Why only “directly”? If suffering is bad, why does it matter whether it is caused directly or indirectly? Shouldn’t a moral person try to avoid causing suffering whenever possible, whether directly or indirectly?
We needed to kill dozens of squirrels, birds, rats, lizards etc. to construct the mine that provides the coal needed to run your computer and the SDMB servers. Why is that more moral than killing 5 squirrels and eating them? Why does it matter whether the suffering was caused directly or indirectly?
And if your morality only requires that people avoid causing suffering directly, then there is nothing morally wrong with most people eating meat. Most people eat purchased from a butchers shop. The animal is already dead when they buy it, therefore they are not directly responsible for that animal’s death, only indirectly. And that’s OK. Right?
We know that using electricity causes animals to suffer. Since it is possible to live a healthy life without using electricity, then shouldn’t a moral persona also refrain from using electricity whenever possible?
I’m sure you dont; just draw the line where it starts to prevent you from doing what you enjoy and living the life that your culture dictates. That wouldn’t be moral.
So why do you feel that it is OK to use the internet for enjoyment when that causes animals to suffer, but not OK to eat meat for enjoyment?
This morality stuff is really complicated, isn’t it?
Exactly, and bears repeating. (BTW Francis already runs his life as Pope with a smaller footprint than predecessors, which yes, is still pretty swellegant by whole-humanity standards). The conclusion from the documents is “try and develop a more efficient and ecofriendly food supply” not “the Pope says don’t eat meat at all”.
Besides, he’s Argentinian. Arguing against meat would be received back home only slightly better than announcing the Falklands should be British or that Maddonna nailed the Eva Perón role.
How 'bout this one? All animals are born to die, and might as well die to feed humans as to feed wolves and vultures and bugs and worms. We appreciate the meat more anyway, we have better cooks.
Also, if we stop eating meat – or, for that matter, if we switch over to vat-grown clone-meat – then our domestic meat-animal breeds will simply die out, because they can’t survive in the wild and we’re not about to turn them all into pets.
Every animal dies at some point. I can’t see that’s it causes any more harm if I kill it or if dies of disease or old age or predation by any of the other carnivores out there.
Person A: If humans stop eating meat then our domestic meat-animal lineages will simply die out. that would be immoral
Person B: Those lineages don’t care whether they die out, therefore it is unimportant whether they die out.
Me: No species aside from humanity cares whether its lineage dies out. So you see no moral problem with letting any species die out.
Trinopus: That’s one of the wildest leaps of illogic I’ve ever seen.
I can understand how you would be confused. That’s some pretty advanced reasoning in that argument. Incredibly wild. :rolleyes:
Of course, raising crops in any sufficient quantity will need severe pest control, killing whole lineages of insects, mice and other ‘vermin’. Now again, I don’t know the precise numbers*, but the idea that a plant-based diet is free of suffering is simply wrong.
Additionally, it’s often basically taken as axiomatic that plants don’t suffer, but there’s no way to actually know this. Indeed, plants show a surprising number of harm avoidance strategies, releasing distress signals (in the form of chemicals rather than screams, but that shouldn’t make a difference in principle), calling for help (black mustard produces a chemical attracting wasps to defend itself against threats), warning one another (acacias, upon being chewed on, release a chemical that makes them taste bitter; additionally, if this is detected by other acacias, they themselves start up the production, as well), and so on. So it’s not all that clear to me that regarding behavioural complexity (which is ultimately all we have to go on), only animals should be attributed with the capacity to suffer; this may be due more to the ease of anthropomorphization than anything else.
Ultimately, both the vegetarian and the omnivore draw a line dividing life deserving of protection from life not so deserving; the difference is merely that the vegetarian believes they are objectively right, and the rest of the world should follow their judgment.
*But from a quick google search, here’s an article that suggests that 25 times more animals have to be killed per kilogramm of usable protein due to grain farming as opposed to raising livestock. I can’t say I’ve vetted it carefully for accuracy, though.
I think there’s a slight difference between “exterminating” and “stop breeding”…
That said, if the question is: “Would it be a moral thing to keep some species from extinction by breeding them in captivity?” my answer would be: only if they can be kept in far better (i.e. more natural) conditions than most livestock in developed countries today.
Yes, there’s a point there, whether it is stated by the pope or someone else. There are meats with less impact, such as venison and production with a high rate of grazing on land that would otherwise feed a similar number of wild ruminants, but your average western diet is high in meat raised on feed based on protein sources digestible by humans and on grazing land that would otherwise capture carbon instead of just turning it into cow burps and meat.