# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/21 "2012-03-28T19:45:22Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You start off by essentially stating that, if I do not agree with you, I am insane. Frankly, you lost me right there. If you want to whine about one word in my post, while ignoring the actual meaning of what I wrote, go right ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/22 "2012-03-28T19:54:56Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If you want to whine about one word in my post, while ignoring the actual meaning of what I wrote, go right ahead. The rest of your post is unconvincing, poorly chosen rhetoric. You make unwarranted assumptions which you flag with words like “obvious.” You use companion animals like dogs and cats as your examples; this is nothing but an appeal to emotional sorts who are invested in their "fur babies. What is “needless” pain? Happy now? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/23 "2012-03-28T20:04:17Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You make unwarranted assumptions which you flag with words like “obvious.” Are you referring to this: The reason why animals should have fewer rights than humans ought to be equally obvious. Most of the rights that humans have, animals are incapable of understanding. To me it is obvious that human rights such as the right to vote, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trialy by jury, and so forth, could not be understood by any animal. If it’s not obvious to you, c’est la vie. > [@](#): > > You use companion animals like dogs and cats as your examples; this is nothing but an appeal to emotional sorts who are invested in their "fur babies. I brought up cats and dogs only to mention that most people agree that torturing cats and dogs is immoral and should be illegal. This is true, and the law in this country says as much, because that’s what people want. If you think that the only people who feel that way are “emotional sorts”, that’s your opinion, but then we apparently have a whole lot of emotional sorts. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/24 "2012-03-28T20:11:41Z")
I emphatically believe animals are property and should be treated any way the owner wishes. Animals are not people and they have no rights. But something makes me feel oogy about causing them prolonged suffering. So I regularly experience cognitive tension as to whether animal cruelty ought to be illegal & to what degree. Killing them and eating them, though, I have no problem with as long as it is humane and sanitary practices are followed. There are environmental problems with farming and we should try to address these, but the same is true of lots of sub-optimal practices that I can’t and won’t live without. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/25 "2012-03-28T20:33:36Z")
I have said it before and I will say it again: my feelings of uncomfortableness are not reliable guides for social policy. I don’t think people should commit adultery and have been cheated on in the past I strongly sympathize with anyone this happens to but this is not sufficient to make me desire to make cheating illegal. I love animals and I can’t even watch the animal cops shows because of how bad I feel for some of the mistreatment I see, but I don’t think this means we have to outlaw animal cruelty or design elaborate social practices around reducing suffering of animals. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/26 "2012-03-28T20:51:33Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > I agree with **Bricker**. Doesn’t that _hurt_? 😛 The entire case the OP tries to make fails to stand on its own merits. The case is shut rather than open. Beef - it’s what’s for dinner. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/27 "2012-03-28T20:54:27Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > You could make the exact same arguments about eating plants. Most people don’t consider animals to be equivalent to people, so all three of your arguments fail that test. Plants do not have a brain to imagine yourself as or a central nervous system to experience pain. Even if they did suffer (which they do not), we have to produce 5-7 times as many crops to feed the animals so this causes more suffering regardless. > [@Bricker](#): > > The Golden Rule applies to treating other people as you would wish to be treated. Not animals. > > It is not our duty to imagine ourselves as animals in the world and to ask what we would want if we were those animals. The form of the golden rule that I have always heard has been to treat **others** as we would want to be treated. This is a elementary form though. The important part is the ending where we treat others how we would want to be treated **if we were them**. > [@Leaffan](#): > > As long as cheetahs are killing and eating gazelles, for example, I’m quite happy also being an omnivore. Pass the A1 please. I would like to pretend that I am smarter than a cheetah and have the ability to make rational, ethical choices. I can’t speak for the cheetah. > [@erislover](#): > > 1. I do not think the golden rule is a good rule, and even if it were, I don’t think the golden rule should apply to animals. I don’t believe the biological desire to eat flesh is somehow base or icky. Rabbits, could they express it, probably would express that they don’t want to be eaten by anyone. Ready to jail wolves? > > 2. In my opinion all utilitarian analyses assume a level of empirical knowledge that we totally lack and are therefore bankrupt from the get-go. Putting a pig in a pig farm may cause suffering for the pig, and may bring joy to people that will eat the pig. I am not aware of any useful measure to put this suffering and joy on a balance to decide the issue. > > 3. Well, when we farm animals, we cause ongoing suffering. When we remove these farms to make our epic vegetarian farms, we starve them out of a place to live. It isn’t like if we gave up husbandry we’d just dedicate all this land to pig and cattle playpens. So what we’re really judging is whether an animal in an animal farm is better of not having lived at all. On this measure, I’d probably agree, but only because I think this is true of all life, period. > > Additionally, I do think that the least harm principle is sound. All else equal, we should choose whichever path minimizes suffering. But in this case, all else isn’t equal, which would bring us back to (2), or some other kind of analysis in order to compare the cases. I would have to disagree and say the golden rule is one of the best rules that applies to 99% of the choices we make on a daily basis. The only exception is more complex choices that require Utilitarian choices (preferably Christ-like, self-sacrificing for the greater good choices) . If we had followed these three ethical principles we would never have considered slavery of humans as even a remote option. It is not the eating of flesh that is necessarily wrong. If meat grew on trees, I would be all for it. There would be no ethical dilemma. If we were starving to death and needed to eat meat, there would be no ethical dilemma. If we ate cultured meat, there would be no ethical dilemma. Wolves are not capable of expressing as advanced features of ethics and empathy as we are. Utilitarianism is difficult since it requires thinking about very high level, complex outcomes. That is for sure. Simply because something is complex though, it does not make it useless. The problem with your pig example is that you are forgetting the concepts of justice and free will that go along with Utiliatarianism. If you are breaking free will of a living being, we better have a damn good reason for doing it. As demand for conventional meat lowers, less and less animals would be artifically inseminated. We would eventually have places like Farm Sanctuary where the life of an animal is respected for what it is worth. If every animal in existence lived out a natural life and was painlessly killed for us, then we would be able to argue whether involuntarily taking the life of an animal is justified. However, the two choices are not even remotely close since our current system causes probably the most suffering in the world to an unbiased observer when you take into account the effects on both humans and non-humans. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Those same arguments apply towards plants, absent any kind of delineation of what counts as the sort of entity we apply our morals to. And of course, that dividing line is where all the discussion lies: lets say we draw it at ‘being capable of suffering’. Who’s to say that animals are, and plants aren’t? And which animals, exactly, can suffer? The same goes for ‘being conscious’, or anything else. > > Edit: Snooped by **Telemark**. These arguments do not apply to plants since they do not have a brain to imagine yourself as or a central nervous system to experience pain. The very clear line is at plants. Insects most likely do not feel pain, but I certainly try not to step on them if I can. We must study the animals and see how they suffer. It is blatantly obvious when a pig is screaming for its life that it wants to live or when a cow is getting its testicles cut off that it is in pain. > [@Kearsen](#): > > I completely agree. Now just prove that animals are = to people and you are golden. None of these rules only apply to animals since animals suffer just as we do. Not to mention that we are simply further along on the scale. Of course animals are not humans in the traditional sense. All you are proving is that humans are worth more than animals. Take an example. If I have the choice between saving only the life of either a white child or an old black man and I choose to save the white child, does that make me a racist? Of course not. The life of a child is probably the most precious of all life. Similarly, if I have the option of saving an animal or saving a human, if I save the human, does it make me a speciesist? Of course not. The life of a human is more valuable. Am I incredibly sad that someone would have to die? Hell us. Should I do everything in my power to make sure that no one has to die? Hell us. The key point is that we look at the situation as if we are everyone in the situation. We look at the science of what it would be like to be that child and that old man. We look at the science of what it would be like to be that human and that animal. None of them want to die. But we choose the option as if we WERE all parties involved. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I think you’re equating different things, as others have said. Today opinion seems split between groups such as PETA who see animals as having the same rights as humans, and those who are okay with factory farming because they see animals as having no rights. A sane perspective treats animals as having some rights, but far less than humans. > > Few people would, actually, disagrees that animals have some rights. Show people a dog or cat being tortured and almost everyone will agree that it’s morally wrong and should be outlawed. > > The reason why animals should have fewer rights than humans ought to be equally obvious. Most of the rights that humans have, animals are incapable of understanding. All humans understand the concept of freedom, which is why whenever slavery exists, there needs to be constant violence and intimidation to prevent the slaves from demanding their rightful freedom. On the other hand, animals do not have any concept of freedom. Suppose I keep some cows in a field. You, demanding animal freedom, knock down part of the fence and tell the cows that they now have freedom. Well the cows just aren’t smart enough to understand the concept. Some of the them might eventually wander through the hole in the fence, but none of them would ever know that they’re free. Hence many of the rights that are guaranteed to humans cannot be meaningfully assigned to animals. > > I would agree, and most people would, that animals have a right to not be subjected to needless pain, and that the farming process should be required to not inflict great pain on animals. Much modern farming is wrong in this respect, and doubtlessly many people are in denial about how bad it is. However, there is nothing intrinsically unethical about raising animals for food. Frankly, cows don’t even know that they’re being raised for food. They’re not smart enough to grok the concept. So first off, let me be clear that PETA is like Malcolm X. Sure they make some positive changes, but I certainly do not agree with their philosophy. As to who the Martin Luther King Jr. is in this fight for equality, I am not sure. But we desperately need someone like him. I can’t speak for PETA, but I can speak for myself after having thought this through completely. I am not saying that animals deserve rights like us and should have the right to free speach and to hold public office. What I am saying is that animals deserve a single right; the right not to be property. You might be saying to yourself that this would mean that there are no more pets. If you adopt a child into your family, are they your property? Or are they a member of the family? Similarly, if you adopt a pet into your life, they are not your property. They are your family. It is our duty to get away from our current exploitation of animals. We need to find alternatives. Many times these alternatives are much better. Some people cling to the horse drawn carriages and refuse to move to cars though. Change is refused while suffering is ignored. > [@florez](#): > > I am a firm believer in the Golden Rule. > I do not eat meat, mainly for ethical reasons. > Also, I believe that we, as two legged people, do not reign supreme over the animal kingdom. > My only problem with your- following the golden rule logic, is that I do not want others preaching to me about ethics, concerning my diet of choice. > So with that logic, I would not be following the golden rule, by preaching to them, about the ethics concerning their diet of choice. > I would have to find some other way to make that point, if I wanted to follow the golden rule. Let me be clear that I could care less about judging anyone else. This is not aboug judging. This is about following what is right and following justice. The animals in factory farms could care less _why_ they are suffering. They just want it to stop. If we were worried about offending others, we would never make any positive change because there is always someone who will be offended. > [@kanicbird](#): > > You make a case against factory farming, but overextend that to killing and eating any animal. > > We also have to come to terms with who we are and our place in nature and our mortality and it’s role in the circle of life, you seem not to address this. This is a good point. I would strongly argue that taking the life of someone involuntarily is unethical. However, this does not even play a factor yet since over 99% of farm animals are raised in factory farms (according to Farm Forward using USDA statistics). Either way you put it, there is no way to separate the suffering when we exploit others. I can easily come to terms with the fact that I will die. I would rather not have someone come and make me suffer or kill me because they had control over me. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/28 "2012-03-28T21:00:08Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > To me this seems an open and shut case. I evaluate this based on three ethical > principles. > > 1. The Golden Rule. To treat others how we would want to be treated _if we were > them_. There are some pretty crazy people out there but I I have yet to meet > anyone who would volunteer to go through a factory farm or be killed so someone > could eat them. No one in their right mind would want to live the life of the > animals which we all contribute to. Strike one. [Oh, really?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264554) Link to a thread which has a link to a thread about somebody who was voluntarily cannibalized and a Doper knew him!!! ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/29 "2012-03-28T21:24:25Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Plants do not have a brain to imagine yourself as or a central nervous system to experience pain. And cows do not have significantly advanced brains to comprehend suffering or enjoyment as we know it. You are drawing one line, and the rest of the people in the thread are drawing it somewhere else. You haven’t made a compelling case for why we should accept your line. > [@](#): > > Even if they did suffer (which they do not), we have to produce 5-7 times as many crops to feed the animals so this causes more suffering regardless. If I don’t recognize all suffering as being equivalent then your argument still fails. The bottom line is that you are assuming equivalence where there is no consensus. Go back and explain why we should care if a cow suffers because you haven’t made your case. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/30 "2012-03-28T21:31:09Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Wolves are not capable of expressing as advanced features of ethics and empathy as we are. Largely, though not exclusively, this is why I don’t consider them in ethical codes. Rabbits’, cows’, and cats’ inability to reciprocate means the golden rule _as a universal dictum_ cannot apply. If you choose to apply it anyway, in spite of this, I guess all I can say is “enjoy,” but leave your own predilections to yourself. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/31 "2012-03-28T21:31:24Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > To me this seems an open and shut case. I evaluate this based on three ethical > principles. > > 1. The Golden Rule. To treat others how we would want to be treated _if we were > them_. Animals cannot reciprocate. > [@](#): > > No one in their right mind would want to live the life of the > animals which we all contribute to. Strike one. how do you know what the animal is seeing/feeling? They don’t have human perspectives or understanding. > [@](#): > > 1. Utilitarianism. It is our duty to imagine ourselves as everyone else in the > world and to ask what we would want if we were them. Says who? > [@](#): > > It is hard to see how > putting ourselves through a factory farm benefits the greater good. In fact, it > is impossible to see, because, even forgetting justice for a moment, no reward > we get comes close to the suffering they receive. Strike two. I dunno. I don’t like the way “factory farms” are run, but I just last night watched a bunch of nature clips where larger predators like lions took down a zebra, and while one clamped its neck the other lions simply started eating while the zebra was still struggling to get free. Or the crocodiles plucking off antelopes while they crossed a stream; the crocs were simply grabbing antelopes and tearing them to shreds between them. I fail to see how what we do is any worse. > [@](#): > > 1. The Least Harm Principle. None of us are able to completely prevent all > suffering. It would be a monumental mistake to then claim we should not prevent > _any_ suffering. We are causing massive amounts of suffering. Strike three. We’re > out. see above. You’re claiming we have to be held to a higher standard (which you conveniently define) because we should be held to a higher standard. > [@](#): > > There is no doubt that finding alternatives are needed to be able to follow > these three ethical principles, You have yet to explain _why_ we should have to follow your ethical principles. > [@](#): > > but I fail to see how any future civilization > would ever look back at our history and think to themselves we were ethical in > our actions. You mean the same way we look at past civilizations and consider them barbaric? > [@](#): > > Rather, I think they would ask themselves how generations could own > slaves or raise animals just to kill them. I realize we are sucking on the teet > so our conscience loves to rationalize the hell out of this. It took me a long > time to finally admit this but there are only so many excuses we can come up > with before we admit the truth. > > Thoughts? you are why people scoff at vegetarians/vegans. you’re taking a moral absolutist stance that your ethics are the only possible right way to live. Don’t expect too much adulation other than from people who already agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/32 "2012-03-28T21:35:23Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m sorry, but what gives you this impression? It seems pretty obvious that, as a species, we absolutely reign supreme on this planet at this time in history…and have pretty much dominated the planet for at least the last 10k years (or more). That could change…hell, it’s possible that our undoing will be by some bacteria or virus sometime in the future. But today, right now? I don’t see how anyone could even say what you are saying here with a straight face, to be honest. > > As to the OP: > > I don’t see it as either ethical or unethical…it’s reality. We are omnivorous. That’s what we are. So, eating meat is part of how we developed, as a species. We are sentient, however, so we have a choice in how much (or little) meat we eat, or if we want to eat meat at all (assuming one is careful in their diet and makes sure you are getting all the nutrients you need on an all veg. diet). I don’t see that choice as being about ethics, however…it’s simply a choice that each individual makes for themselves. > > In general I think that this is a good rule for treating our fellow humans…though, even there we, as a species, don’t exactly have a great track record. We should STRIVE for this treatment of our fellow human beings. However, trying to translate that into treating all animals the same is, well, ridiculous. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some compassion for animals, but it’s silly to try and equate a mouse with a human being in how they should be treated. > > Horseshit. It’s not our duty to imagine ourselves as every other HUMAN on the planet, let alone having to imagine ourselves as every other animal species on the planet. Again, we should strive to be compassionate and caring about our fellow human beings, and I think it’s admirable to try and alleviate human suffering where ever and when ever we can…but our duty?? And then to try and further up the ridiculous scale by having to do so for ever rat, fish and insect out there?? 😛 > > Again, it’s laudable, if unrealistic, to think of things in these terms wrt our fellow human beings. It’s something that we should strive for, though realistically it’s something that we’ll probably never achieve. To try and put this in terms of every animal out there?? Um, no…that’s just silly. > Here’s the thing. If you want to make a choice not to eat meat due to some ‘ethical’ stance you are making, then more power to you…it means more steak and burgers for me! But many of the animals we raise for food these days have been specifically bread to BE our food…for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. They simply wouldn’t survive ‘in the wild’, even if we assume that humans are just going to make room for them to live wild and free. > > Bottom line is we’re omnivores, and a large percentage of us can and will eat meat. There are so many of us that the only way to have us eat meat is large factory type farms…which is probably not all that pleasant for the animals involved (though mostly it’s probably less grim than you think, when compared to the short and brutal lives they might have lead in the wild, constantly scrounging for food, occasionally starving and in constant danger of having something with large fangs and claws leap on them for a quick meal). > > -XT Obviously we reign supreme in this world. This does not make it ethical to treat others any different than how we would want to be treated if we were them, however. We are given a special place to be good stewards to animals. I certainly do not deny that we have evolved to eat meat. I would strongly argue that meat is not very beneficial to our health and can mostly be detrimental to our health, but regardless, the point is clear that we have this ability. The question is still, are we ethical in doing it? It almost seems like you are denying all ethics in general. Suffering of animals is not a question of ethics? I can’t really follow that line of thinking. I am certainly not saying a mouse should be equated with a human. I am saying we should put ourselves in the mouses shoes…er… feet and ask what we would want if we were them. Obviously this is not as easy as knowing what another human wants (though this can sometimes be tricky itself), it is certainly not impossible to gain this knowledge. There are not that many high level situations you need to consider when you involve other living beings in your ethics. It is not nearly as hard as you make it sound. Certainly not harder than anything else we have done in history. I understand we want to eat meat. I certainly want to. The question is, is it ethical to? Saying, “it could be worse”, does not really help anyone though. > [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Animals are not people. Thank you. > [@Telemark](#): > > So? Can you back up that statement with some reason why that should be a dividing line? Like I said earlier. Animals are clearly alive, feel pain and want to live. Insects are clearly alive and want to live. Plants, while “alive”, do not have a brain to even comprehend what it means to live and do not feel pain. The clear line is between insects and plants. And no… insects are not the same worth as animals. Animals are not the same worth as humans. However, they _were_ created. They are worth a hell of a lot in my mind. Regardless of what us humans put their value at. > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Animal suffering is completely, utterly, and entirely irrelevant to anything. The only reason we care about animal rights is because violating them makes human feel sad, in which case humans are suffering. The animals’ suffering, _per se_, matters not one iota. > > The Golden Rule only applies insofar as the Social Contract allows it. Humans can be treated with dignity because they have the ability to grant me the same treatment in turn. A disabled person, for instance, is able to agree that if they were able-bodied and I were infirm, that they wouldn’t physically abuse me. An animal is unable to make such an agreement with our society. If the roles were reversed, the cow would choose to eat me. If I were suffering, the pig would do nothing to assist me. Because there is no Social Contract between animals and humans, there is not basis for the Golden Rule either. This is a very old world, Descartes type argument. The reason we care about animal rights in the first place is because we know we are causing suffering to the animals. If there were no issues of suffering, justice or free will we would have no issue. It has nothing to do with how it only effects humans although it should certainly be added onto the discussion. This discussion is about ethics. It does not matter whether we theoretically think a cow would eat us if they were in our position. A cow has never harmed us a day in our lives. Whether someone wants to kill us or not has nothing to do with whether killing someone is ethical. The Golden Rule is not some social contract you sign. It is a matter of following the empathy you feel for others. > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > I emphatically believe animals are property and should be treated any way the owner wishes. Animals are not people and they have no rights. But something makes me feel oogy about causing them prolonged suffering. So I regularly experience cognitive tension as to whether animal cruelty ought to be illegal & to what degree. > > Killing them and eating them, though, I have no problem with as long as it is humane and sanitary practices are followed. There are environmental problems with farming and we should try to address these, but the same is true of lots of sub-optimal practices that I can’t and won’t live without. If it is not clear yet, history repeats itself. Every argument we can come up with for why we should keep exploiting animals has already been given 200 years ago. However, in this case, it was for those humans of a different color. Please look at this top 10 list of reasons why we should not abolish slavery. [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/) You fall in line with number 10: **“10.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.”** > [@erislover](#): > > I have said it before and I will say it again: my feelings of uncomfortableness are not reliable guides for social policy. I don’t think people should commit adultery and have been cheated on in the past I strongly sympathize with anyone this happens to but this is not sufficient to make me desire to make cheating illegal. I love animals and I can’t even watch the animal cops shows because of how bad I feel for some of the mistreatment I see, but I don’t think this means we have to outlaw animal cruelty or design elaborate social practices around reducing suffering of animals. This argument could then be extended to all crimes. How do you distinguish between those crimes that cause “enough” suffering to those crimes that are just under the bar of suffering? I would argue that factory farms are the single greatest source of suffering in the world. > [@silenus](#): > > Doesn’t that _hurt_? 😛 > > The entire case the OP tries to make fails to stand on its own merits. The case is shut rather than open. > > Beef - it’s what’s for dinner. Please try to add to the conversation. There has been no evidence given of why the golden rule should exclude certain “others” (animals) but include some “others” (humans). This also did not take into account Utilitarianism or the Least Harm Principle. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/33 "2012-03-28T21:40:24Z")
I reject your false dichotomy. Ethically speaking, the less harm you do to animals, the better, but there is no hard good/bad line. Imperfection does not equal evil. At some point, major pragmatic considerations outweigh minor ethical ones. And there are non ethical considerations, such as health, environmental, legal, and psychological. Also it may seem like nitpicking but the real issue here is the welfare of the animals, not the destination of their remains. ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/34 "2012-03-28T21:59:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m sorry, but what gives you this impression? It seems pretty obvious that, as a species, we absolutely reign supreme on this planet at this time in history…and have pretty much dominated the planet for at least the last 10k years (or more). That could change…hell, it’s possible that our undoing will be by some bacteria or virus sometime in the future. But today, right now? I don’t see how anyone could even say what you are saying here with a straight face, to be honest-XT That I do not agree with the idea of human superiority (reigning supreme), in a way of our being more valuable, or more worthy than other living creatures, is what I meant here. That is my personal belief system, and not one I would force on others. As a species, of course we dominate, I agree with you, and we fit all the human criterion of superiority. Many religions preach that we are the highest form of creation, for example Genesis in the bible totally backs this up. What is also interesting, is how some of the superior human beings, dislike the idea- that they may also be animals, or descendants of animals. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/35 "2012-03-28T22:08:03Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > And cows do not have significantly advanced brains to comprehend suffering or enjoyment as we know it. You are drawing one line, and the rest of the people in the thread are drawing it somewhere else. You haven’t made a compelling case for why we should accept your line. > > If I don’t recognize all suffering as being equivalent then your argument still fails. > > The bottom line is that you are assuming equivalence where there is no consensus. Go back and explain why we should care if a cow suffers because you haven’t made your case. This goes against all scientific knowledge we have. When these animals scream in pain, they are pretending to suffer? Please watch this video and tell me you do not think cows or other farm animals can suffer [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142&hl=en#](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142&hl=en#) Or if you are in a hurry this video [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/THIODWTqx5E/hqdefault.jpg "Farm to Fridge - The Truth Behind Meat Production") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THIODWTqx5E) > [@erislover](#): > > Largely, though not exclusively, this is why I don’t consider them in ethical codes. Rabbits’, cows’, and cats’ inability to reciprocate means the golden rule _as a universal dictum_ cannot apply. If you choose to apply it anyway, in spite of this, I guess all I can say is “enjoy,” but leave your own predilections to yourself. Someone has to do something nice to you before we should return the favor? Does ethics imply that we first receive before we give? > [@jz78817](#): > > Animals cannot reciprocate. > > how do you know what the animal is seeing/feeling? They don’t have human perspectives or understanding. > > Says who? > > I dunno. I don’t like the way “factory farms” are run, but I just last night watched a bunch of nature clips where larger predators like lions took down a zebra, and while one clamped its neck the other lions simply started eating while the zebra was still struggling to get free. Or the crocodiles plucking off antelopes while they crossed a stream; the crocs were simply grabbing antelopes and tearing them to shreds between them. I fail to see how what we do is any worse. > > see above. You’re claiming we have to be held to a higher standard (which you conveniently define) because we should be held to a higher standard. > > You have yet to explain _why_ we should have to follow your ethical principles. > > You mean the same way we look at past civilizations and consider them barbaric? > > you are why people scoff at vegetarians/vegans. you’re taking a moral absolutist stance that your ethics are the only possible right way to live. Don’t expect too much adulation other than from people who already agree with you. We do not need to receive something in return for us to be ethical to others. We study the animals to understand what they perceive and feel. Just because “it could be a lot worse”, does not making something ethical or not. I would rather not lower our intelligence to those of lower animals. Of course we should be held to a higher standard. If someone has better knowledge than someone else, I would hold them to a higher standard than someone who does not. Do you believe that slavery is _sometimes_ ethical? That slavery is sometimes okay so that you do not offend others? If so, how do you explain that logic? I am laying out rational reasons for why I believe that it is unethical to eat meat. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. Because I believe something so passionately that I would non-violently give my life for it, it does not mean I think I am better than anyone else. On the contrary, I simply see the mistakes I made in the past and want others to see what I see now. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/36 "2012-03-28T22:17:04Z")
How do the anti-meat folks reconcile the fact that human beings are omnivores against the morality of consuming animal flesh? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/37 "2012-03-28T22:55:41Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > The form of the golden rule that I have always heard has been to treat **others** as we would want to be treated. This is a elementary form though. The important part is the ending where we treat others how we would want to be treated **if we were them**. Who counts as “others,” and why? Human fetuses or embryos? Rabbits? Fish? Cockroaches? Bacteria? Rocks? Politicians? Computers that can pass the Turing test? > [@](#): > > These arguments do not apply to plants since they do not have a brain to imagine yourself as or a central nervous system to experience pain. The very clear line is at plants. Insects most likely do not feel pain, but I certainly try not to step on them if I can. We must study the animals and see how they suffer. It is blatantly obvious when a pig is screaming for its life that it wants to live or when a cow is getting its testicles cut off that it is in pain. To me (and maybe, from what you’ve written, to you too) the more important ethical issue is not whether we kill and or eat animals, but how we treat them before then. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/38 "2012-03-28T23:01:25Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > How do the anti-meat folks reconcile the fact that human beings are omnivores against the morality of consuming animal flesh? Not antimeat person, but nature isn’t a good role model. Because we are not obligate carnivores, or if we were are we’re smart enough to work around the needing meat. Further human morality generally overrides nature. For example nature has no qualms about rape, but civilized parts of the world are strongly against it. Getting up for an alarm and driving a car isn’t natural either. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/39 "2012-03-28T23:12:33Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Please try to add to the conversation. There has been no evidence given of why the golden rule should exclude certain “others” (animals) but include some “others” (humans). This also did not take into account Utilitarianism or the Least Harm Principle. What add? I reject your entire position. You are attempting to apply human ethics to non-human things. Your position is a false one. Why should I follow the Golden Rule in the first place? I’m not a robot - the Three Laws don’t get programmed into me upon creation. Besides, the Golden Rule is stupid. What if the other guy has different tastes than you? Treating him as I would want to be treated may be the opposite of what he wants? It is the height of arrogance to assume that your position on ethics is everybody’s. In addition, I could give a shit about food and its “feelings.” It’s _food_, and exists to be eaten. I will not anthropomorphize my sandwich. On the gripping hand, act-utilitarianism says eating meat is a Good Thing. So bye-bye to your 2nd statement. And your 3rd statement is messy at best. I’m all for humanely slaughtered meat, if for no other reason than it tastes better. Your “suffering” threshold is bogus. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/40 "2012-03-28T23:13:48Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Not antimeat person, but nature isn’t a good role model. > Because we are not obligate carnivores, or if we were are we’re smart enough to work around the needing meat. Further human morality generally overrides nature. For example nature has no qualms about rape, but civilized parts of the world are strongly against it. > > Getting up for an alarm and driving a car isn’t natural either. but this argument- like the OP- is stating little more than “we should because we can. And because I say so.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064.md?page=3)