thou activists. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/57 "2009-03-02T18:54:06Z")
My thoughts: 1. There are no natural rights for anything, period. 2. Humans create rights and it’s not necessarily logical, it’s messy, etc. (and I go along with it because it feels right). 3. There are creatures that live on the creatures that live on fleas. I’m sure that creatures like these, and others are killed regularly by chemicals we use daily. The point being that each of us probably is responsible for the death of an incredible number of living things, daily. All of this leads me to the following conclusion: Vegetarianism is probably no more correct or incorrect than any other world view. At the same time, there seems to be an emotional focus in vegetarianism on specific classes of living beings that can’t really be argued logically (at least not very well). ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/58 "2009-03-02T19:04:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Do you have a cite handy that plants feel discomfort (when raised in inhumane conditions) or pain? This question only makes sense if the sole reason murder is wrong is because it causes discomfort or pain. This obviously isn’t the case, though, because the vast majority of people agree that murder is wrong while they feel no compunction against killing and discomforting animals. Right or wrong, most people’s reason for disapproving of killing others is “I might be next”, not “inflicting pain is bad, regardless”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/59 "2009-03-02T19:05:08Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Right or wrong, most people’s reason for disapproving of killing others is “I might be next”, not “inflicting pain is bad, regardless”. Which makes sense. But there’s a reason some people draw a distinction between killing plants and killing animals, and I think it’s valid. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987/60 "2009-03-02T19:42:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > there’s nothing wrong or dishonest about using a different terms to describe a particular practice if your aim is to get people to think about it in a new way. That’s fair, but you (general you, not you personally) don’t get to claim that the new term is a red herring, after choosing the term specifically for its effect. The use of the term murder is part of the debate, it is a point to be discussed, not just an inconsequential choice. It’s also a bit unseemly to demand that your children use the new term, and agree that the new term is the correct way to describe meat eating, before you’ll allow them to eat meat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assumption-by-some-vegetarians-that-meat-is-murder-how-do-you-argue-with-this/487987.md?page=4)