# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/121 "2012-03-31T20:25:47Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > This presuposes several points, many of which you haven’t provided any evidence for. > > Not all animal raising uses human feed stocks nor do the food stocks they use compete with human food stocks for farmland. > > As an example, there are vast areas of Wyoming/Utah/Colorado,Nevada etc… that are completely useless for growing anything but grass. > > 1. You have given no evidence that if the general population moved to a vegan lifestyle with no other changes there would be a drop in heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis etc… > > 2. What effects do we avoid, and by what mechanism? it is hard to know what they are and if we want to avoid them if they are not defined. > > 3. How would cultured meat dramatically change the amount of resources that are required to produce a set number of calories in flesh? What is so different about cultured flesh that it doesn’t cause heart attacks? Good post. I’ll get some statistics when I have some time. > [@DSeid](#): > > **Trust** , > > I certainly support humane slaughter, but OTOH the point that has been made previously in this thread still stands: where you draw the line is arbitrary. Do you apply your Golden Rule to bacteria? To worms? To insects? To mollusks? If not why not? The line is not arbitrary at all. The golden rule applies to anything that is aware of the world. Inanimate objects are clearly not aware of the world. Plants clearly do not have brains or a central nervous system to experience pain. Likewise, bacteria do not have brains or complex central nervous systems to experience pain. Insects, however, do have brains and are aware of the world. Therefore, the golden rule starts with them. Obviously it recognizes that they most likely do not feel pain. Animals have brains and experience pain and exhibit the same sort of emotional stress and physical pain symptoms as us. > [@xtisme](#): > > No, what you fail to see is that the concept of farm sanctuaries are a pure fantasy of your own devising. If everyone stopped eating meat then most of the food species would die out. We’d need the room to grow all the non-meat foods that would be needed to feed the earths population. We’d not be likely to spend large resources maintaining animal populations for domesticated animals that no longer have any use. Oh, we might keep a few in zoos and such (though I doubt it…I doubt most people would want to go to a zoo to see a cow, a sheep, a pig or a chicken), but most of them would just die of and not be replaced. Seriously…you can’t REALLY think that humans would spend vast resources to keep these animals at anything like their present population. Do you? We currently have farm sanctuaries. There is no valid reason why they would go away if there was far fewer animals. If anything, the importance of them would become greater. No one is saying that we would keep all of the current animals. As demand slows, we would no longer artificially inseminate them to produce more. The few left would be at farm sanctuaries. > [@xtisme](#): > > I hope that you realize that you need many of the micro nutrients in meat to live, and if you don’t get them you have to diet VERY carefully to get them in non-meat foods. Because, if you don’t know this you will, sadly, die. And it won’t be a pleasant death. > > Now…translate that effort several billion more times, assuming you could ever get everyone in the world to stop eating meat (something just slightly more likely than your farm sanctuaries, on the probability scale). I am surprised you fall for this argument. We certainly need to be smart about what we eat, but to talk about micronutrients that are easily obtained, when we are dying from heart disease and cancer is intellectually dishonest. Since we live in the netflix age, I recommend watching ‘Forks over Knives’. > [@xtisme](#): > > In order to apply ethics as you are attempting to do it, there has to be some reciprocity. Why does there have to be reciprocity? Like I said, whether something is ethical or not has nothing to do with what you receive in return. Can you explain why we have to get something in return? > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > If the reduction of suffering is your goal, you may want to avoid the Mother Teresa quotes. > > [URL=“[http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/mother\_teresa/sanal\_ed.htm](http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm)”] Interesting. Never heard that one. > [@erislover](#): > > The golden rule is applied from humans to humans. This is its normal application. You wish to extend it to animals, I think that requires some serious justification. My justification is that others, means just that… others. The elementary golden rule says: _Do to others what you would want done to yourself_ The more advanced golden rule says: \*Do to others what you would want done to yourself if you were them \* Can you explain the logic behind including some “others” (humans) but excluding some “others” (animals) ? > [@erislover](#): > > I am not asking you to deny facts to establish your position, or demonstrating that your position is wrong because of facts. I am wondering why it matters that animals and humans are different _for your argument that eating meat is unethical_ because the fact that humans and animals are different is usually the start of the analysis that _it is not unethical to eat meat_. Maybe meat eaters are wrong and draw the wrong conclusions from this difference. I leave it to you. It matters in so much as that I am logically consistent. If I said that animals and humans were the same, this would have logical inconsistencies such as the fact that humans clearly have higher intelligence. However, intelligence has nothing to do with whether someone should be killed. > [@erislover](#): > > That is why I don’t think utilitarianism is a sound ethical system. Not because it creates complications, but that its complications are not answerable by utilitarianism in the first place. With an abstract “everything counts and everything counts equally” rule in place, we don’t call it utilitarianism we call it cost-benefit analysis. In cost-benefit analysis, a criminal’s lack of freedom counts exactly as much as an innocent victim’s lack of freedom. A drug user’s desires are as socially important as a nun’s desires. But even here, we exclude animals, except inasmuch as humans want thing from animals (including their non-farming). But the origin of the measure is humans by humans. There’s no gap to bridge. You are taking the most advanced questions and wondering why utilitarianism is difficult. It would be like starting to learn science by trying to crack quantum mechanics. You need to start with actual, real life examples. Not some theoretical question that will never happen. The original definer of Utilitarianism was Jeremy Bentham and he was an animal rights advocate so I am not sure where you are seeing that it was originally human to human. In my post #81 I show why these people who lived in the 1700’s were so far ahead of their times. They applied simple ethical theories. > [@erislover](#): > > Unbiased? I wish for your unbiased measure, because I think farm animals aren’t engaged in non-stop suffering and that a single animal’s death can satisfy multiple people. If we then agree that humans are more valuable than animals [to humans] then one can see that there’s a possibility for the calculation to go either way—animal farming is/is not a net happiness benefit. I do not dispute that _if_ we count animal suffering in the same way as human suffering, and that animals broadly suffer in the same way people suffer, that animal farming would be a horrible injustice. But you agree humans don’t count the same way as animals. So now we need some other way to establish your position. > These are indeed important costs to consider that often don’t get included in this debate. If I started with elementary Utilitarianism, then yes, there would be a _possibility_ that our benefit would be greater than the animals since we would be ignoring free will, justice, etc. However, I start with the golden rule and it violates that right off the bat. > [@erislover](#): > > Maybe we will, but I doubt it. Because there was a time we disregarded the needs of insects and we still disregard the needs of insects, even though insect life is unquestionably valuable to all other life. I think the slavery analogy is _very apt_ and there is no denying that similar arguments have been made in support of both practices and this is a real concern. But we now have the tools to dispute the practice of slavery: they are humans, we have the DNA evidence, we have other evidence that shows that they aren’t lesser beings. And I am asking you, specifically, to bridge this gap for cows. You are obsessed with me disputing your conclusions; I would accept your conclusions, if I felt satisfied that you’ve established them. You think the only reason slavery was wrong is because we all of a sudden found out they were humans by their DNA? Wow… The reason it was wrong was because of the clear suffering. It is not like we needed a DNA test to prove that. We know the animals suffer. There is not much more you need to know. We should at the very least be trying to prevent that suffering. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/122 "2012-03-31T20:43:42Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > No the majority of cattle in this country are raised on pasture land … Pasture land that otherwise “are completely useless”? Not much that used to be forest, or prairie with grasses that trapped carbon in very deep root systems, or could also be used for crops? Care to back up that claim? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/123 "2012-03-31T21:00:20Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > My justification is that others, means just that… others. Other people. Not other species. > [@](#): > > The elementary golden rule says: > _Do to others what you would want done to yourself_ > > The more advanced golden rule says: > \*Do to others what you would want done to yourself if you were them \* If I were an animal, I don’t know how I would know what I want. I don’t know how animals think and feel. What you’re asking me to do is anthropomorphize animals. Clearly, when they do that, animals will desire human things. **Do you really think this is a sound way to understand ethics regarding animals?** > [@](#): > > Can you explain the logic behind including some “others” (humans) but excluding some “others” (animals)? Yes. I can understand other humans because I am a human. I cannot usually understand animals because I am not an animal. I do not tell other humans what they think; I ask them what they think. I do not tell animals what to think, and I cannot ask them what they think. > [@](#): > > It matters in so much as that I am logically consistent. If I said that animals and humans were the same, this would have logical inconsistencies such as the fact that humans clearly have higher intelligence. However, intelligence has nothing to do with whether someone should be killed. I agree that intelligence is not the best basis for justifying killing. > [@](#): > > You are taking the most advanced questions and wondering why utilitarianism is difficult. It would be like starting to learn science by trying to crack quantum mechanics. You need to start with actual, real life examples. Not some theoretical question that will never happen. I don’t wonder why utilitarianism is difficult. It is plain to see why utilitarianism is difficult. It supposes measures we don’t have. Even if we bypass human-to-human problems of understanding wants and needs, extending utilitarian analysis to animals assumes things for which the human measures would not apply _unless you viewed animals as moral equals to humans_. I do not know how anyone justifies this. > [@](#): > > The original definer of Utilitarianism was Jeremy Bentham and he was an animal rights advocate so I am not sure where you are seeing that it was originally human to human. The concepts you mention are not the sole province of utilitarians and those concepts motivate things like democracy, not animal rights. > [@](#): > > If I started with elementary Utilitarianism, then yes, there would be a _possibility_ that our benefit would be greater than the animals since we would be ignoring free will, justice, etc. Again, concepts we apply to humans, because we can hash out, human to human, and come to social agreements, which is the province of ethics. **Pointedly, animals have never been invited to such discussions.** Therefore you need some way to bring their wants and needs into the fray. So far, all you’ve offered me is Walt Disney anthropomorphizing. I am not particularly swayed by imagining myself as a cat. It is an interesting way to start to consider the question, but I don’t think it can stand as a justification. > [@](#): > > You think the only reason slavery was wrong is because we all of a sudden found out they were humans by their DNA? That is not what I said. > [@](#): > > We know the animals suffer. There is not much more you need to know. There is, because **I don’t know how I am supposed to weigh the suffering of an animal with the suffering of a human** , a point I have been repeatedly asking you and which you repeatedly fail to establish. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/124 "2012-03-31T21:28:03Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Pasture land that otherwise “are completely useless”? Not much that used to be forest, or prairie with grasses that trapped carbon in very deep root systems, or could also be used for crops? > > Care to back up that claim? I already provided a cite that showed the historical ruminant population was estimated to only have 30% less greenhouse gas emissions compared to the current cattle industry. So unless you have some evidence that it would revert back to some super pre-Colombian state your request is pure speculation. The fact that you infer that farmers would grow alfalfa which is one of the lowest value crops by choice is dismissive of the hard working and smart women/men who feed us all. Here is a link to show you what the economic realities are on marginal land, high producing land may be run as pasture as a part of rotation but it would be economically silly to run it as perm pasture. [http://aes.missouri.edu/fsrc/research/afgc95km.stm](http://aes.missouri.edu/fsrc/research/afgc95km.stm) I am also still not convinced that pure farming would be a good thing, many crops could not be grown organically without manure but to be fair you haven’t stated an objection to chemical fertilizers. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/125 "2012-03-31T22:43:15Z")
**r.a.** , Huh? I have no idea what your post has to do with my request. Yes, historic ruminants running wild over all the land produced 30% less GHG than the modern beef industry does. (Of course ignoring the carbon capture of the environment which supported them as opposed to the fossil fuel reliant GHG costs of the meat industry infrastructure.) And that informs on any of this how? Would land that is currently used for grazing and producing feed for the meat industry be repurposed if it was not used for those purposes? Or is it all only good for “growing grass”? Would those repurposes produce food (even poultry) or have other positive impacts that might decrease climate change risks? Your last cite in fact provides evidence that even grazing that is done on very marginal land is potentially usable for row crops, let alone for various grasses that might have a biomass for energy market in the future. You seem to think that if those lands were not used for the support of the meat industry they would be left to become wild prairies “back-filled” with herds of bison and elk. That seems like an odd expectation to me. Where did you get alfalfa from?!? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/126 "2012-04-01T01:03:51Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **r.a.** , Huh? > > I have no idea what your post has to do with my request. > > Yes, historic ruminants running wild over all the land produced 30% less GHG than the modern beef industry does. (Of course ignoring the carbon capture of the environment which supported them as opposed to the fossil fuel reliant GHG costs of the meat industry infrastructure.) And that informs on any of this how? > > Would land that is currently used for grazing and producing feed for the meat industry be repurposed if it was not used for those purposes? Or is it all only good for “growing grass”? Would those repurposes produce food (even poultry) or have other positive impacts that might decrease climate change risks? > > Your last cite in fact provides evidence that even grazing that is done on very marginal land is potentially usable for row crops, let alone for various grasses that might have a biomass for energy market in the future. You seem to think that if those lands were not used for the support of the meat industry they would be left to become wild prairies “back-filled” with herds of bison and elk. That seems like an odd expectation to me. > > Where did you get alfalfa from?!? It is a little hard to have a discussion about ranching and agriculture with someone who doesn’t know where much of our hay and forage comes from. And yes 80% of the land in the US is not viable for food production. show me the information about these biomass applications please. And yes, given fallow land, like you were claiming would be usable as a carbon sink I do expect deer and maybe elk to back fill. ---
**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 1, 2012, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/127 "2012-04-01T03:28:17Z")
Not where alfalfa comes from, where you got alfalfa from in this discussion. About the use of [marginal land](http://www.wgbn.wisc.edu/key-concepts/biomass-conservation-lands) for [biomass](http://southeastfarmpress.com/management/kentucky-s-marginal-land-has-great-energy-potential). Now recent rulings about new coal plants that do not adequately encourage biomass co-firing may discourage it for now, but longer term, as NG prices go back up, it may be something that is returned to. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/128 "2012-04-01T03:44:36Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Not where alfalfa comes from, where you got alfalfa from in this discussion. [Alfalfa hay is the one of the types of hay you use to feed cows](http://www.hobbyfarms.com/crops-and-gardening/hay-feeding-14792.aspx#cattle) Being the most valuable I was showing best case for pasture/forages vs farming. Hay and forage is what most cows eat for most of their life. ---
**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 1, 2012, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/129 "2012-04-01T04:05:30Z")
vegans are cute. go to africa, explain the morality of “food” to them and explain they have to limit their already severely limited diet. because of ethics. i like this “we have this luxury so let’s pretend we’re higher-minded” attitude. what about all the THOUSANDS of critters that die in even organic vegetable farms? uncountable amounts of voles, mice, rabbits, etc are thrashed in combines and harvesters. pesticides (of the harsh chemical or natural variety) kill hundreds of thousands of bugs and small animals. coyotes/deer and other ‘vermin’ are culled. i never hear vegans talk about this…but counting basic living organisms, a great multitude die directly or indirectly in vegetable agriculture. seems to me humans: have to conquer, to whatever degree, nature. and things gotta die. playing this “one way is more ethical than the next” game is kind of arbitrary to me… none of this is to mention our biological omnivorous attributes or the fact meat _IS_ food. ---
**Author:** ![Tab\_Q.Wertus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@Tab\_Q.Wertus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tab_Q.Wertus)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/130 "2012-04-01T07:14:59Z")
There are quite a few posts that argue that we can invent ethical rules out of thin air because it’s the same way we invented rules against murder and rape. I have to disagree. As humans we are the superior species on this planet and we excel in many things. But one thing we can’t do: Surviving alone. To survive as a species we have to cooperate with others. For example: Because we have a very long childhood we need someone who tends to the kids while some one else is getting the food. At first the groups were small, maybe just one family living in a cave - but with the development of more complex needs the groups had to become bigger to fulfill this needs. And there where always rules against murder between the cooperating individuals, because no one would want to be part of a group if he has to live in constant fear of being killed by the guy next to him. Therefore we evolved into social beings. But there was no big need for rules against killing outside the cooperating group. They were competing for the same resources. They were the enemy. Which explains why our history is full of wars and bloodshed. It may be good to remember that the times of political and social Darwinism are not so long gone (if at all). Today we have to cooperate with thousands of other individuals just to fulfill a pretty basic and obviously beneficial need like an appendectomy. Think of all the miners, steelworkers, engineers, nurses, doctors and all the others in between. Think of all the stuff in your home. How many does it take to build all that? We have to cooperate and we need a rule against murder to do so. Rules against rape where also good for the group. Because raising a child is an expensive endeavor, potential fathers want to know that they really are the father. And potential mothers want to choose the best father for their children. And even the child has an interest in not being conceived during a rape. If it is raised by loving parents in a stable household it has a better chance to succeed later in live. (And the duck-rape-article linked in an earlier post shows that nature/evolution is not the biggest fan of rapists.) But the rule against rape was also only valid within the group – giving slave-owners and victorious soldiers ample opportunity to rape the “others”. The rules against murder and rape where not pulled out of thin air. They are enforced because they are good for us. For mankind as a species. Can we say the same about a rule not to eat meat? You can try to make a case that eating meat is bad for your health and that the production of meat is a waste of resources. But in my opinion both arguments fall short. The big health risk is obesity not the poisonous effects of flesh. Sure, it is easier to over eat with meat and animal fat than with fruits and vegetables but eat enough 100% vegan french fries and you will risk the same heart attack. On the other hand not eating any meat is also unhealthy and especially to little kids outright dangerous. And the OP argues that we shouldn’t eat any flesh at all. As for wasting resources: Maybe we do, maybe we don’t. Let’s eat only half the amount of meat. We should be golden. But again, that is not what the OP want’s us to do. He explicitly want’s us to forgo all consumption of meat. But should we base or ethics only on what is god for mankind? Good god! No! But the OP tries to sell his ethics as some kind of universal truth. And if it comes to that, a rule that benefits mankind always trumps one that doesn’t. Will future generations look back and think of us as unethical monsters that enslave, torture and kill animals for no good reason? Probably. But not because they are somehow enlighten and have seen the error of our ways. They will be able to synthesize meat that is superior to the best natural beef we have and they will forget that we were not able to do the same. We shouldn’t be concerned about that. Later generations never really grok there ancestors. That’s the way things go. PS: There should be a lot more phrases like “seems to me” and “in my opinion” in this post. But to keep it at least somewhat readable I followed the good old tradition of presenting my opinions as facts. And I hope my English is not that bad that “my meaning [got] lost or misconstrued”. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/131 "2012-04-01T11:16:28Z")
“Mr. McClure? I have a crazy friend who says its wrong to eat meat. Is he crazy?” “No Jimmy. Just ignorant!” Clearly the OP has never heard of the “food chain”. Don’t kid yourself **Trust**. If a cow ever got the chance, he’d eat you and everyone you care about! There really is no argument against eating pigs, cows and chickens that isn’t absurd. If your survival depended on having to catch and kill a chicken for food in the wild, only a lunatic would argue that it was “unethical” to do so. And said lunatic would likely soon starve to death anyway. The fact that modern society largely allows us to separate our work tasks so that most of us aren’t directly involved in food production doesn’t mean that we don’t still have those same dietary requirements. This is what we like to call a “rich country problem”. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/132 "2012-04-01T13:24:55Z")
> [@](#): > > If your survival depended on having to catch and kill a chicken for food in the wild It can’t and it won’t. > [@](#): > > they have to limit their already severely limited diet. because of ethics. Likewise, this is a fantasy. Humans may have been hunters before they were agricultural, but with the advent of agriculture it has always been more efficient to produce crops than to domesticate animals just because of energy loss in trophic levels. Edit: In fact, our current diets are far more harmful to the third world than alternatives. They contribute more to climate change and the raising of meat requires far more crop space than if we had just raised crops to eat (comparing average vegetarian diet and average meat diet). > [@](#): > > a rule that benefits mankind always trumps one that doesn’t. Why? Could mankind be defined as much smaller than it currently is, but less volatile? > [@](#): > > especially to little kids outright dangerous. Cite? > [@](#): > > If you don’t get those from something else, you’ll get sick or, you know, die, which really would suck, even if you didn’t enjoy it. [Not necessarily](http://www.mikemahler.com/online-library/articles/mma-training/ufc-fighter-mac-danzig-vegan-diet.html). Obesity is commoner in [meat eaters](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm) than [vegetarians](http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/6/1267.full) it seems. Other negative health effects of vegetarianism do not seem to outweight that benefit to [lifespan](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10555529). Side note, I’ve read Wigan Pier and found it hilarious. > [@](#): > > A question for the OP If we assume it is unethical to kill fish/birds/mammals. > [@](#): > > well then, why wouldn’t it be equally ‘ethical’ for us to munch on them? These are all tu quoque and they conflate comission with omission. > [@](#): > > Are you getting the ‘one of these things ain’t like the other’ point yet, or should I continue? > [@](#): > > So what? We are omnivorous and we murder and rape. Plus we pilot ships and planes. And? We are still what we are, and that means we are meat eaters by nature and general inclination as well, which means…it’s ‘ethically’ appropriate for us to eat meat. I’m asking why we should accept the naturalistic fallacy in the case of eating meat and not rape. > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with ‘ethics’ or ‘morality’. This is special pleading. Why shouldn’t we apply ethical principles to other species? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/133 "2012-04-01T13:49:52Z")
Forgot to mention, but appeals to evolution are part of the naturalistic fallacy. ---
**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 1, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/134 "2012-04-01T14:07:10Z")
> [@Tab\_Q.Wertus](#): > > There are quite a few posts that argue that we can invent ethical rules out of thin air because it’s the same way we invented rules against murder and rape. I have to disagree… They are enforced because they are good for us. For mankind as a species. > > Can we say the same about a rule not to eat meat? You can try to make a case that eating meat is bad for your health and that the production of meat is a waste of resources. But in my opinion both arguments fall short … not eating any meat is also unhealthy and especially to little kids outright dangerous. And the OP argues that we shouldn’t eat any flesh at all. As for wasting resources: Maybe we do, maybe we don’t. Let’s eat only half the amount of meat. We should be golden… Agreed that ethics all ultimately rest on what is good for the group over time. But not eating meat dangerous for kids? [Nope](http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/nutrition/pages/Vegetartian-Diet-for-Children.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token). Pretty easy to get a balanced diet for a growing child as a lacto-ovo-vegetarian, and even vegans can do okay if they make an effort. Yup, agreed, no need to be rigid. If humans as a species decreased meat consumption rather than increasing it dramatically we’d be golden. No need even to halve it, just decrease overall. Unfortunately what is happening in the world is that the huge populations of China and India are now moving from being low meat consumption to higher meat consumption. Just like they drive more cars now and otherwise are moving towards the West’s consumption habits. In neither case as much per capita as we do, but there’s so many of them that even moving some towards the West’s mean will have huge impacts. Which is why this > [@msmith537](#): > > There really is no argument against eating pigs, cows and chickens that isn’t absurd… > > … This is what we like to call a “rich country problem”. is a bit laughable. The impact on the health of the planet is significant. As the previous poster argues, ethics derive from the interests of the greater good of the group overall. The world’s increased meat consumption imperils all of us. The biggest meat consumption per capita is in the West but the biggest increases are occurring in India and China. The poorer countries are not worried about the ethics of meat, they are worried about getting enough food and generally that means protein from plant sources as a matter of affordability (and they are often not able to afford that right now) … they are often obligate low meat consumers. But the inability of the world to produce enough affordable food to feed those in poor countries, the greatest adverse impacts of climate change that higher meat consumption contributes to, those costs will be disproportionately born by those in poorer countries. A “rich country problem” … hardly. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/135 "2012-04-01T15:00:50Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Agreed that ethics all ultimately rest on what is good for the group over time. Not all would agree. > [@gamerunknown](#): > > If your survival depended on having to catch and kill a chicken for food in the wild > > It can’t and it won’t. “It can’t” because the situation is impossible or because you would likely never be in it? The question remains, is there something inherently more or less ethical in killing an animal because survival necessesitates it, versus I just want it killed because I like steak? > [@DSeid](#): > > Which is why thisis a bit laughable. The impact on the health of the planet is significant. As the previous poster argues, ethics derive from the interests of the greater good of the group overall. The world’s increased meat consumption imperils all of us. The biggest meat consumption per capita is in the West but the biggest increases are occurring in India and China. The poorer countries are not worried about the ethics of meat, they are worried about getting enough food and generally that means protein from plant sources as a matter of affordability (and they are often not able to afford that right now) … they are often obligate low meat consumers. But the inability of the world to produce enough affordable food to feed those in poor countries, the greatest adverse impacts of climate change that higher meat consumption contributes to, those costs will be disproportionately born by those in poorer countries. A “rich country problem” … hardly. You have not convinced me that this is a “meat” problem as opposed to a greater “food” problem. ---
**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 1, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/136 "2012-04-01T15:10:30Z")
[Actual data](http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy) is always fun. The average per capita meat consumption is 46.6 kg per person per year worldwide. In the United States we are at 122.79, not the world leader actually, Luxembourg beats us at 136.73, but a close number 2, and just a bit under 3X more than the global average. More than twice as much as in China (which doubled between 1990 and 2002) or Russia and even 25% more than in Canada or Israel. Almost 50% more than in France, Germany or the UK. So yeah, maybe we, as a society, could cut back some? Ethically it is hard to justify being such an outlier for something with global impacts that will be borne most by those who consume meat the least. Yeah, I’m talking to you Luxembourg! On preview: **msmith537** , the cites have already been provided that showed how much more inputs and harmful outputs are required to produce a unit of animal protein compared to a unit of plant protein (with the exceptions of poultry and some sustainable fish sources). The same inputs (land, water, energy, etc.) would produce much more protein and overall nutrition if used for other than meat food production and the outputs of meat production will further harm the poorest countries ability to produce enough to feed themselves over time by contributing to climate change. As to not all agreeing with what I agreed with. Okay. Really a separate debate. ---
**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 1, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/137 "2012-04-01T15:29:09Z")
Oh if you are a climate change denier then never mind. That bit of information would inform me that further discussion would be pointless. This ethical argument is addressed to those of us who choose to drive more efficient vehicles but still drive, who use electricity but try to conserve in reasonable ways, in short who feel that we do not need to be extreme in order to do something and feel that our little bits are the ethically right thing to do even if individually they do not matter all that much and that ethics do not require extreme behaviors, but at least requires we not be the biggest pigs around. From this POV eating _less_ meat is very much akin to not choosing an SUV when a smaller car meets our needs. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/138 "2012-04-01T17:02:59Z")
Oh, forgot to mention that a cougar should have been more able to tell if a man is closeted, given their experience. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/139 "2012-04-01T17:42:11Z")
Anyone else got a craving for corned beef? ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064/140 "2012-04-01T19:45:35Z")
> [@Tab\_Q.Wertus](#): > > The big health risk is obesity not the poisonous effects of flesh. Sure, it is easier to over eat with meat and animal fat than with fruits and vegetables but eat enough 100% vegan french fries and you will risk the same heart attack. Indeed; when people make claims that meat causes disease (I myself eat meat regularly yet am not overweight much less obese, nor has anybody in my family, who eat similarly, back to at least my grandparents, had a heart attack), they don’t seem to realize that it is processed junk food that causes disease, whether it is vegan or not ([soda anyone](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/198598.php)?), as [this study](http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20100517/processed-meat-linked-to-heart-disease-risks) makes clear: > [@](#): > > Eating unprocessed beef, pork, or lamb was not linked to a higher risk for heart disease and diabetes. (processed meat has ingredients like nitrites in it, which includes hot dogs, salami, lunch meat, sausage, etc; a big juicy hamburger on the other hand doesn’t (shouldn’t) have any - although of course they are often oversized; nitrites are also linked to cancer, made most clear by a [dramatic decline in gastric cancer in the 1920s when nitrites were reduced](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrite#Nitrosamines)). Also, whether it comes from grain-fed meat or plants, modern diets have [far too much](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-6_fatty_acid#Negative_health_effects) omega-6 relative to omega-3 (note also that [only DHA and EPA have been shown to have health benefits and these come from animals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#Potential_health_benefits)): > [@](#): > > Excess n−6 fats interfere with the health benefits of n−3 fats, in part because they compete for the same rate-limiting enzymes. A high proportion of n−6 to n−3 fat in the diet shifts the physiological state in the tissues toward the pathogenesis of many diseases: prothrombotic, proinflammatory and proconstrictive. (read the last as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc) As for environmental/food production concerns, having animals be raised on natural foods (such as grass) would reduce or eliminate the need to grow crops just to feed them; although grass-fed cows produce significantly more methane than grain-fed cows ([yes, you read that right](http://news.discovery.com/earth/grass-fed-beef-grain.html)), but crops need substantial fossil fuel inputs, which are the real culprit in climate change since emissions are cumulative (you know, that old saw about breathing causing global warming; yes, methane is a stronger GHG but CO2 levels are rising much faster, and recent methane increases are largely from the Arctic, previously they were nearly stable). Also, IMO, corn ethanol is a much bigger problem because it wastes resources for non-food uses and will soon take up half of the entire U.S. corn crop (although the trend may slow with the expiration of tax credits). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eating-meat-is-ethical-unethical/617064.md?page=8)