Assumption by some vegetarians that "meat is murder" - How do you argue with this?

Great Debates
101

Again, name me any prominent animal rights philosopher or activist who thinks that killing insects is just as bad as a veal chop. I think you’ve probably got PETA and some Jainists, none of whom are represented here or by most vegetarians. So who are you arguing with really?

I agree. I’m not a vegetarian. I think it’s mostly posturing, Thoreau-style lifestyle ethics, rather than anything which actually impacts the lives of the animals. It might make someone feel better about their diet and what went into it, and that consciousness raising might be important to them personally. But it doesn’t strike me as very effective.

Yeah, but that… that’s not me.

But if you want to discuss it, then I still don’t get why you find it so outrageous. Virtually all commercially consumed “meat” (i.e., the meat from the slogan) comes from reasonably intelligent birds and mammals, not bugs or slime molds. These creatures are, the way the industry currently works, made to suffer systematically and often quite carelessly. Most people that eat meat simply try to ignore the reality of what goes into modern industrial meat production: PETA’s goal is to shock them into thinking about it, often for the very first time. We can argue about whether or not that’s effective or not (I think we both agree that it’s probably not). But they really do think it’s at least morally comparable to murder.

And depending on why they think murder is morally wrong, I can’t say that I find that idea de facto crazy enough to call it offensive (even if I ultimately disagree with it: the killing of livestock is often actually the KINDEST and most humane part of their entire lives!)

Shrug. People used to say the same thing about all manner of disputed categories: the idea that humans are all part of a single moral community is not some historical universal, but rather a particular moral/cultural understanding that took many many centuries to develop.

I don’t see how it’s offensive. I don’t happen to agree with it, but then, I don’t happen to agree with “Abortion is Murder” either. In fact, to me, the idea that a nerveless zygote is more morally important than an ape with all sorts of complex social connections and feelings strikes me as an utter failure of the very IDEA of having morality at all. It’s nigh sociopathic, imho. But that still doesn’t make the slogan “offensive.”

I feel exactly the same way about the “abortion is murder” folks and often make a similar argument about their claim.

But this isn’t entirely fair. PETA’s coming out and yelling “murderer” is, in fact, far more than most people were willing to do in the analogy you are using. It’s a very different situation since no one is going to imprison or kill PETA supporters for yelling about things, but still, the analogy doesn’t really hold together. And people are perfectly capable of having multiple values, including believing that the operation of a democratic society and participation in the political/PR process is more important than declaring outright war on society… even if the issue is one of mass murder. Particularly when they, probably rightly, estimate that outright war (of the sort of ALF terrorism) is likely to be far LESS effective and perhaps even more counterproductive than a PR campaign.

And here you sort of seem to be arguing against yourself a little. You’re saying that screaming murder is so harmful to the debate and so counterproductive that it is an outrageous and pointless tactic… and yet then you turn around and declare these people insincere because they don’t employ even MORE obviously destructive and likely to be ineffective and counterproductive tactics?

But as I noted, I’m not a vegetarian. I honestly believe that animal suffering is wrong, but that the only serious way to address it on any useful scale is a) by legislation against animal cruelty industry and environment b) the development of commercially food viable organisms that cannot suffer or feel pain. Little else is likely to make much of a difference in our society.

102

I’m 100% against pro-life views, but seriously?

When someone thinks that aborting a baby is a huge moral crime, you really think they should just shrug and say “hey, do what you like, I’m not even going to try and convince you you’re doing something abhorrent?”

That seems slightly… I dunno, to kind of miss the entire point of having a moral judgment about something, as opposed to merely a personal difference in taste.

103

Yes, seriously. I kind of wish they’d just all fold up their hideous posters and go away, because they’re wrong.

104

If they’re wrong, then you’d presumably be against them, say, blowing up an abortion clinic on the theory of it saving the lives of the unborn, yes?

And you’d probably be sort of astonished and outraged if the response of the legal system to such an act was “jayjay, please just shut up about pestering us to prosecute them for it! We aren’t interested in doing so. That’s our preference, you have yours, leave us alone.”

105

<scrapped long rant because this whole tangent is a hijack>

106

This is not really to single you out, you just said it recently. I am wondering why any part of the conversation in this thread proceeds from the premise that killing people is always murder. It certainly is not – there are any number of circumstances under which killing a person is not murder. Along with the outliers – death penalty and killing during military actions of various kinds – it is only the most extreme case in which murder is charged, let alone supported.

Since we recognize that killing people is not always murder, depending largely on considerations such as necessity (real or perceived), state of mind, and motivation just to name a few, I am not at all sure why there even needs to be such a fine line drawn between people and animals to justify killing the latter for food. Killing somebody because you think they might be in you rhouse to take your stuff strikes me as rather more ephemeral but is the basis for justification on a more or less regular basis after all.

107

You’re right, we don’t call just any killing murder: really, only those of which we disapprove.

And that’s precisely why people think the term so loaded: it’s MORALLY loaded. People disagree as to whether this or that killing is morally wrong all the time (some people do call the DP murder, collateral damage, etc.). There are even debates over whether those usages are justified or not, complete with the “hey, let’s look at the dictionary!” diversion.

But yes: this dispute over the legitimacy of “meat is murder” as a slogan is precisely because of that underlying difference of moral opinion.

108

Nice strawman. I didn’t equate African-Amercians with cows or pigs; I pointed out that American society used to do exactly that, quite comfortably for most people. Property.

But we got over it.

Just as freeing the slaves did not demean white people or make them lesser, showing mercy and respect to a pig wouldn’t demean African-Americans.

And there’s not really any such thing as “food animals;” dogs and cats are “food animals” to someone who eats them, and you’re “food” to Jeffrey Dahmer.

109

So, where do you draw the line? What measure do you use to determine what’s worthy of moral protection and what’s not – what does, in the end, get that coveted ‘right to life’ – capability for suffering? Intelligence? Ability to show distress? Is there any measure that doesn’t ultimately just boil down to ‘human-likeness’? And how do you even justify applying this measure – do you have knowledge of some higher moral authority? Who gave you the right to draw the line between comestibles and protected, valuable life?

And if we follow your alleged progression a little further, doesn’t that mean that, to the people of the future, you’ll be seen as a plant-murdering maniac? Because that’s where this whole thing seems to be headed – once we have accepted animals as our equals, naturally then we’d have to liberate the plants; that follows just as well as animal rights follow from the liberation of the slaves.

110

And in what way is the concept of “murder” not arbitrary regarding humans? If I go and kill a person on my own it is murder, but if my government tells me to do so in a “legal” war, it is usually not murder. If the person is killed while out in the field it is not murder, but if the person is killed while in custody, it is murder, unless they are trying to escape at the time. In a domestic scenario, if it is self defense it is not murder, unless there is a less lethal way of defending oneself.

I could go on illustrating these dichotomies for pages if I wanted to…that is about as arbitrary as it gets.

Also, meat is not murder - it could be the reason for murder, it could be the by product of murder, but it is not murder by any normal usage of the English language (nit pick, yeah, but it has always bugged me).

If there is a moral argument to adjust ones diet, one should try to use a different term than “meat is murder”, because that phrase has too many problems that don’t have to do with the issue being argued.

I am a long time vegetarian, and I actively make sure that people around me know that my culinary choices do not affect their plate. Just the other day I helped cook some steak because the other cook was busy working on a sauce (at a friend’s house, I am not a cook by trade). Not all vegis push their diet onto other people, so say goodbye to that straw man;)

My opinion about the poor guy who has been brow beat into being a closet meat eater is that he needs to tell his wife to pay more attention to her own plate and less attention to his. He could make sure to brush his teeth after eating if that helps.
Dag, the open minded, reasonable, vegetarian.

111

Except, again, this nitpick is incorrect. The killing of animals is murder under the OED definition. If you have a more authoritative dictionary, let’s see it.

112

Right, but meat itself isn’t murder, that’s what Dag’s getting at.

113

I doubt it. That argument is even sillier. Do you also nitpick “war is hell” because military confrontation between countries isn’t the place where sinners go in some Christian theology? Do you nitpick “time is money” because money is merely the result of time well spent, rather than being conceptually identical to it? Of course not.

114

Couldnt we just come to a compromise instead of arguing about semantics? It seems that reasonable people can agree to leave out the disruptive dialogue and argue whether or not eating meat constitutes murder. Neither side really is progressing in the debate by shouting slogans at each other so it seems really counterproductive

115

That would be an interesting compromise… if there was anyone here shouting “Meat is Murder” at anyone in the first place.

Now, if we could attract some actual PETA people that might make things more interesting, but like Scientologists, it’s rare you see one actually defending their tactics in real time.

116

I’ve been working under the assumption that this thread is more about the slogan “Meat is Murder” (and the people who use it) and only incidentally about the larger animal rights issues.

117

Well, my overarching ethical principle, which I have implicitly been relying on throughout this thread, is that if there is no morally relevant difference between cases A and B, then you have to treat the two cases alike. Seems reasonable. But this rules out making arbitrary distinctions in moral arguments. ‘Murder’ isn’t really an arbitrary concept (although it’s doubtful that the precise contours of murder can be spelled out in terms that are themselves not morally loaded). Killing is not murder if it is in justified self-defense. This can be extended to your group or your nation (as it is in just war theory, which is why killing in war is justified). But of course killing in an unjusified war is, naturally, not justified (although there is debate in just war theory as to who bears primary moral responsiiblity in such cases–the soldier or the policy makers). So you are going to have to do a lot more work to convince me that ‘murder’ is as arbitrary as you are making it out to be.

This provides an (extremely belated, and no doubt unconvincing) reply to Half Man Half Wit and YogSosoth from the previous page. No doubt there are biological origins to morality; and no doubt the precise moral code we follow is also in part social construct (and yes these are compatible). But among the moral principles we are committed to is that like cases should be treated alike. (In fact, there is evidence that disparate rewards for the same work is resented even among higher primates, strongly implying that the instinct for justice is innate.) That just means that as I said above, to treat cases differently, you have to find a relevant difference between the two. And the animal rights argument is that none of the alleged differences between humans and higher sentient animals (genetic makeup, differences in intelligence, etc.) are morally relevant. Thus, by our own principles (be they conventional or not) we are committed to treating animals with significant moral consideration.

118

The last time someone’s tree-hugging vegan girlfriend (I don’t seem to meet many tree-hugging vegan guys, but I’m sure they exist) tried telling me that “meat was murder”, I shared an anecdote with her that stopped her argument dead in its tracks.

“See that salad you’re eating?” I asked. “I guarantee you more animals had to die for you to have that salad than for this steak the rest of us are eating.”

“That’s silly!” she says.

“OK, well, let me explain something to you. Vegetables are grown on farms; at least, the ones that make up the salad you’re eating are” (we were in a restaurant). “And guess what? There are lots of animals that like to eat vegetables too. Foxes and rabbits, for a start, along with wild cats and dogs, goats, and so on. Farmers don’t just put up signs saying “Please Mr. Fox and Mr. Bunny rabbit, don’t eat my lettuce plants!” They poison them, trap them, and shoot them.”

“That’s horrible!” she says.

“So you say” I continued. “The last time my friends and I went hunting, we shot eight hares and two foxes in one produce field. Do you know how many varmints we shot in the cattle fields? None. Occasionally we take out a fox that’s bothering the chickens or the lambs, true, but the cows look after themselves in that department. So, several animals had to die so you could have a delicious, green, crunchy salad- even if they weren’t shot, they would have been poisoned or trapped anyway- and the only animal that had to die so the rest of us could enjoy steaks was the cow the steaks were made from.”

“Killing animals is still murder!” she says.

“You’re entitled to think that. I think you’re wrong, but the fact is that unless you only eat salads made from vegetables grown in your own Wholesome Natural Earth-Mother Approved Magically Animal-Repellent backyard garden, animals have to die so we can eat. Doesn’t matter whether we’re eating steak or chicken or fish or lettuce or watermelons or anything like that, somewhere along the line from raising or planting to dinner table animals were killed- had to be killed- so you could have something to eat.”

She still wasn’t convinced, but her boyfriend (a mate of mine) called me the next day and thanked me for finally being able to get the point he’d been trying to make (that there’s nothing morally superior about veganism) across to her.

119

Well, I don’t agree that there is no meaningful difference, morally speaking, between humans and animals; I think that since the moral values of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are intrinsically human constructs, they simply don’t meaningfully apply to anything besides humans. We’re trying to shoehorn animals into a box, and ultimately, I believe, this does them a disservice – by assuming that human morality has a sufficiently universal character to allow us to cast value judgements on non-human lifeforms, we’re actually violating the ostensible equality animal rights are supposed to bring. Morality, in my view, follows from biology (perhaps by way of society), and thus, other species – other social animals --, though they would not necessarily be aware of it, may have their own biologically derived ‘moral rules’, like in the example of just rewards in chimp society you gave. Just because we can consciously reason about our rules doesn’t make them superior in any way. In other words, the way I see it, what’s right for a human isn’t necessarily right for a chimp, and even what’s right for a chimp from a human perspective isn’t necessarily so from the chimp’s point of view. Indeed, if morality is human in the way I have been arguing, we have no way of deciding what’s right for the chimp (or any other animal).

That’s why I advocate following the (human) moral rules regarding cruelty as defined by intention, which has the same effect of protecting animals from undue harm, without casting dubious and possibly inapplicable judgements of moral value. Also, use your empathy when it comes to judging actions towards other lifeforms. Killing animals is a necessity for us, as a society, to survive; it thus can’t be morally wrong. However, there’s no necessity for cruelty towards animals.

Even if I agreed with your general view, though, I still would not find your above argument entirely convincing, since it basically just sweeps the whole issue under the ‘higher sentient animals’-rug. Why should sentience be the decisive factor regarding whether or not animals are worthy of our moral protection? It isn’t any more a trait with an intrinsic link to morals than, say, ear length or colour of hair.

120

Except in deciding the question of animal rights you are not deciding how it is right for animals to act. You are deciding how it is right for humans to act toward animals. One can think that a being (like a human of severely diminished capacity) is not capable of participation in human society while still thinking we have obligations toward that being.

Notice that by saying we shouldn’t impose X or Y on animals, you are in any case making a judgment of how we ought to act toward animals, and the judgment has something of a moral flavor, given some the language you give to justify it (such as the talk about doing animals a disservice, and your discussion of a desire not to impose a set of rules on an animal that might live by a different set of rules).