# Eating Meat is Ethical/Unethical **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064 "2012-03-28T17:22:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/221 "2012-04-05T22:48:42Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > it’s really annoying to have to cut and paste something i’ve already posted in the thread, unmodified, because someone chose to disregard it. > nonetheless: > > - > > Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argued in 2001 that the least-harm principle does not require giving up all meat, because a plant-based diet would not kill fewer animals than one containing beef from grass-fed ruminants. Davis wrote that cultivating crops also kills animals, because when a tractor traverses a field, animals are accidentally destroyed. Based on a study finding that wood mouse populations dropped from 25 per hectare to five per hectare after harvest (attributed to migration and mortality), Davis estimated that 10 animals per hectare are killed from crop farming every year. If all 120,000,000 acres (490,000 km2) of cropland in the continental United States were used for a vegan diet, then approximately 500 million animals would die each year. But, if half the cropland were converted to ruminant pastureland, he estimated that only 900,000 animals would die each year—assuming people switched from the eight billion poultry killed each year to beef, lamb, and dairy products.[100]\* > > while many want to debate the actual numbers involved, maybe the stats are hard to pin down–but there is some truth to the concept. > > do YOU have a statistical analysis on the amount of flatworms and other small, living things killed on the broad scale in typical farming vs amounts killed in ruminant grazer ranching? ive seen no data to dispute what davis claims, only naysaying. > > also, ethically speaking, what is your opinion on pet ownership and feeding them (all dog and catfood has some amount of animal product in them)…? You just posted this yesterday unless I missed it earlier. Nonetheless, if this is how things were done, this would be much better than our current system. However, this is not how things are done. It also does not take into account the amount of food produced as I cited earlier and once that is taken into account, this kills more than three times the number of animals. It is our job to give animals a single right; the right not to be property. If you adopt a child into your family, they are not your property. They are your family. Likewise, if you adopt an animal into your family, they are not your property. They are your family. It is our duty to try to come up with alternatives that still follow the golden rule but still provide for the animals. This is obviously more difficult since cats and dogs are carnivores and rely on meat. It also is more difficult since ethics do not really apply to animals that do not understand morals. In the grand scheme of things, there will be meat soon that does not require suffering to create. In the mean time, if people want to attempt causing less suffering by using Steven’s argument, by all means. This is a temporary solution, not a permanent one. > [@Stoid](#): > > You are equating correlation with causation. As someone else pointed out, the reality is that people who choose a plant based diet tend very strongly to do a wide range of things that contribute to better health. It is entirely possible (even likely in many cases) that their choise of diet is not at all the most healthful for them, and they are doing their health some degree of harm, but they do so many other things that are beneficial for their health that it balances out and even tilts in favor of greater health. > > It is entirely meaningless to pull one fact out, especially that fact, which barely qualifies as a fact at all since it’s self-reported on questionnaires from memory, and decide that it’s a key factor of anything at all. > > Which doesn’t the press and many others from doing that, of course, but just because its done constantly doesn’t change how meaningless it is. I am faily confident that for every one source you pull, I can pull two sources that show that a whole foods plant based diet is healthier. Anyone can search google and discover the health benefits. Likewise, anyone can search google and find out “proof” for anything they want to believe whether for or against something. Though I would never want to be on the side of arguing that eating meat is healthier than a whole foods plant based diet. While the health aspects are certainly a good discussion to have, my argument does not rely on the health argument. > [@Stoid](#): > > No, not really. You are making the shallow and obviosu observation that where you might like to play XBOX or go to a movie, a chicken would prefer to flop around in the dust and peck for earthworms. But you take that into account from the perspective of a highly advanced human being, observing, considering, and thinking about it from that place, and then you insert your human fear and dismay over the fact of death (NOT SUFFERING) into the dustbathing chicken when you have no reason to do so. As I said earlier, it is not the fear necessarily, but the realization of suffering. Your argument seems to be that if it is difficult to study others and see what they go through, it is impossible. Your argument does not really make sense to me since I am more worried about how death will come than the fear of actually dying. If were projecting all of my own fears, likes, dislikes, etc. onto others, this would still make no sense. > [@Stoid](#): > > You must know very few people, all of whom are fantasists. > > It is a fantasy because it discounts the nature of human beings generally. It is a fantasy because you think the only reason people haven’t already abandoned their meat-eating ways is because there aren’t satisfying alternatives. Eating ethical meat that looks like meat, feels like meat, smells like meat, tastes like meat, and literally is meat is a fantasy? Sorry, but you have not studied this enough to know where we are headed. Meat that keeps the golden rule is already here. The first computer cost millions of dollars, took up a whole floor and required a whole staff to run. Now I have a faster computer in my pocket. We use to kill a rabbit every time we wanted a woman to have a pregnancy test. Now we have pregnancy tests. We use to send pigs through the suffering of going through crash tests in cars. Now we have crash test dummies. In all cases, not only did we replace massive amounts of suffering, but the technology also far surpassed the original intent. > [@Stoid](#): > > Which you are entitled to do. But where do your ethics come from? What are they based on, and why are your ethics supposed to be the superior, more correct ones? I’m not saying they aren’t, I’m saying you haven’t done a very good job of convincing me that they are because it appears you are taking the position that it’s just so, it just is, it’s just self-evident. Except that it isn’t. > How do you arrive at that? Looks like an assumption to me because I sure didn’t say or imply it. My arguments are based on the golden rule. I would argue that the golden rule is self evident. How can you argue with the statement: “All living beings want to treated how they want to be treated”. You can’t. How can you argue that “We should take all lives into consideration”. You can’t without reationalizing. So all we have had is five pages of rationalizations for why people think it is okay to ignore the interest of others in the first place or why it is okay to exploit others. All the while we have no idea that we are simply relisting the same old reasons why we should continue owning slaves ( [http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past/ten-reasons-not-to-abolish-slavery/](http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past/ten-reasons-not-to-abolish-slavery/) ) “But it’s difficult to understand animals”, “But plants feel pain too”, “But you are still causing _some_ harm and unless you stop all harm you should just kill yourself”, “But you have not proved without a doubt that animals feel pain, maybe they are faking it”, But animals are lower than us and don’t deserve anything", “But the animals kill so we should be able to kill too”, “But the golden rule says to treat others according to your own tastes”, “But I have a source claiming you are going to die without animal protein”, “But it’s natural” , “But we have always done it”, “But the animals are nothing without us”, “But the animals will die off in the wild without us”, “But our lives are worse than animals”, “But we can feed seven billion people profitably by raising animals humanely and without much of any suffering”, “But this abolition stuff is a utopian idea and impractical”, But wouldn’t it be better to forget abolition and just give them a good life". At some point I saw through my own rationalizations and had to admit the truth. I was in denial myself for about three months. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2012, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/222 "2012-04-05T22:52:12Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Yes, and it’s not because they are THINKING what you believe they are THINKING. (Leaving aside the most intelligent species, none of which we eat. At least I don’t!) THINKING is a very complex process which is done by cows and chickens at a level far too low to accomodate such projections if they were thinking at all, but in that situation they aren’t, they are reacting to stimuli, as I described in the post you quote. Do you think it is possible to understand what others go through? Your argument seems to be trending toward saying no. Not only that, but you tend to be implying that we should ignore the pain of animals. It’s just “reacting to stimuli”. This is the argument Descartes put forward in the 1600’s. He would perform cruel experiments on animals and claimed that it was just a reaction to stimuli. That animals are merely machines reacting to stimuli. Good luck making modern humans believe this today. Most people will call you crazy for being cruel to an animal. Anyone who has spent time with a dog or cat knows that it is self evident that they experience pain, just like you and me. To deny this is simply to deny the evidence. > [@Stoid](#): > > I agree. They also do not WANT to live, in the sense you mean it. They “want” to feel comfortable and satisfied so they respond to urges to do what feels good: eat, shit, sleep, fuck, graze, nurse their babies, rub up against each other, moo. They want to keep feeling good, so if something hits their nose, ears or eyse which is not peaceful and pleasant, they “want” to get away from it. Nowhere in there are they contemplating the nature of their existence. > > They can only want or not want death if they are capable of contemplating what death is, and (leaving off the most intelligent) they can’t. They don’t. > > Why? Because of these things?: > > And how do you know what their will is? When a cow is sexually receptive and fertile, she isn’t thinking about artificial vs. natural, she can’t. As long as she’s not hurt, so what? (And I promise you the bulls are good with it.) > > First, they don’t have to, it dependson the producer. > Second modern food animals could never have truly “natural” lives, they have been bred to be human food and wouldn’t do too well in the wild yonder. > > and most importantly, they have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. They know pretty much two things: feels good, feels bad. Go towards good, away from bad. Beyond that, you are projecting your human hangups on to wonderfully present beings living simple, straitforward lives. > I am COMPLETELY on the side of creating comfortable, decent lives for food animals, and painless deaths they never see coming. But you have yet to make a single argument that doesn’t reference a human POV about why death to be food is inherently bad. Subtract the suffering. Make their lives pleasant. Leave them to be themselves until the day comes in green fields under sunny skies, doing exactly as they please. I just don’t see any problem at all, none. Please explain how you intend to completely separate the suffering from the killing. This is impossible. You think the meat industry is just not trying hard enough? Would you agree or disagree with the following statement used to justify slavery: 1. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise." > [@Stoid](#): > > Well if we were talking about human beings, you’d have a point. Bu we’re not. We’re talking about chickens and pigs and cows and sheep. What applies to people does not apply to chickens and pigs and cows and sheep. > > If you feel badly eating meat, I have no quarrel with that. I would never try to convince you that you shouldn’t. But it’s your personal feeling and you have not made the case that it should be embraced as a larger ethical truth by everyone. > > I agree with every single word of points 1-16. > > I completely disagree with his conclusion. > > The goal is to eliminate suffering. Animals can be raised for food free of suffering, and they can be killed humanely, free of suffering. That is what needs to be accomplished. > > Eliminating killing for food does not eliminate suffering. > > Eliminating suffering eliminates suffering. Please provide sources that show that we can feed over seven billion people on this planet who almost all want the taste of meat by raising billions of animals, without any suffering. You show me a world where it is possible to exploit others without any suffering at all, and I will show you a fantasy world. If this were how things were done, I would have (unfortunately) never cared enough to get involved. But this is not true. You cannot separate the suffering. Now that I have seen the truth, I would know that it is wrong as a matter of justice. But this really does not matter because it is impossible to separate exploitation and suffering. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/223 "2012-04-05T22:57:37Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I have asked a direct question several times. That question is: **how do I compare humans and animals? What is the measure?** You make a very specific comparison here that is close to being quantitative. **Why do you suppose that is incorrect?** I will not ask you again. If intend to not answer, then our portion of this discussion is finished. > What most people think is not in itself a good basis for anything. I know this because when most people were farmers and treated their animals however they wanted, you would consider them ignorant of the realities. I know this because when most people eat meat, that doesn’t count, they’re just being “inconsistent”. Your standards for judging others are adopted merely for convenience and that really is illogical. > The only reason there is an inconsistency is because you are speculating on the ideas of people making these decisions and then use that speculation to reach a conclusion. This is your problem, not theirs. > Since you said, and I agreed, and then you said again, and then I agreed _again_, that intelligence is not a good basis, it is extremely irritating for you to nevertheless accuse me again of doing this. You are harping on a minute detail and acting like this is somehow going to allow you to completely exclude _all_ suffering others go through. How do you know what any other human goes through if you are not that person? Oh thats right, you **can’t** know. It is impossible to say with certainty that any other human is not some robot or that they are lying to you when they tell you something. If you want to claim that because something is not known for 100% certainty then we will never agree on this. What you need to do is study them. You observe them. Do they scream out in pain? If they do, what is the intensity of the pain based on physical reactions? What activities do they enjoy doing when they are in good mental health? What activities do they do when they are in bad mental health? Do they have strong bonds between their mothers? Are some animals very social while others prefer to be alone? Can they experience anger? Can they experience happiness? Why are some animals very deeply changed when they lose a loved one? If there are clear emotions that have evolved in us, what is the mechanism for them to come out of thin air when we evolved from our ancestors to our current form? These are all questions we need to answer. > [@DSeid](#): > > You really do not see that in your process of imagining you are imposing what _you’d_ like, as a human and aware of what was coming, onto another creature whose thought processes do not include such things? How you completely ignore what you believe your “advanced” golden rule to be? If we assume, for the sake of the discussion, humane slaughter and living conditions, then _my_ discomfort knowing that I was being raised for food ([TwilightZone]It’s a cookbook![/TZ]) is irrelevant, is imposing human preferences onto a chicken or a cow. You are still free to argue that current factory farming fails to meet those guidelines, but then your … beef so to speak … is with inhumane farming practices, not with eating meat per se. How do I prove a negative in this case? How do I prove that I am being objective? All of the things I have said are fairly self explanatory to anyone who owns a pet. Except for maybe the one part where some people misunderstood and thought I was saying animals fear death as oppose to the act of death. If animals lived out natural lives and died of natural (non-human) causes, then it would be hard to argue that eating their meat would be unethical. I would not argue it at least. If animals lived out natural lives but were killed without any pain whatsoever, I would still consider it unethical in the sense that we are taking another life for our own pleasure before they would have naturally died. If this were the case though, I would not have even become aware of the issue in the first place. I would have remained ignorant to the issue of taking their lives. > [@DSeid](#): > > You might exempt insects from your “advanced golden rule”? Previously you [said otherwise](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14922369&postcount=121): You quoted me talking about pain. Insects do not feel pain (though I suspect there might be exception insects who do feel some sort of pain), but the golden rule does still apply to insects. > [@DSeid](#): > > There is an ocean of difference between the awareness, sentience, intelligence, pain experience, etc. between a worm and me and a whole ocean full of gradation in between with creatures of various degrees of similarity and disimilarity to me and to each other. What I am asking you is to define exactly where _you_ draw the line within that ocean and if at that line you value one … vole … the same as one human? One vole to one human losing an arm? I am pointing out the extreme oversimplicity of your either/or viewpoint. While I have no quantitative formula either I find that the version you set up, which I can only read that causing _any_ animal suffering is only justifiable to save a human life, to be an unacceptable and naive equation. So first off you realize that I draw the line for the golden rule as a whole to those who are aware of the world. Insects are aware of the world so they are included even though they do not feel pain. The golden rule is incredibly simple. This is by design. Let’s take slavery for example. You ask yourself if you would want to be a slave. The obvious answer is “no” to anyone who has seen what it is be like to be a slave. Even for those who are “ethically” treated slaves, they normally still want to be able to express their own free will. Here is normally where the discussion ends for someone following the golden rule. However, two hundred years ago it kept going because we try to rationalize why we are breaking the free will of another. So how do you be sure that owning a slave is wrong? You involve Utilitarianism and take into account all lives. Since we are violating the golden rule, there has to be absolute certainty that we have taken all lives into account and that the greater good is a clear winner. Unfortunately, it is impossible to show that owning a slave provides more of a greater good to the slave owner than the slave. The reason this is obvious to people today is because we take into account the ideas of free will and justice and know that they are being broken. However, people back then tried to rationalize how they could keep doing what they _wanted_ to do and what they _should_ do. When you ignore justice and free will, it makes it a lot easier to claim that you are justified in owning a slave. > [@XT](#): > > Do you have a cite that shows that ‘most people’ on the planet who eat meat do so because it’s a ‘luxury’, which was what I was addressing there? Because I’m calling horseshit here if you don’t produce a cite backing this ridiculous claim up. > > Not that it matters, because you are defining ‘luxury’ as ‘something I don’t approve of’ in any case, and then going from there. > > I’m not ignoring that at all. YOU are ignoring it by attempting to say meat is a ‘luxury’, where as for most non-1st world countries it isn’t. You have this fantasy going where we could simply stop consuming meat and (presumably) animal based products and this is going to somehow get us back all sorts of agricultural resources by make the switch. An all vegan diet is possible with a lot of care and diligence…trying to translate that to over 6 billion people, however, is going to put a huge strain on our system. And, as has been pointed out to you over and over again, it’s STILL going to be doing a lot of harm to animals. You seem very inconsistent on this issue. On the one hand, you are against eating animals, but on the other, you seem very blithe about the fact that farming actually causes MORE harm to animals and more deaths. How do you reconcile this? Or are you just ignoring that part of the debate? Here is one I was looking at: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?pagewanted=all](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?pagewanted=all) Just look at how much meat the U.S. consumes compared to its size and you will see this is at least partially true. Although I have no idea where I said luxury meant good or bad. Saying that because we cannot prevent \*all \*suffering, we should not prevent _any_ suffering is inconsistent to me. Please explain how putting roughly 10 billion land animals (of which 99% according to Farm Forward go) through factory farms in the U.S. alone, plus the fact that we need to create roughly five times the amount of crops to end up with meat, somehow ends up causing less harm to animals? This is a blatant lie. Unless you believe the only animals people eat are grass-fed cows (let alone ignore how the Steven Davis argument does not take into account the amount of food produced). > [@XT](#): > > Seems simple to me. Drinking a coke IS a ‘luxury’, as you don’t need a coke to live (which can’t similarly be said about meat, which is why your assertion that eating the stuff is a ‘luxury’ is so silly, and points out how that’s YOUR perception). The making and manufacturing of a coke, however, causes untold animal deaths due to the farming of the raw materials that go into a coke, the logistics of bringing those raw materials to the manufacturing plants, the actual manufacturing of the product and it’s associated component parts, the logistics of distributing, chilling, marketing, etc of the product…and that groundhog you killed when you drove your car to the store to pick up that coke. Above you are saying that by suggesting meat is a luxury, it is silly. Are you suggesting that meat is needed? > [@XT](#): > > I note that you inserted in ‘purposefully’ into the argument, in a weak attempt to justify the fact that you drinking that coke causes untold animal deaths and suffering…but since it’s not ‘purposeful’ that makes it ok, right? 😛 > > (so, IOW, you don’t really need me to explain it all to you, since you are already attempting to handwave the argument away by injecting ‘purpose’ into the mix. Was I suppose to pretend otherwise?) Please cite this “untold” amount of suffering from coke. If there is suffering, it would be a good idea to take that into consideration. Does the fact that something else is unethical change whether eating meat is unethical? Not really. > [@XT](#): > > And yet I HAVE explained, several times, why what you are projecting is unrealistic and fantasy. That you have pretended not to understand it isn’t MY lookout, since clearly you have and have either chosen to ignore it or pretend you don’t understand it. Please point me to a post where you lay out the mechanism for why I am being unrealistic. > [@XT](#): > > :rolleyes: You wouldn’t want to live the life of ANY animal, and probably wouldn’t want to live the life of most humans who don’t live in a modern, technological society…not if you had your memories and expectations. I would want to be a bird. It would be cool to fly around. I would have no issue with being a dog or cat who is loved on by their owner. I certainly would not want to be an animal in a factory farm. > [@XT](#): > > Would you want to be a wild ruminant, constantly in fear of predators, constantly in danger of starvation, disease, crippling injury…pain? Um, I’m thinking that’s a big fat NO. Would you want to live the life of a predator, constantly in fear of starvation, danger of disease, crippling injury, fights with rivals…pain? That’s a big fat NO as well. Would you want to live the life of s subsistence farmer in China, or Central or South America, or Africa? Constantly in…well, you get the point. Again, I’m guessing that’s a ‘no’. Of course not. What does this have to do with the animals that are being exploited in factory farms? I certainly hope your argument is not that because someting _could_ be worse, that anything under that bar is permissible. “You could have lived as a Jew that went through the Holocaust. So as long as you suffer just slightly less, you have no room to talk about suffering”. > [@XT](#): > > This is a ridiculous argument you are making here…more ridiculous than your initial premise in the OP…and shows you are merely projecting. Most food (or even other) animals were domesticated in the first place because they preferred some sort of stability in their diet and shelter from random predators with humans (even if the end result was they gots et) to life in the wild. That’s how we DID domesticate them, because it was a better deal for them than being wild and free. Modern factor farm animals have been bred to BE food, and the trade off to all the things you see as horrible suffering is that they fed all they can eat, don’t have to worry about predators in their day to day lives, don’t have to worry about disease for the most part, and don’t have to fight for survival. If you weren’t a human with all your memories of how YOUR life is then it would probably seem a pretty good trade off, all things considered. > > -XT Oh. I get it. You are doing them a favor by exploiting them… This argument would be like saying to a girl you rescued: “Look… They almost sold you into the sex trade in India. But you were lucky. I saved you. So I am only going to rape you once whereas you would have been forced to have sex countless times had I not saved you. Don’t you see I am doing _you_ a favor!” ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/224 "2012-04-05T23:02:08Z")
Here is a quote from the American Dietetic Association: [QUOTE=ADA] **It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence-based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals. The variability of dietary practices among vegetarians makes individual assessment of dietary adequacy essential. In addition to assessing dietary adequacy, food and nutrition professionals can also play key roles in educating vegetarians about sources of specific nutrients, food purchase and preparation, and dietary modifications to meet their needs.** [/QUOTE] > [@Stoid](#): > > YAY! > > Said it in January, saying it again: [Promoting vegetarianism or veganism is a lousy way to reduce animal cruelty](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/a.php?t=638199) This link does not work for me. > [@XT](#): > > So, are you now saying that it IS ‘ethical’ to eat meat, as long as the animal being consumed didn’t ‘suffer’? > > -XT No, I am saying that it is possible to produce meat that is ethical. Cultured meat is the only thing I am aware of that would fit that category. If cultured meat were available, my original post would not apply to it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/225 "2012-04-05T23:29:16Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > You are harping on a minute detail and acting like this is somehow going to allow you to completely exclude _all_ suffering others go through. I am not. I have plainly acknowledged that “suffering” is a wholly appropriate word for animals’ responses to some stimuli. > [@](#): > > How do you know what any other human goes through if you are not that person? Oh thats right, you **can’t** know. It is impossible to say with certainty that any other human is not some robot or that they are lying to you when they tell you something. I have not requested the perspective of god. I’ve asked fairly simple questions and you are unable to answer them. > [@](#): > > If you want to claim that because something is not known for 100% certainty then we will never agree on this. I would never claim this. No one claims this. > [@](#): > > What you need to do is study them. You observe them. Do they scream out in pain? What if they do? Let’s take the issue. I again ask you for a measure, and again you say “pain.” I ask you if animals are the same value as humans, and you say “no.” **Then how am I to compare animal pain to human pain?** That’s the question. For instance, if you want to measure something, you need units. Say, length: you need centimeters. Can you measure with perfect exactness some length in centimeters? No. Thankfully, no one ever asks for this. Now someone else says, “No, no. I want to measure in inches.” And I say, “Fine. Can you tell me how inches compare to centimeters?” If they’re you, they fail to do this spectacularly several times even when asked clearly and directly. Otherwise, they give some relation, as specific as the situation warrants. “Oh, an inch is about two and a half centimeters.” > [@](#): > > If they do, what is the intensity of the pain based on physical reactions? That’s a good question. If that’s your basis, I’m eager to hear your results, or the results of others. > [@](#): > > What activities do they do when they are in bad mental health? Do they have strong bonds between their mothers? Are some animals very social while others prefer to be alone? Can they experience anger? Can they experience happiness? Why are some animals very deeply changed when they lose a loved one? These are all fascinating questions which could help us flesh out the form if you ever could manage to even build a skeleton. > [@](#): > > These are all questions we need to answer. :rolleyes: Sounds so simple when you just use words to ask the questions and never actually give the answers. ---
**Author:** ![JasperST](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/76d3ee/32.png) [@JasperST](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasperST)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/226 "2012-04-06T00:09:21Z")
The fact is that we are omnivores so it can’t be immoral. Almost everyone will agree that making an animal suffer is wrong. Those that I know that put down cows did it with one shot, aim for the X between the ears and eyes and they are gone. Plus, they would have had their brief stay here if they weren’t bred for food to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/227 "2012-04-06T00:53:38Z")
[QUOTE=Trust] Here is one I was looking at: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/we...pagewanted=all](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/we...pagewanted=all) Just look at how much meat the U.S. consumes compared to its size and you will see this is at least partially true. Although I have no idea where I said luxury meant good or bad. [/QUOTE] So what? Last time I checked, the US does not make up a large percentage of the worlds population, so your cite basically shows…nothing under discussion. So, no…I don’t see it as ‘partially true’, even if I accept (which I don’t) the ‘fact’ that consumption of meat as a ‘luxury’ is somehow a bad thing. You used the ‘luxury’ argument several times, with strongly negative connotations. And you’ve thrown this debate into an ‘Ethical/Unethical’ framework, which pretty much ties into the whole ‘good or bad’ thingy. If you want to back peddle on this as well, that’s fine…but don’t try and look all innocent about your own arguments. > [@](#): > > Saying that because we cannot prevent all suffering, we should not prevent any suffering is inconsistent to me. Well, it’s your own inconsistency, unfortunately. Whether animals are killed for food directly or killed in the process of the creation of food is all the same to the animals that die. For you to exist, especially in a high tech society that you obviously are part of, animals are going to suffer and die. They are suffering and dying so you can drink that coke, air condition your house and eat your tofurkey dinner. Most people accept that. You rationalize and attempt to take some sort of moral high ground so you can feel smug about your choices while ignoring the real costs. People. Glass houses. Hypocrisy. Sophistry. > [@](#): > > Please explain how putting roughly 10 billion land animals (of which 99% according to Farm Forward go) through factory farms in the U.S. alone, plus the fact that we need to create roughly five times the amount of crops to end up with meat, somehow ends up causing less harm to animals? This is a blatant lie. Unless you believe the only animals people eat are grass-fed cows (let alone ignore how the Steven Davis argument does not take into account the amount of food produced). Ah…so, I’m a liar, ehe? Yet you’ve been shown cites earlier in this thread (hell, on this page) that you’ve yet to address with anything but accusations of lying. You’ve also had it explained to you several times already how crops themselves cost lives, and how all the OTHER things you use daily (like that coke…or like that computer you are tying on) cost lives as well. Would it cost more lives in terms of animals to switch over to a completely meat free existence, attempting to do the vaguely defined ‘least harm’? Absolutely I believe that, despite your attempts to call me a liar. And even leaving aside the larger number of animals that would be killed by the necessity of putting more ground under cultivation in order to make up the difference that is currently filled by meat, you have those ‘10 billion land animals’. See, if we stopped eating meat, then their numbers would drop…possibly to zero in some cases, but even if some how you were able to get funding for your farm animal sanctuaries, it would be to a few hundreds or maybe a few thousands. That ALONE is going to cause large numbers of animals who would have lived to not exist in the future. And, of course, it doesn’t even take into account all the other disruptions that such a move would have, and how that would further impact the animal world. Today, many products come from the fact that when we butcher animals we often use ‘everything but the squeal’. There are a whole host of things that rely on secondary or tertiary animal products that have nothing to do with eating meat that alternatives would have to be found for. So no…I didn’t lie. And I’ll thank you, in the future, to not call me a liar, especially in this forum. You can call me wrong, or say I’m clueless, but don’t call me a liar. > [@](#): > > Above you are saying that by suggesting meat is a luxury, it is silly. Are you suggesting that meat is needed? Of COURSE it’s needed. If you don’t eat meat then you have to supplement your diet to make sure you get all the things that you could more easily get from meat. Large portions of the worlds population rely on the fact that they have meat in their diet because they don’t have the freaking LUXURY (the REAL luxury) of being able to go to Whole Foods and get a full vegan diet, nor the resources to cater to that luxury. Have you noticed that most vegans aren’t exactly the poorest members of the population?? Have you ever considered why that is? > [@](#): > > Please cite this “untold” amount of suffering from coke. If there is suffering, it would be a good idea to take that into consideration. Does the fact that something else is unethical change whether eating meat is unethical? Not really. So, you handwave it away. You’ve already been shown that crops cause harm to animals. Did you think coke magically materialized from the ether? No, I’m not going to cite, again, something you’ve already been shown and you’ve completely failed to address in your ridiculous arguments. Does drinking a coke cancel out eating meat on some fantasy ethics scale? Nope. The fact that you wave your finger at one and your hands at the other merely shows you are a hypocrite. You are willing to cause animal suffering for something YOU desire (such as that coke) while attempting to take some fictional high moral ground about ethics concerning someone eating a steak. It’s actually pretty hilarious, to be honest. > [@](#): > > Please point me to a post where you lay out the mechanism for why I am being unrealistic. What, again? No thanks…I’m pretty tired of your ridiculous antics at this point. I’m fairly certain that anyone following along (which, perhaps you aren’t) can see it clearly. > [@](#): > > I would want to be a bird. It would be cool to fly around. I would have no issue with being a dog or cat who is loved on by their owner. I certainly would not want to be an animal in a factory farm. Uhuh. Sure you would. 😛 > [@](#): > > Of course not. What does this have to do with the animals that are being exploited in factory farms? Animals lives are short and brutal, especially in the wild. That’s the reality. It’s always been the reality, it will always be the reality. > [@](#): > > I certainly hope your argument is not that because someting could be worse, that anything under that bar is permissible. “You could have lived as a Jew that went through the Holocaust. So as long as you suffer just slightly less, you have no room to talk about suffering”. Ah, the Godwin card. Yeah, that’s a really good analogy to what I was saying. 😛 > [@](#): > > Oh. I get it. You are doing them a favor by exploiting them… You were the one who trotted out the idiotic ‘lesser suffering’ horseshit. Merely trying to clue you in that animals suffer. Are we doing them a favor? Well…yeah. That’s why domesticated animals allowed themselves to BE domesticated, originally. It was a better deal for most of them than the short, brutish lives they would face out in the real world. Did we do it out of the goodness of our hearts? Of course not…we exploit them because it’s in our own best interest, obviously. > [@](#): > > “Look… They almost sold you into the sex trade in India. But you were lucky. I saved you. So I am only going to rape you once whereas you would have been forced to have sex countless times had I not saved you. Don’t you see I am doing you a favor!” Ah, another ridiculous strawman analogy. Do you suppose that by creating these silly things it’s helping to make your case or make you look less ridiculous? It’s not working here…maybe someone else is falling for it though. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/228 "2012-04-06T01:53:16Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > It is our job to give animals a single right; the right not to be property. According to whom or what? You? If that’s the standard, I can play too: It’s our job to give animals a single purpose: to be our food. Wanna try again? > [@](#): > > If you adopt a child into your family, they are not your property. True. I don’t think it’s even possible to adopt a chicken or an ewe, so what are you talking about? > [@](#): > > They are your family. Likewise, if you adopt an animal into your family, they are not your property. False. I “adopted” my dog. He is my property, by law. And glad I am, because that gives me the right to decide what happens to him and what happens to hims is lots of wonderful things that make him very happy. And I am beyond ok with that, I’m proud of myself because I’m a GREAT dog owner. If my dog had the ability to ponder the fact that he is my slave, that I own him, (and even though he’s frighteningly intelligent, being the part border collie that he is, he lacks that ability) he’d be 100% down with it, because he likes the fact that I’m the boss of him. He’s made to want one, and I’m it. > [@](#): > > It is our duty to try to come up with alternatives that still follow the golden rule but still provide for the animals. According to whom? You? Do you really want to keep doing this? Simply saying that things just are a certain way that you want everyone to agree that they are is an incredibly bad debate strategy. Basically worthless. > [@](#): > > It also is more difficult since ethics do not really apply to animals that do not understand morals. Nor, dare I say, do you, since you insist on declaring it immoral to eat meat in any circumstance that is not immediate and direct self-preservation. It is nothing of the kind. I mean, I don’t want to makeyour head explode by taking it this far, but I have news: morality is not something which is really “real”; it arises from purely human consideration of the idea. The natural world is entirely amoral (although not lacking in compassion, many animals are loving and compassionate) in the sense that there is no right or wrong, there is only life and doing what life requires for life to continue, and doing it is morally neutral. But, specifically as a result of our ginormous and complex brains, we have the power to consider things in a more esoteric manner, to contemplate the notion of morality and ethics. We are prompted to do so because we are social animals with a natural impulse to altruism and compassion. So we label things according to our beliefs and knowledge and experience. So it would be most excellent if you stopped talking about what is and is not as though moral questions rank alongside chemistry and physics in their binary character. They do not, they are philosophy, about as far from a hard and fast discipline as it is possible to get. So perhaps you should back up entirely and start there: what is morality? How do we come by our ethics? What makes our moral beliefs and choices what they are in relation to our fellow humans, and THEN you can address if its valid to extend those values without modification to non-human beings, and why. > [@](#): > > In the grand scheme of things, there will be meat soon that does not require suffering to create. There is meat now that does not require suffering to create. It does not require suffering to produce meat at all. Please stop saying that as though eating meat and suffering are identical, or even inextricably connected, because it’s a lie. > [@](#): > > I am faily confident that for every one source you pull, I can pull two sources that show that a whole foods plant based diet is healthier. Numbrs are meaningless if the methods suck. One solidly built controlled study beats the shit out of guesswork and questionnaires every single time. > [@](#): > > Anyone can search google and discover the health benefits. False. Anyone can search Google and discover the things people assume are health benefits based on hopelessly inexact methods of research. > [@](#): > > Likewise, anyone can search google and find out “proof” for anything they want to believe whether for or against something. “Proof” is right. Thence the term “consider the source” - if the sources are good and the methods are good, it counts. > [@](#): > > As I said earlier, it is not the fear necessarily, but the realization of suffering. Your argument seems to be that if it is difficult to study others and see what they go through, it is impossible. Your argument does not really make sense to me since I am more worried about how death will come than the fear of actually dying. If were projecting all of my own fears, likes, dislikes, etc. onto others, this would still make no sense. I can see why it makes no sense to you, because your characterization of my argument makes no sense to me either. You need to define your terms. What is “the **realization** of suffering”? Your assertion that Bessie seeing Bluebell die and freaking out because you believe Bessie is having a thoughtful **realization** that death is coming for her, or even that suffering is coming for her? Well, no, it’s not - Bessie is having a thought-free, inborn fear response to the stimulus of seeing, hearing, and smelling Bluebell die violently, she is not having a conscious consideration of what death or even suffering actually is. To sell a Bessie who is having “realizations” about things, you have to start by showing me that Bessie is even aware of herself as an individual being at all, much less an individual being with a finite existence. And good luck with that, since it’s a toughie for almost any animals with brains less developed than great apes, cetaceans and I believe elephants have been shown to be self-aware as well. Outside of that… no. > [@](#): > > Eating ethical meat that looks like meat, feels like meat, smells like meat, tastes like meat, and literally is meat is a fantasy? No. Believing that everyone presented with this amazing alternative will find it satisfying and agree to give up the real thing as a result is a fantasy. Unless we reach Star Trekkian levels of ability to reorder molecules, we will not be replicating meat to everyone’s satisfaction any time in the remote future, forget near. > [@](#): > > The first computer cost millions of dollars, took up a whole floor and required a whole staff to run. Now I have a faster computer in my pocket. We use to kill a rabbit every time we wanted a woman to have a pregnancy test. Now we have pregnancy tests. We use to send pigs through the suffering of going through crash tests in cars. Now we have crash test dummies. In all cases, not only did we replace massive amounts of suffering, but the technology also far surpassed the original intent. So your argument is basically that genuine animal flesh is the primitive version of a scientifically formulated copy of animal flesh and as soon as we perfect it, we’re golden? That’s kinda like saying that we can buid the perfect dildo that will be as good or better for all women than a real life penis… and that’s never going to happen either. Technology that is better than eariler technology is a given. Technology that is better than natural? Nothing’s coming to mind as evidence of _that_ being a reasonable assertion. > [@](#): > > My arguments are based on the golden rule. I would argue that the golden rule is self evident. How can you argue with the statement: “All living beings want to treated how they want to be treated”. Is that what I’m arguing with? Because it has appeared that I’m arguing with the statement “All living beings want to be treated the way I, Trust believe that they want to be treated, and I believe that they want to be treated pretty much the way I would want to be treated. And I arrive at this belief and statement by ignoring all evidence that disagrees and making no case for the legitimacy of my beliefs about the nature of animal brains and reactions and behavior.” > [@](#): > > You can’t. How can you argue that “We should take all lives into consideration”. You can’t without reationalizing. So all we have had is five pages of rationalizations for why people think it is okay to ignore the interest of others in the first place or why it is okay to exploit others. All the while we have no idea that we are simply relisting the same old reasons why we should continue owning slaves Your argument is completely circular. You argue thaat the only morally correct way to think is to view all non-plant based life as equivalent to human life and must therefore be treated and considered on the same basis as human life. But since you know for a fact that others do not agree with this starting place, what do you hope to accomplish by continuing to treat it as something which everyone should already be agreed upon coming into this debate? It’s exactly the same problem as coming into the debate with the view that everyone just “knows” that a plant -based diet is healthier. Bullshit. You need to back up. Repeating the “golden rule” and referring to all non-human animal life as “others” in the same way all non-me human beings are “others” is hopelessly empty and meaningless out the gate. It’s a false premise that you ahve made no attempt to validate or even made a really good attempt to argue for, you just keep asserting it as a given just as plain as the sunrise. If you can’t get outside of that, you need to ask to have this puppy moved to IMHO, because that’s all we’re doing. > [@Trust](#): > > Do you think it is possible to understand what others go through? Your argument seems to be trending toward saying no. Not only that, but you tend to be implying that we should ignore the pain of animals. Completely false. Beyond false. > [@](#): > > It’s just “reacting to stimuli”. That is a fact. Not a fact I put forth to suggest that animal pain, suffering, fear and stress are to be ignored (and really, I have to say I resent the hell out of you saying that, because I haven’t come close) because I’m pretty much the last person who would ever believe or feel that way. I was drawing a distinction, a very important distinction, between the fact that they absolutely do experience fear and pain and stress as a result of certain stimuli, and the idea that because they do they _must_ be capable of _ **thinking** _ about what’s happening, _ **understand** _ it, be self-aware to start with, and then _ **make the connection** _ that because it’s happening to another animal it will happen to them. They do not, they cannot. (At least food animals can’t, I wouldn’t swear to the same with a dolphin or a chimp) none of that means their sufering isn’t real and I never suggested otherwise. > [@](#): > > This is the argument Descartes put forward in the 1600’s. He would perform cruel experiments on animals and claimed that it was just a reaction to stimuli. That animals are merely machines reacting to stimuli. And he was an asshole. It has nothing to do with me or my arguments. Please stop trying to find small points of convergence between an argument made here and some other argument somewhere else and declare they are the same argument. > [@](#): > > Please explain how you intend to completely separate the suffering from the killing. This is impossible. You think the meat industry is just not trying hard enough? Easy: raise free range, slaughter fast and humanely. I’m really hoping they perfect using oxygen deprivation because that would really rock: send them out totally euphoric! Suffering gone. Meat remains. Perfect! > [@](#): > > Would you agree or disagree with the following statement used to justify slavery: > > 1. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise." If you want to talk about slavery, start another thread. And there I think you will get very little action, because no one wants to participate in or defend slavery of humans. But ownership of animals, in and of itself, considered apart from the conditions and treatment they may receive, is not a problem for me at all, as I’ve said many times. Treat 'em right and it can even be a better life than any they might otherwise have. My dog is my slave, as I said, and he loves it. He’d be utterly distraught if he was “set free”. > [@](#): > > Please provide sources that show that we can feed over seven billion people on this planet who almost all want the taste of meat by raising billions of animals, without any suffering. You show me a world where it is possible to exploit others without any suffering at all, and I will show you a fantasy world. If this were how things were done, I would have (unfortunately) never cared enough to get involved. But this is not true. You cannot separate the suffering. Now that I have seen the truth, I would know that it is wrong as a matter of justice. But this really does not matter because it is impossible to separate exploitation and suffering. Sez you. But then you seem to think that suffering can be eliminated at all, which I do not believe. It can be lessened, but ask the Dalai Lama: to be alive is to suffer. I embrace > [@](#): > > The Five Remembrances: > > _**1) I am of the nature to grow old. There is no way to escape growing old.**_ > > _**2) I am of the nature to have ill health. There is no way to escape ill health.**_ > > _**3) I am of the nature to die. There is no way to escape death.**_ > > _**4) All that is dear to me and everyone I love are of the nature to change. There is no way to escape being separated from them.**_ > > _**5) My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand.**_ Number 5 means to me that pursuit of the impossible is an ego-driven and empty way to focus my attention and effort, and attempting to _eliminate_ suffering at all is a rejection of the inescapable truth of 1-4. So what actions make the ground on which I stand? To act within truth and not seek to soothe my own sensibilities, but to accept responsibility for what I do and try to do better and work towards others doing better. Eating animals is not wrong, it is normal and natural and healthy and good. Torturing them in life is none of those things and it is not necessary and it must be changed. As for the question of feeding the seven million… well, it’s a bigger question than a mere little debate about the ethics of meat eating. We’re all headed off a cliff in a number of ways, and maybe that’s not such a bad thing in the end… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/229 "2012-04-06T02:04:11Z")
Just to emphasize something in Stoid’s excellent post: [QUOTE=Stoid] False. I “adopted” my dog. He is my property, by law. And glad I am, because that gives me the right to decide what happens to him and what happens to hims is lots of wonderful things that make him very happy. And I am beyond ok with that, I’m proud of myself because I’m a GREAT dog owner. If my dog had the ability to ponder the fact that he is my slave, that I own him, (and even though he’s frighteningly intelligent, being the part border collie that he is, he lacks that ability) he’d be 100% down with it, because he likes the fact that I’m the boss of him. He’s made to want one, and I’m it. [/QUOTE] And the fact that he IS your property allows you to better protect him in ways that he simply can’t, because in the end, he’s a dog. He’s not a human with free will and sentience, he’s a creature that we, as humans, have essentially molded into the species that they are. Our companions. You are exactly right…he was made to be a member of OUR pack, and for you, the human to be the alpha male of that pack. That’s what he and his kind have been crafted to be and to do for 10’s of thousands of years. I wish more people would take that responsibility as serious as you obviously do, because while we have a lot of perks in being the dominant, sentient species on this planet, it also comes with a lot of responsibilities that we accept as part and parcel. That IS an ‘ethical’ duty that we should take on. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/230 "2012-04-06T02:36:18Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Stoid’s excellent post: 😃 > [@](#): > > You are exactly right…he was made to be a member of OUR pack, and for you, the human to be the alpha male of that pack. Except that I’m the alpha female who is the boss of Mr. Preston Digitation, my Handsome Black Boyfriend, and yes, _that’s_ exactly as it should be. 😉 (A friend came over to repair my gate the other day and took both sides off their hinges and laid them down in the driveway to work. When I came out an hour later he told me he’d been afraid that Preston would bolt or maybe just wander off. Au contraire, not one pad crossed the No Dogs (Unless You’re On a Leash and Invited) line. I am SO the boss. But he’s pretty awesome anyway.) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/231 "2012-04-06T02:37:33Z")
Ah, well, I didn’t know you are a female, but the same applies. In my house, my wife is the alpha female of our little pack…including me. 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/232 "2012-04-06T03:57:15Z")
veganism is nothing different than religion. it’s something that has no natural “biological” law or basis (we are, physiologically, omnivorous.) there’s no universally applicable ethical case beyond “i buy into this so i think this…_and you should too_.” i can’t, in any way, after reading all this and hearing all the debate, separate veganism from ideological religion. it’s ok for you–but when you start trying to apply it to others as some kind of “universal law” it starts becoming very convoluted very quickly. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/233 "2012-04-06T04:21:26Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > . . . because it’s a lie. In this forum, accusations of lying are prohibited. This is too close to violating that rule; stop it. This goes for everyone else, as well. Just drop any and all references to lying. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/234 "2012-04-06T04:33:36Z")
Trust, to answer your question about the charity analogy, in my point of view, switching from a responsible omnivorous diet to a vegetarian/vegan diet is like the difference between donating $1500 per year to charity, and $1600 per year to charity. Or something like that. Both groups of people are working to limit the suffering of animals, just like a person who donates 1500 bucks is contributing to charity in the same way someone who donates 1600 bucks. The problem and dispicable behavior would be if the guy who donated 1600 bucks was saying how much better he was for what he did and how everyone else who donated less was responsible for all this terrible, evil stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/235 "2012-04-06T04:38:48Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > Trust, to answer your question about the charity analogy, in my point of view, switching from a responsible omnivorous diet to a vegetarian/vegan diet is like the difference between donating $1500 per year to charity, and $1600 per year to charity. Or something like that. Both groups of people are working to limit the suffering of animals, just like a person who donates 1500 bucks is contributing to charity in the same way someone who donates 1600 bucks. The problem and dispicable behavior would be if the guy who donated 1600 bucks was saying how much better he was for what he did and how everyone else who donated less was responsible for all this terrible, evil stuff. i still can’t wrap my head around it. if someone rounded up and set all the dogs and cats of the world on fire, it would, in a way, limit the suffering of many OTHER animals (who would be raised for meat for said pets). a single dog needs far more than a single cow/pig/chicken to die to feed it over its lifespan. i’m not sure what the ratio of cow deaths to dog’s life of meals is, but i know it’s not 1:1. so technically, talking of the sheer numbers, someone killing all the dogs and cats in the world would limit the suffering of a greater amount of food animals. can anyone advocate this? is this how ethics should be applied?? because you also miss the quality of life these creatures bring to their human companions as well as their own existence. studies show humans live better/longer lives when they have pets. so how do you weight the suffering of an domesticated food animal who was bred and exists only as food and for no other reason against the health and well-being a dog would bring a human and the better life for BOTH…? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/236 "2012-04-06T15:13:30Z")
> [@XT](#): > > in a weak attempt to justify the fact that you drinking that coke causes untold animal deaths and suffering Tu quoque, conflating commission and omission. > [@XT](#): > > Modern factor farm animals have been bred to BE food, and the trade off to all the things you see as horrible suffering is that they fed all they can eat, don’t have to worry about predators in their day to day lives, don’t have to worry about disease for the most part, and don’t have to fight for survival. Naturalistic fallacy. Ignores mastitis and mens rea. > [@Stoid](#): > > Ending suffering stopping killing are not the same thing. > [@Stoid](#): > > I have zero concern about avoiding harm to every and any animal, so any argument that starts from that premise fails with me out the gate. Ending suffering is based on the least harm/highest pleasure principle of Utilitarianism. Such a principle does not underly consumption of meat. > [@Stoid](#): > > Animals can be raised free of suffering and killed free of suffering, therefore it is not necessary to stop eating animals in order to reduce animal suffering. It is necessary to stop doing things which cause them to suffer. Contributing to an industry complicit in the suffering of animals will not reduce suffering, especially if one does not make any other effort to reduce the suffering of animals. Again, appeals to pasture-fed, comfortable instantly executed animals are appealing, but have little external validity. > [@Stoid](#): > > You’ve proved nothing. I don’t believe in proof. I believe in the capacity to disprove (Popper’s falsifiability). > [@Stoid](#): > > Therefore, “not interfering” in an animal’s life cannot, by definition, be a way to reduce their suffering. You’re correct: interfering in an animal’s life may end the suffering of an animal, but omnivorism implies interference in an animal’s life that has historically increased the suffering of animals and does not imply reducing its suffering. Likewise, in a highly developed society, cannibalism may be practised after euthanising an individual, but those are marginal cases. > [@Stoid](#): > > they LOVE it More anthropomorphic value judgements. As for the slave homology: merely illustrating mens rea. The exact same arguments were offered in both situations though (Robert FitzRoy’s comments on slavery are interesting, for example). > [@Stoid](#): > > In the context of the question of the ethics of meat eating, what is your point? I was addressing the notion that it was immoral to subject the poor to suffering by mandating a vegetarian diet. > [@XT](#): > > So, are you now saying that it IS ‘ethical’ to eat meat, as long as the animal being consumed didn’t ‘suffer’? I think it’s fairly clear that arguments made in the thread are based on reducing suffering and increasing pleasure for as many entities capable of experiencing either as possible. Humans feature primarily but not exclusively in that discussion. > [@XT](#): > > You used the ‘luxury’ argument several times. In response to several other posters claiming that a vegetarian diet would be inimical to the poor. > [@XT](#): > > Hypocrisy Tu quoque. > [@Stoid](#): > > To sell a Bessie who is having “realizations” about things, you have to start by showing me that Bessie is even aware of herself as an individual being at all. A dog can love being a slave, but a Bessie cannot be aware of death? > [@Stoid](#): > > ask the Dalai Lama Appeal to authority? > [@XT](#): > > he was made to be a member of OUR pack Naturalistic fallacy. > [@drewtwo99](#): > > Both groups of people are working to limit the suffering of animals. Omnivorism qua omnivorism is not, by definition, limiting suffering of animals. > [@dontbesojumpy](#): > > can anyone advocate this? No, because the principle is to not commit acts which increase suffering in order to prevent future suffering without consent, the social contract mandating it and sufficient evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/237 "2012-04-06T16:29:44Z")
Like I said: you need to stop using terms you do not grasp especially if you’re going to do so without any attempt to actually support your use of those terms. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/238 "2012-04-06T16:38:52Z")
It’s an appeal to first year philosophy class (the one that non-philosophy majors have to take as a requirement to be ‘well rounded’)…and, obviously it’s the ‘got a D-’ corollary. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/239 "2012-04-06T17:37:46Z")
Well, I’d appreciate it if you’d point out instances where I mistakenly used a term and why it was wrong in context. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/240 "2012-04-06T17:47:11Z")
I have to admit, this is sort of entertaining, in a head shaking kind of way. Let me see if I grasp the thrusts of **Trust** ’s positions: 1. Any entity that has awareness is entitled to application of what **Trust** believes to be “the advanced golden rule.” 2. That “advanced golden rule” directs us to put ourselves in the other entity’s place and imagine what it would want and only do things to the entity that it would want. **Trust** believes in studying the entities to determine what it would want but nevertheless, bottom line, imagines what (s)he would want. Humane slaughter is immaterial because **Trust** imagines that if (s)he was a cow (or another entity) (s)he would not want to have been conceived and reared and put to death before old age took him or her to provide food for another creature. Therefore a cow must not want that, therefore bringing them into the world and killing them before old age takes them is “unethical.” 3. **Trust** believes that “awareness”, however such a term is defined, to begin with insects. Multiple requests by several posters to accept and define gradations of “awareness”, variations of degrees of his/her “advanced golden rule”'s applicability, have been ignored, allowing only for the conclusion that the applicability is all or nothing. If by **Trust** ’s assessment an entity possesses “awareness” then the “advanced golden rule” applies. Period. 4. **Trust** would allow for humane killing of an entity with such awareness in order to save a human life. (A creature that truly is an obligate carnivore can ethically eat meat.) Sort of violating the standard set, as _I_ wouldn’t want to be killed to save a stranger’s life, let alone many of my kin in order to do so, but okay. 5. Following **Trust** ’s logic killing a mosquito whose bite would not kill you, but which was known to carry a Plasmodium sporozoite that causes malaria would not be ethical so long under a condition in which the malaria could be diagnosed and treated before death ensued. (Of course if I was a mosquito I would want to be free to feed on that which I am obligated to feed on and to reproduce so therefore preventing a mosquito from doing so, let alone _killing_ it, is unethical by application of “the advanced golden rule.”) Killing millions of them and depriving many more of adequate environments in which to reproduce would of course be even worse. It is not the mosquito’s fault they are infected with a Plasmodium species; we should find a way to treat them instead! Just so the argument is clear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064.md?page=13)