# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 21
**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 13, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/401 "2012-04-13T18:36:26Z")
Haven’t read the posts about McD’s eh? ---
**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 13, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/402 "2012-04-13T19:18:45Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Not when there are no regulations in place to even differentiate if meat at the market meets ethical standards. In both instances, they’ll look at their declining profitability and decide to change their practices. I really doubt there’s ever been a significant movement that’s drawn meat eaters away from one distributor and towards another because of their unethical practices. So you’re saying that meat producers have changed their practices spontaneously? That’s even more ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/403 "2012-04-14T09:52:40Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > So you’re saying that meat producers have changed their practices spontaneously? They’ll conduct market research and change their marketing ploys long before they change their business practices. When there was a perception that McDonalds food was unhealthy in the 90s, they just got a bunch of athletes to endorse McDonalds. Did that change the nutritional content of McDonalds food? Not a bit. ---
**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 14, 2012, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/404 "2012-04-14T10:35:32Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > They’ll conduct market research and change their marketing ploys long before they change their business practices. When there was a perception that McDonalds food was unhealthy in the 90s, they just got a bunch of athletes to endorse McDonalds. Did that change the nutritional content of McDonalds food? Not a bit. How this supports your bizarro interpretation of how the market works and profits are made I cannot begin to guess. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/405 "2012-04-14T11:04:13Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > How this supports your bizarro interpretation of how the market works and profits are made I cannot begin to guess. Why don’t you explain how markets and profit work and how it varies from what you see as my interpretation? Because the impression I get from you is that each outlet cares about its customers opinion on the product they receive rather than the fact that the customer will return in order to purchase. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/406 "2012-04-15T12:37:06Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Done it. Repeatedly. You get stuck in certain grooves and things that dont’ fall into those grooves don’t exist for you. I dont’ have time to ignored or have my statements misrepresented so you can respond the way you want. > > yeah, so what. When you find someone in this thread who has said they are choosing to ignore animal suffering (which is what you are driving around the back to get to, DUH) you be sure to let us all know, because no one except you has noticed anyone taking that position. > No he doesn’t. Most people dont’ need it explained to them. That you have personally chosen to have, well, not NO sliding scale, but a much less flexible one, puts no burden on anyone else at all to explain their different choice. No one is asking you to approve their ethical choices, you know, why do you keep stating things as though you are the Decider of What is Genuinely Ethical? > By definition, there’s no one in this thread choosing to ignore consideration of others. Also no one choosing to “choosing to ignore consideration” (choosing not to consider) animals, either. Again, when you locate someone who is doing that, let us all know. While we might not be choosing to completely ignore animal suffering, we are certainly attempting to lower the worth of animals to benefit ourselves. If we agree that eating factory farmed meat (and therefore the majority of all meat) is unethical, then we should say this and spend our time focusing on the very small minority of meat that comes from “more ethical” sources. I am not aware of anyone who has said that factory farmed meat is unethical. > [@Stoid](#): > > Because other people’s ethics aren’t yours, Decider of Ethics for Everyone (in your own mind) In other words, you do not believe that something can be inherently ethical? > [@Stoid](#): > > Cuz the animals are different. They’re animals. No one is saying that the animals are not different. What is important, is the reason why being different means we can lower their consideration of interests. > [@Stoid](#): > > Of course its different. Slavery was about human beings. Human beings are different than animals. \<\<\<\<\<------------(one of the main things you just ignore so you can repeat the argument you like. Wanna ignore it again? I bet you do…) Let’s pretend that when we took the DNA test of women or blacks, that the results showed that they were not humans. Would this have changed anything in your mind? Do they not have the exact same physical responses to pain, regardless of what some test shows? Do they not have the exact same capacity to suffer? Why would belonging to the same species matter? It would not matter. No one is saying that animals are the same as human beings. What I am saying is that the exact same arguments that were used to try to exploit and take advantage of the slaves are being used to try to exploit and take advantage of animals. We want to only look at the part of the equation that benefits us and either completely ignore the part of the equation that causes them to suffer or at the very least try to minimize the impact of the other side of the equation. > [@Stoid](#): > > People (especially the ones you are talking to in this thread) aren’t ignoring animals, so it would _AWESOME_ if you would stop saying it! I mean AWESOME! We could throw a party to celebrate the awesomeness of you refraining from saying things that have nothing to do with what anyone else is saying or doing! Wheeeeeeeeee… It has been said in this thread that the _interests_ of animals is a sliding scale. Save for the fact that we are using different definitions of _interests_, by definition, this means that we are at least partially ignoring the animals. > [@Stoid](#): > > And everyone determines their ethics for themselves, and it’s pretty clear that boatloads of people do it differently than you. And they are justified in doing so. Think you can handle it? While everyone is free to determine ethics, the point is that we discuss _why_ we determined something as ethical or not. If someone says that ethical egoism is how they determine ethics, I can rationally respond to why this is not a logical conclusion. > [@XT](#): > > Who are ‘those who are aware of the world’, exactly? By merely repeating your assertion it does not provide additional illumination of whatever point you think you are making here. Those who are aware of the world include insects all the way to humans. Rocks are obviously not aware of the world. Plants do not have a brain to comprehend the world. > [@XT](#): > > I have attempted to explain this to you multiple times in multiple ways, with others attempting the same thing. It has been a vain hope that any of it would get through to you. No…I’m not going to go down your 12 point list in a point by point discussion, as it would do no good, since the basic point seems to elude you. Essentially, Stoid’s ‘Cuz the animals are different. They’re animals’, ‘Animals aren’t parties’, ‘Animals aren’t people’ and ‘Of course its different. Slavery was about human beings. Human beings are different than animal’ suffice. When you can grasp the basic concept that the lines you are setting are arbitrary, that they are meaningful to YOU, but are neither transcendental nor absolute across the board of culture, society or individual world view, and that this point matters in any discussion about ethics or morals in such gray area questions, then perhaps there could be further discussion. For now, you ain’t gettin it, kimosabe, and the discussion resembles a hamster running on a Dali-esque wheel through an Echer landscape. We are getting no where fast, and it’s getting really, really weird up in this thing. Simply stating, “Because the animals are different”, is not a valid reason for ignoring animals interests. You need to explain the logic behind why “Because the animals are different” means we can ignore part or all of their interests. You have simply refused to explain this. There is no rational reason that we can ignore the interests of animals if you believe that they have the capacity to suffer. > [@XT](#): > > Read this sentence you posted here. > > Then read this one. Warning…reset your irony meter to shields up and on full, with all auxiliary power poured in along with as many hamsters as you can get running. > > In case you missed it, you DO have “a sliding scale of ‘consideration of animals’”, it’s not really a ‘major point of contention’, except where the arbitrary lines are drawn. It IS pretty funny though. You still seem to be misunderstanding what “interests” means and equating equal consideration with equal worth. We already agree that animals are not worth as much as humans so I will not spend time discussing that point. What we need to discuss is interests. If someone is capable of suffering, there is no moral justification for failing to take that suffering into consideration. Equal “interests” requires us to count the suffering of any other, regardless of their species, with the like suffering of everyone else. Racists violate equal “interests” by giving more weight to the interests of their own race. Similarly, speciesists give more weight to to the interests of their own species. In both cases, the line of interests in drawn in an arbitrary way. What race or species you belong to is not a rational line for ignoring interests of others. The only rational line is between those who are capable of having interests and those who are not. Namely, between insects and plants. > [@XT](#): > > Rationality is also arbitrary and depends on ones viewpoint and world view. For instance, you obviously feel you are being rational in this thread, while I fundamentally disagree. Ethics are another one of those touchy spots, as well attempts to equate humans with other species on the one hand while later acknowledging that, well, really we aren’t all equal, and in fact that some species need to have their ‘considerations’ respected, or something, while others don’t. All arbitrarily set by you, of course, as the yard stick that we all should simply accept and acknowledge to form the basis of what is or isn’t ethical. Or something. Echer. Dali. Hamster. > > How can I explain something so fundamental an obvious to someone who refuses to get it? How can I put something in terms of rationality when someone has thrown their rationality out the window in this discussion? How can I lead a horse to water while attempting to change to another horse midstream AND beat it to death while trying to check it’s teeth to see if it’s a good deal as a gift?? Why do fools fall in love? > > But on a serious note, and I am only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated beverages on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing. Try and keep that firmly in mind, ok? And be safe out there little cow hand…it’s getting a bit weird. > > -XT As stated above, the _real_ arbitrary line is to claim that we can ignore or use a sliding scale of interests because someone is an animal vs a human. > [@Stoid](#): > > I don’t accept #3, which is actually a combined statement. > > It is _ **not necessary** _ to cause pain to animals in order to eat them. > > Painless slaughter is not only possible, it’s routinely practiced and in fact is legally required and has been since 1958: > > The law can be strengthened, there can be better enforcement, there can be better methods- all conceded. But the imperfection in pursuit of the goal does not make the goal unattainable, by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore it is false to state that it is necessary to cause pain in order to eat animals. Since your “logical” argument is founded on a false premise, it isn’t really very logical. > > Since that is the truth, and it is also true that most people want to eat animals (although they wouldn’t express it like that…), and it is also true that most people don’t want to cause animals to suffer, it looks as though the _ **most** _ **effective** way to approach solving the problem of animal suffering caused in the course of meat production is to improve the laws, the enforcement, and the methods of humanely raising and killing animals for food, not doggedly pursuing the Sisyphean task of persuading humanity to stop eating meat altogether. Since birds are not included in the Humane Slaughter Act, over 90% of the animals killed for food are not protected. According to USDA statistics, millions of chickens are submerged in scolding hot water while fully conscious every year. Even the animals who are covered, many times are stunned improperly and have their throats slit while fully conscious. Is it theoretically possible to raise an animal, kill it, and never have it suffer? I guess it’s technically possible. If you agree that factory farmed meat (and therefore 99% of our meat according to Farm Forward/USDA statistics) is unethical, then please make this clear. This would obviously rule out just about any place we buy our food from. If this is the case, then we can discuss whether animals should be exploited for our own gain. Back in the day, it was a noble thing to want better conditions for slaves. Sure. But why would you set out with the goal of only wanting “better” conditions for slaves? Why support the system at all? I fully admit that this is a temporary measure. But it is just that, temporary. It is impossible to feed our growing population based on humane meat production. We are already looking into what essentially amounts to factory farms on top of factory farms, which is beyond disgusting [Catalyst : ABC iview](http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3470203.htm) We already have issues with e-coli, salmonella, Avian flu, Swine flu, Mad cow disease, etc. Everything about this is just a disaster waiting to happen. With our current system, it is not really a question of “if”, but a question of “when”. As someone who takes all lives into consideration, I would like to prevent another Spanish flu, for both the animals _and_ us humans. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/407 "2012-04-16T17:33:41Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > … We are already looking into what essentially amounts to factory farms on top of factory farms, which is beyond disgusting [Catalyst : ABC iview](http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3470203.htm) … Your link takes me to an article about lab-grown meat protein products, which is pretty much the exact opposite of factory farming and, in fact, removes and thus solves the issue of animal suffering entirely. How does that support your case? ---
**Author:** ![CyclopticXander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@CyclopticXander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyclopticXander)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/408 "2012-04-16T18:11:04Z")
This is a very long thread thread and my view may already be represented somewhere in here, but I’ll just jump in. I don’t think that eating meat in of itself is unethical, it’s situational. I think that the pain experienced by the animals doesn’t outweigh the suffering of starving humans. I don’t think it is unethical to eat out of necessity or lack of other options. But… If you live in the developed world I don’t think your desire for a good taste outweighs putting animals in pain, especially given the terrible suffering caused by factory farming. They have some sort of limited consciousness and definitely experience pain, so I don’t see how I could justify eating meat myself ---
**Author:** ![zookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/9dc877/32.png) [@zookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zookies)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/409 "2012-04-17T19:36:49Z")
I wonder how many who believe eating meat is unethical also fear over-population. And of those that think it is OK to eat meat, what do they think of eating dogs in the far east, and eating horses in France. 1. Is it ethical to eat flesh? 2. Is the world over populated? 3. Is it OK to eat dogs? 4. is it OK to eat horses? My answer would be, without hesitation, 1011. Even though I don’t want to eat a dog. But I would if I were starving. ---
**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 17, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/410 "2012-04-17T20:54:31Z")
> [@zookies](#): > > I wonder how many who believe eating meat is unethical also fear over-population. And of those that think it is OK to eat meat, what do they think of eating dogs in the far east, and eating horses in France. > > 1. Is it ethical to eat flesh? > 2. Is the world over populated? > 3. Is it OK to eat dogs? > 4. is it OK to eat horses? > > My answer would be, without hesitation, 1011. Even though I don’t want to eat a dog. But I would if I were starving. I’ve always been under the impression that eating th flesh of a carnivore was unpleasant. Maybe it’s a myth I heard, I dont’ know, but that’s always my reaction to the idea of eating dogs or cats, is that it would be disgusting on some very practical level because they are carnivorous. But aside from that, my feeling about eating dogs or horses or any other animal is the same about eating the animals we do eat: dont’ be cruel. Don’t make them suffer. But once they are dead, they are just meat. We are all just meat once we’re dead, which is why I dont’ have a personal problem with cannibalism. I wouldn’t do it myself because I’m super-queasy and can’t really eat anything I haven’t grown up eating, but I have no moral or ethical issues with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064.md?page=20)