Or to develop the Dish of the Day 
So you are conceding that, on a theoretical basis at least, there is no difference?
I’m being obstinate here: yes, there’s probably no difference there, and animals killed during farming of plants don’t get humane treatment either. They just get run over by the thresher or what have you.
I’d usually say that anyone who claims ‘meat is murder’ is too fundamentalist to argue a point with, but if she’s happy to be married to be a man who eats meat, then she can’t be that fundamentalist.
Except that the majority of the animals humans eat are not carnivores or even omnivores - by nature, at least; you can make a cow eat meat if you mush it up, but it won’t go out looking for it.
Well, you have to eat something.
Most people draw the line somewhere - although it’s not a line so much as a circle that goes around some species and not others. For some people that’s ‘no eating humans,’ for some it’s ‘no eating animals that are commonly kept as pets,’ for some it’s ‘no eating animals that are commonly kept as pets [except rabbits],’ for some it’s ‘no eating animals that have been badly treated while they were raised,’ for some it’s ‘no eating animals except fish,’ and so on, through vegetarians, vegetarians who eat eggs but don’t drink milk, vegans, fruitarians, and airians, though they’re a dying breed.
(All of this assuming you have a choice of what to eat, of course).
Vegetarianism is just drawing a bigger line that goes around more species than the line that those who refuse to eat humans (or pets) draw.
It’s not a perfect form of ethics that means no living thing has to die - even fruitarianism isn’t as perfect as that - but it’s an attempt to take steps towards that while living in the real world.
I wouldn’t say meat is murder, because I do think that murder is for humans. I would say that it’s unnecessary killing.
And my point was that sometimes there is no underlying debate, there is only a misuse of words.
Tell them that eating seeds is infanticide. 
This intrigued me, too. Makes it seem like the author’s wife is just using “meat is murder” as a slogan and not any real belief. I couldn’t be married to a racist or bigot and be content to tell my kids that it’s a decision that you make when you grow older, and it’s okay for Daddy, but not for you. It’s one thing to be a vegetarian for ethical issues, but to think it’s really murder and be okay with your spouse doing it seems…odd.
Maybe we’re talking about two different things here.
But at least for what I’m talking about, yes, it’s a red herring. How we choose to define words, how strictly, how broadly, what we exclude and include, is fairly arbitrary (it isn’t even the same splits/groups language to language, for instance).
The outcome of the debate as to how murder is defined: i.e. whether it can, in any sense, include non-homo sapiens, is utterly irrelevant to any issue having to do with their treatment. If we elected a “dictionary dictator,” they could define murder as including only homo sapiens. Or they could declare that it includes the killing of any living thing. That wouldn’t affect the actual debate as to what sort of killing (or what sort of murder) is moral/immoral one whit. What sort of “cornerstone” of debate would have no effect on anything regardless of who wins it?
The dispute over the use of the word is simply a proxy for the underlying debate over whether killing animals is wrong. Animal rights activists think it’s really wrong. In some ways, this view is conveyed by the claim that meat is murder. In other ways, that confuses the issue, or presumes too much. i.e. in some ways it lays out what the issues are under debate, but in other ways it presumes too much and confuses the issue. Maybe you think that usage is manipulative and they’re being dishonest, maybe you don’t, and that informs your opinion on whether they are honest sloganeers or not. Ok.
But the real issue is whether you agree with the concept the slogan is trying to convey or not.
Well, I’m probably not quite the advocate for recreational Panda baby torture I seem to have seemed like so far in this thread, and I actually think that I’d support a lot of the same ‘animal rights’ proposals you would, however, I get there by a slightly different route. First, my take on your example:
I’m not sure this follows, actually – you call the actions against the dog cruel because you empathize with it; because, as a human being, violent actions committed against another living thing cause you pain and suffering. (Of course, cruelty, as the intentional infliction of harm and suffering, is, as I have alluded to, immoral in and of itself, however, that doesn’t really concern the animal.)
And there’s, to me, something dishonest in making this about morality; there’s some pretending that gold standards of good and right existed, some inherent human need to serve some higher cause to imbue things with meaning. Because all you’ve really accomplished is pushing the line that divides the ‘morally protected’ from the ‘morally irrelevant’ a bit further out of sight; you get a little bigger of an area that’s now apparently free from controversy. The problem is that that line has to be drawn (well, I suppose you could try for some sort of moral gradient, but how would you assess relative merits to allow establishing the placement of each organism on it? Is multicellular automatically more worthy of moral protection than unicellular? Which lifeforms are to be considered more equal?) – and I don’t see any other place for it that makes sense other than the boundaries of our own species (for reasons I’ve stated earlier). That doesn’t mean I can’t extend kindness to my fellow creatures, or empathize with their suffering; I’ll just have to be clear about the fact that I do it out of simple biological trickery rather than following some higher code. But there’s nothing wrong with that – it’s that biological trickery that makes us human.
And anyway, some biologically motivated favouritism is rampant even among the advocates of animalized morals – just think about how the Panda is a symbol of a major international environmental organization, yet virtually noone’s ever heard of the tribulations of the humble Kakapo, because it’s ugly, sounds like something your little son left in his trousers, and reportedly smells that way, too. The metric we use to determine what is and what isn’t worthy of moral protection is, in effect, always just ‘human-likeness’. We should at least be honest about this and stop pretending that there’s some external measure of ‘moral worth’ that just happens to conform to our preconceived notions so we get to feel righteous about having them.
I’m not implying – or at least no meaning to imply – that the animal’s suffering is inconsequential; I’m merely saying that cruel actions are bad in their own right. It’s the intent to harm and cause suffering I want to punish, because the punishment isn’t doing anything for the animal one way or the other anyway. (It may serve as deterrent regarding future cases, however, and one could certainly argue that it benefits at least some animals that way; but this seems largely incidental to me, because the deterrence works equally well viewed from the perspective that it’s the cruel action in and of itself that’s bad.) Viewed this way, even if by some way we could know that animals don’t feel pain, and only act that way, causing them harm for harm’s sake would be immoral, and I’d think that that’s how it should be.
I’m not trying to be facetious here, but one could easily view the acacia producing bitter flavours (tannins) when being nibbled on by a giraffe as a statement of ‘I don’t like being eaten’, and what’s more, as far as I know, one acacia appears to be able to communicate this to others, since they also start producing those bitter flavours without having been ‘attacked’. Plants are a lot more complicated than people give them credit for, and anyway – the notion is again just one of ‘human-likeness’.
Actually, I’m not the one seeing past the debate, I’m the one demanding it take place before dismissing the other side. People’s relationship to animals is important, and it is imperative that they give some real thought to the matter instead of just parroting talking points.
Shouting “Meat is Murder!!” only stifles debate; you’ve already made up your mind, and now you just want to make yourself feel important by rubbing everyone’s nose in it.
To a certain extent, you are right; when you feel injustice is occurring, you should speak out. We must temper our emotions, however, as a practical concern. We can talk about how horrible and atrocious the Holocaust was because everybody believes that it was horrible and atrocious. But if 99.99% of the population supported exterminating Jews, Gypsies and Blacks, it would be a good idea to at least attempt to understand why. Sure, you can accuse them of being monsters, but you’ll get nowhere in changing their actions by doing so. You’ll have to convince them with reason. Otherwise, you’re simply declaring the debate over, and alienating yourself and your cause.
Have you ever heard of Socrates? I’m aware he was compelled to drink poison for his debating techniques, but nevertheless they work. By asking the simple questions:
a) Some people are forced to answer them for the first time. You’d be surprised how many people don’t give a single thought to what they eat, including vegetarians. Whole kingdoms, phyla, are eliminated from their moral consideration without so much as a thought.
b) People are forced to explain their positions clearly, a task which is much harder than saying “you know what I’m talking about”.
c) We can get to the heart of our disagreement. I guarantee that you and I (or anyone you debate) agree on 99% of of our beliefs. In order to hone in on our differences, and perhaps resolve them, we need to question our assumptions, and bring to light our hidden prejudices.
Case in point:
This is exactly what I’m talking about. No, not everyone “knows” that the key element of consideration is the capacity to suffer. That you bring it up as the be-all end-all of debate is quite telling. We all have different “key elements” that we consider important, and not everyone agrees with you. That doesn’t mean they haven’t thought the issue through.
For example, do death row inmates lack the capacity to suffer? Do comatose patients possess it? Indeed, the very fact that people have killed and eaten animals for centuries shows that the majority of us do not consider the capacity to suffer an important enough distinction upon which to base our morality. To act like it is simply a given, and that anyone who knows animals suffer but kills them anyway is equivalent to a cold-blooded murderer is disingenuous at best.
I apologize for the term “self evident”. What I meant was “agreed upon by the vast majority of society, such that the debate may generally be considered ‘over’”. Nobody but murderers and lunatics think humans are fair game to kill for pleasure. But when the vast majority of society disagrees with you, it calls for a different tactic. When you are part of an overwhelming majority, alienation and derision are acceptable tools for convincing opponents (not intellectually, but socially). For example, white supremacists get very little honest debate when they come here. But when you are in the minority, like PETA, hardcore activist tactics just invite hatred and defense mechanisms. If PETA wants to forward any part of their platform, and aren’t just grandstanding to feel morally superior about themselves, they should tone down the emotional propaganda and debate honestly.
Hey! We agree after all! 
The argument assumes that murder, a form of homicide, is applicable to non-humans. There is no country in the world as far as I know where meatatarianism is a crime in and of itself. No jurisdiction that prosecutes under laws for “murder” prosecutes for eating meat. Murder is a loaded word in this context, and I, for one, decline to accept the underhanded question begging that it is.
A serious discussion would be to argue whether it is wrong to eat other living animals and plants. These people are so incapable of cogent thought that their initial premise assumes their conclusion.
Nitpicking the slogan and thereby rejecting the sloganeers as “people . . . so incapable of cogent thought that their initial premise assumes their conclusion” is just silly. It isn’t a premise. It’s a political slogan. A short phrase designed to pithily and memorably summarize a more complex thought.
Additionally, it is just a factually incorrect nitpick. The third definition in the OED of murder (the verb) is “To kill or slaughter (an animal or animals).”
Examples from the OED include:
Of course, the whole point of the political slogan is to compare the killing of an animal to the killing of a human. But this linguistic nitpick misses both the point of the political slogan (i.e. not a premise in an argument) and is actually a failed nitpick since the meaning of murder can include the killing of animals.
I’m not a tactician, but again, if we see the phrase as an argument or a premise, then yes, it challenges a lot of people’s moral sense. So is “Abortion is murder!” I don’t really agree with either slogan, but I think it’s way too far and silly to claim that it’s an act of “mak[ing] yourself feel important by rubbing everyone’s nose in it.”
But in the case of animal rights people, the capacity to suffer is central. Parodying that position as thoughtless because it doesn’t consider the moral value of E coli is just a waste of everyone’s time.
Except… I never said that. And you’re not citing anyone making that argument so crudely either. Which is why I think you’re tilting at straw men here.
Sure, but the point is, the debate is “over” because there are reasons WHY we think those things are wrong and evil and awful. And many of those reasons turn out to be fairly hard to avoid applying to sentient animals without some extra principles (some of which are, I think rightly, criticized for being arbitrary).
I think the alien example is a decent one: that vast consensus wouldn’t have much problem at all thinking of torturing and killing a creature of human-like intelligence as being the same thing to murder. So mere species doesn’t seem to cut it. What else should matter?
I’m not sure I really care about debating the wisdom of PETA’s tactics. Both because I mostly agree with you (and because I don’t share the same ideas about animal rights as they do), and because it’s, well, a debate over political tactics, not a philosophical/moral debate.
I would say, however, that while I agree that PETA’s tactics seem ultimately not particularly productive, their tactics do have at least some sense and effectiveness from the perspective that they very loudly raise an issue and perhaps shock people with a radically new way of thinking about an issue that they never otherwise would have thought about, ever. Homosexuals used similar shock tactics when the gay rights movement was first starting out. And while the movement and its eventual success certainly could not have relied or thrived purely on those tactics, they did have their place in forcing society to look at an issue that it would have refused to even discuss out loud in the first place.
As a vegetarian, I have often been accused of anthropomorphizing animals. Personally I feel that most people exaggerate and glorify what is means to be human. We are not the only species that can feel pain or be frightened. What is fear? Activity in the amygdala. What is pain? Stimulation of our nociceptors. That’s all. Simple biological activity that is common to all vertebrates. Evolutionary adaptations for survival.
I don’t agree with people who view everything in the world as fuel for the expansion of the human race. Yes, I am more intelligent than a pig. (I hope.) Why does this give me the right to eat it? I don’t need to do it to survive. I wouldn’t appreciate it if a race of hyper-intelligent aliens came to earth and ate my family, just because they looked stupid and delicious.
Is meat “murder”? Maybe not, but it’s not something I could do myself. So I don’t hunt, and I don’t pay people to kill for me. I also don’t want to have to justify why I would eat a pig, but not my dog. It’s easier, morally, to eat none of them.
Time for some tofu…
No, they are not suggesting that “meat is slaughter” in which was they would say that. They are saying that “because there is a semantic ambiguity we want you to conflate the definitions to shift the focal point of the argument and equate animals with people.”
Invite the floracidal maniac to lunch. If asked what wine to bring suggest a nice chiante.
I’m not parodying it. I just don’t agree, and neither do most people. Not only is it a simple moral disagreement, but it is pretty much impossible to apply consistently. Sure, there are a few familiar creatures that obviously feel pain. There are quite a few that obviously don’t. But there are huge swaths of species in the “who knows?” category. Like insects. How many insects are killed for your garden variety vegetarian’s dinner? Pretty much all agriculture that isn’t hard-core organic is like an insect holocaust.
The point is, there are problems with almost any ethical standpoint. When debating ethics, however, it isn’t parodying the opponent’s position to bring them up. I’m just trying to clarify in my mind the other side’s position, and maybe get them to think a little deeper about it.
When it comes to vegetarianism, I oppose lumping all animals into one forbidden category. Some animals are more valuable than others, some animals are more intelligent than others, and some animals were born and bred to be eaten by humans. To just say “animals: verboten, vegetables: okay” is simplistic and silly when brought to its logical extreme.
Um, the OP? “Meat is murder”? Remember that?
Sure, there are reasons that killing humans is wrong. That is a point of commonality between vegetarians and omnivores. Ideally, it should be the starting point in any debate. Why is killing people wrong but not killing animals? What if there were non-humans that display just is much intelligence and emotion as people; do they deserve to die? It is a complicated topic and deserves honest debate.
However, you’re never going to have a consensus on what may and may not be killed, outside of humans. Because outside of “it may be me next” there is no overarching morality of killing that all people share. Some refrain from inflicting pain when they kill, some refuse to voluntarily take a life at all, and some have no problem killing anything that can’t run away. This applies to aardvarks and aliens. Until our actions harm other people, we are allowed to hold any set of morals we want. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
“Meat is Murder” is not only wrong*, it is offensive. Furthermore, it is evident that even the most hardcore vegetarians don’t actually feel that way. Imagine if people were being killed every day all around you. Imagine if every country had its own Holocaust equivalent, with slaughterhouses open year round. Would you be content with yelling “Murderer!” at the occasional stranger and holding up signs at a rally a few times a year? There are a few ALF terrorists that actually feel eating meat is murder, but the rest of the vegetarians who shout it are dishonest and simply trying to piss off their opposition.
*Mr. Parker: There is a huge difference between ‘murder’ in the literary sense you quoted and the sense that PETA uses it. One is a synonym for a generic killing, the other is an accusation that we are all cold-blooded criminals. In the latter sense, “meat is murder” is very much incorrect.
If you’re accusing them of using a rhetorical strategy, you’ve got them dead to rights. But your earlier accusation was that this slogan was a) a premise in an argument and b) semantically incorrect. Neither of those accusations is true.
Again, slogans generally don’t work as premises in an argument. They are supposed to be oversimplified and memorable summaries. So if their argument is that there is no rational distinction between killing a pig and killing a human with diminished capacity, then a slogan that conflates the two is precisely what they want.
In general, this whole thread has been a very sorry excuse for Straight Dope debate, characterized by ad hominem, dismissive attacks, and a lot of clever back-patting among people who know they are comfortably in the majority. I am under no illusions that I will be able to fix anything by posting.
I’m not going to argue that “meat is murder” isn’t intentionally provacative. I agree.
I’ll limit myself to addressing the derision aimed at vegetarians:
It used to be okay to kill human strangers. It used to be okay to kill Native Americans. It used to be okay to kill black people, foreigners, and all sorts of “others.” It wasn’t considered “murder.”
Why? Because our definition of who was “human,” who was “like us,” was very narrow.
The whole history of human progress has been an expansion of that definition to include “others” formerly excluded. A widening of understanding of who can be “like us” enough to warrant respect and protection.
All the derision and contempt for vegetarian/vegan thinking in this thread is no surprise. You know who else was widely publicly ridiculed and treated with angry, defensive contempt? Abolitionists. Much was made of their ridiculous belief that black people deserved fair treatment, even rights, when it was clear to any thinking American that this was a lunatic fringe position. Black people clearly were NOT “like us.” If abolitionists worked visibly for the freedom of slaves, they could and would be charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act. If they did not work visibly in that way, they could be dismissed as “hypocrites”… in fact, the vision of abolitionists as wealthy liberal youths with poor logic and too much time on their hands was a standard caricature. When people feel judged, or threatened with change, this is a typical response.
In Star Trek, we can accept that the definition of who we treat well has continued to expand, eventually to nonhumans; we laugh when Dr. McCoy calls twentieth-century medicine “barbarism.” We accept that our understanding of who we respect and what constitutes barbarism will change in the future. Is it outside the realm of possibility that one day our understanding will change?
OMG! I see the light now! Eating meat is like keeping slaves! Bossie IS Kunta Kinte! Forgive me, Flossie, I’ll never eat beef again!
I have no problem with vegetarians. I don’t even have a problem with vegans. Until they start telling me what I should be eating. Eat your goddamn salad and shut up!
Frankly, if I were African-American, I would have serious problems with people who tried to equate me to a cow or a pig. We’re talking about the difference between a human being of whatever color and food animals.
I give the meat-is-murder folks the same piece of advice I give to pro-lifers…if you don’t want to eat meat (or have an abortion), then don’t. But don’t tell anyone else what to do.