Are you sure you aren’t confusing “anthropomorphic value judgment” and “guess”? If your point is to question whether we know how they feel, the answer is that fear is directly observable in just about any mammal.
If your point is to question whether it’s fair to say they would not experience fear in this scenario, we’d have to do some research to debate that to any kind of certain answer, but common sense tells me they wouldn’t. And we know that the more quickly, quietly and peacefully that animals can be killed, the less of a fear reaction nearby animals have.
As I said, the diet debate is a separate one, and the only way to debate the ethics is to accept for the purposes of the ethics debate that meat is more important than a mere issue of pleasure. If you can’t do that, then the diet debate is the one you should be having, because this one will always get stuck on becoming a diet debate anyway.
Seriously, that was the entirety of it: we don’t permit the cannibalization of our brain damaged kin, therefore intelligence is no reason to assign value to animals? That’s a pretty impressively strange and weak argument, I must say.
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
Again, naturalistic fallacy. No evidence has been given to support the necessity of an omnivorous diet, other than the possibility of B12 deficiency leading to complications with a pregnancy (and the counter evidence that those that consume meat - at least processed meat - tend to have lower lifespans than a cohort of vegetarians).
[/QUOTE]
Oh, well, here…let me help you (though again, I’m shocked that supposed vegan types don’t know this, since it’s critical to diet smart if you are trying to be a vegan, for health reasons):
Note…you can, if you are careful about your diet and if you supplement intelligently, get all of the above, plus the other things you need, from a strictly vegetarian diet. I know this because both my brother in law and my sister are strict vegans…though, their kids aren’t, because it’s a huge pain in the ass AND can be potentially dangerous if you don’t really, carefully watch the kids diet and ensure they are getting everything they need, and my brother and law and sister may be a lot of things, but stupid isn’t one of them, and they didn’t want to risk the kids. My sister has degrees in both botany, and Chinese herbal medicine (as well as acupuncture), and my brother in law is an MD, though he goes more for the woo variety of medicine, to my mind…but they aren’t stupid people, and they know a hell of a lot about vegan diets. So, while you CAN get everything you need from non-animal sources, it’s a hell of a lot easier to get them from animal sources because, well, that’s the way we are adapted…we are adapted for having some animal protean in our diet. It’s ludicrous to attempt to project that all of humanity could go completely vegan without huge changes, and probably a vastly reduced population of more highly motivated and intelligent humans because while you have to jump through hoops and carefully monitor your diet with supplements if you are a vegan, you basically don’t need to engage your brain or worry about it if you just eat a steak every day. Hell, I know people who rarely eat a vegetable (some are sort of anti-vegans, though they do eat fruit or at least drink an occasional orange juice box :p) and are healthy and happy.
And the fact that you and the OP don’t seem to know this stuff really puts the question into my own mind about your own stances on this, because basically if you ARE a vegan and you DON’T know this stuff then you should probably make sure you get to a hospital…fairly soon. Either that, or you should perhaps get off the high horse, because you are looking increasingly silly up there.
Yep. Whereas human beings can live on a diet of meat and nothing else pretty easily. Whole cultures have done it for centuries. Even good 'ol vitamin C is taken care of, though I don’t recall the details.
We definitely evolved to eat meat, and there’s a increasing evidence that we evolved the way we did BY eating meat.
Trust and I seemed to find some common ground there. I make no claims about agreeing with arbitrary individuals.
I do respect animals, personally. I do not think we should spend society’s resources enforcing respect. I guess I am looking at the “ethical” aspect as broad social rules versus the “moral” aspect which is how an individual would choose what that individual should do. The line is usually pretty blurry, I admit. Probably my fault for imposing a specificity which may alter the terms of the discussion somewhat.
i pointed this out as well but it was glossed over.
amount of living organism per individual count, more critters die by farming than slaughterhouses. because it’s indirect, most vegans/vegs discount them. however, there’s still the matter of calculated culling, as in coyote, deer, mice and rabbits, ect. some are large animals, and in some cases enough are killed that it disrupts the local food chain (owls have less food, bears/pumas have less deer, and so on and so forth). also, cultivating land takes more away from wild things and disrupts soil content and nutrition. aaaand then there’s the worms. the poor, ignored worms.
who’s going to look out for the woooorms?!?
as i said before, looks like for people to eat SOMETHING’s gotta die. picking when it’s ethical and when it’s not seems *extremely *arbitrary.
Trust, it seems to me that you are attempting to use ethical reciprocity (“the golden rule”) in a very odd and inconsistent manner.
You want to apply “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or the “advanced” (actually more ancient, given Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism all had those formulations*) version, “Do not do unto others that which is hateful unto you” to non-humans while acknowledging that what is hateful to you may be exactly what makes a pig happy. No, you do not want to really apply the Golden Rule because you quickly recognize the Golden Rule actually makes for a lousy guide between species. You merely want a narrow application. What you are actually arguing has little to do with ethical reciprocity: you instead are arguing that being able to feel pain in some form, any form, is enough to say that an entity is deserving of not being killed for food … unless there is a a need for survival … or perhaps another good reason. (Can I kill a snake that was going to bite me even if it wasn’t poisonous enough to kill me, just enough to cause me a lot of pain and some hallucinations?) And even that nociception (ability to perceive pain) threshold is not going to be consistently applied as an intelligent sentient creature unable to feel pain (imagine a human with some neurologic disorder of pain reception) would surely be not one to be butchered for food, even less so than would a human who is anencephalic.
The idea of ethical reciprocity is to have some empathy, to realize that other humans are not so different than you even if their culture seems different. Other species however are different, and we make grave errors when we attempt to put our minds in their place. The concept of empathy for other creatures is still a good one. I would agree that if we are to eat animals we should attempt to cause as little suffering as possible in the process. But OTOH how much decease in suffering is worth how much? (In money or in health risk if one, for the sake of discussion assumed such existed, or in lack of pleasure, or all of the above?) Zero tolerance? Is causing any suffering enough to say any meat eating is unethical? Clearly there is a limit to the cost. (If I need meat to survive you’d allow me to kill an animal, even if I had to cause it some pain in the process.) Where do you draw the line and what ethical principles do you use to draw those lines?
*This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain.
The Mahabharata (Hinduism)
Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.
Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29 (Zoroastrianism)
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
The Talmud (Judaism)
If anything ethical reciprocity would apply as follows:
You would find others telling you what you should and should not eat, telling you that you are unethical if you eat otherwise, to be disagreeable; therefore you should not do that to others.
There was no strawman fallacy because if you would have read what I wrote, I went on to explain why the two situations are not exactly the same.
I think you need a little help understanding your fallacies. A strawman fallacy is when someone misrepresents your argument and refutes that misrepresentation instead of the original argument. I did no such thing. I said they were SIMILAR (notice the word like), but my argument against this notion of “limiting the suffering” had nothing to do with ASSUMING it was just like the case of murdering people. I even went on RIGHT AFTER that to explain exactly why the two are different.
Since you seem to be INCREDIBLY picky about how people structure their arguments, I’ll play your little game.
Proposition: Those who choose not to eat animals or animal bi-products are only limiting the suffering of animals to an extent that does not overly inconvenience them.
Definition: “Limit the suffering” means to limit physical pain and to limit the amount of animals killed.
Definition: Animal, for our purposes, is anything that is not human which has a nervous system capable of experiencing physical pain.
Definition: Vegan/vegetarian refers only to those people who engage in their chosen diet because of a belief in the least harm principle, or to limit the suffering of animals.
1: Combine harvesting of many different kinds of vegetarian and vegan foods is directly responsible for the injury and deaths of animals such as field mice, voles, gophers, etc.
2: The use of pesticides and other chemicals to produce vegetarian and vegan foods sold in super markets are directly responsible for the deaths, illness, injury or suffering of many types of animals.
3: Human beings driving cars and operating other machinery are directly responsible for cats, dogs, birds, bugs, squirrels and others being maimed and killed.
4: By 1 and 2, dedicating less land to growing crops to feed farm animals, and by not farming animals themselves, there would be less animal suffering.
5: By 3 and 4, animal suffering could be limited if humans stopped driving cars and operating other heavy machinery, and stopped consuming crops that were harvested using methods that kill and injure animals.
6: Living without 1, 2 and 3 would be very inconvenient for most individuals including the vegetarian/vegan.
Assumption: Those who are vegans/vegetarians do engage in and directly benefit from at least some activities outlined in statements 1, 2 and 3.
7: By the fact that vegetarians/vegans do not engage in statement 5, they are directly responsible for some level of suffering of animals, though by 4 vegetarians/vegans do limit the suffering of animals to a greater extent than those who do continue to eat meat and animal products. By statement 6, they are exhibiting the property of limiting the suffering of animals only to a level that does not inconvenience them too much.
Assumption: People who eat meat also want to limit the suffering of animals to an extent that does not inconvenience them too much.
Conclusion: Both vegetarians/vegans and omnivores work to limit the suffering of animals to whatever degree they feel is convenient.
Again, I’m discussing things that have been supported evidentially. What we know is that vegetarians live on average for longer than meat eaters. Would it not be far to say that “on average, vegetarians are healthier than meat eaters”?. So that means that meat eaters as a group must apply greater care in selecting their diet in order to be as healthy as vegetarians. That doesn’t entail that it is easy to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet: in fact, the likely cause behind the correlation is that vegetarians actually have to pay attention to their diets in the first place.
You’re the one that started using the language, but you didn’t substantiate any of your claims.
and more crop farming has to be done in order to feed a human with a pound of beef than with a pound of crops.
Here is the strawman:
Then you commence destruction of the strawman with the two wrongs argument in reverse.
The genocidal rapist and the saint limit the suffering of humans to the degree they feel convenient.
Again feel free to what? The OP set this up as an issue of ethics and that’s what I’m here discussing. If you want to assert things about meat in the human diet, that’s a different discussion, one I’m not having here, although others seem more willing to go there with you.
Check what I said - I was trying to figure out what YOU were saying because it wasn’t clear.
In fact, after reading the rest of your post, you are becoming less and less clear as you go along, tossing around terms in ways that don’t make a whole lot of sense.
So unless you start to be clearer and more direct, I’m afraid I can’t continue to try and figure it out.
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
the likely cause behind the correlation is that vegetarians actually have to pay attention to their diets in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
…or it could be the fact vegan/vegetarian types are typically idealistic and fastidiously meticulous about their lifestyles…meaning most exercise more vigorously and more often than average people. they as well are more likely to pay attentions to illnesses, go to doctors, are usually on vitamins and supplements to balance out their dietary shortcomings and so on and so forth. maybe it’s not at all what they eat but is in fact their lifestyle in general.
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
and more crop farming has to be done in order to feed a human with a pound of beef than with a pound of crops.
The genocidal rapist and the saint limit the suffering of humans to the degree they feel convenient.
[/QUOTE]
one of the most obviously neglected factoids about vegans and vegetarianism that i’ve noticed is the fact almost unanimously, these people simply don’t like the way meat tastes. they think it’s gross.
i’m not saying it’s a 100% across the board trait, but in all the people i know *personally *who abstain from meat, they just flat never *liked *meat.
i knew one person who really, really wanted to be a vegan…but would go on meat benders and eat, say, a whole package of bacon. then hate herself for it.
in at least her case, i’d exchange the term “vegan” for “idiot.”
my gf is vegan and admits it’s mostly due to the fact she hates how meat tastes.
she acts outraged about human issues and the ethics involved, but even without those struts stilting up the matter, she still wouldn’t want to eat meat just because it’s not something she really likes.
i just have as of yet never come across anyone who really, really, really loved steak but felt too ethically compelled to not eat it.
Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argued in 2001 that the least-harm principle does not require giving up all meat, because a plant-based diet would not kill fewer animals than one containing beef from grass-fed ruminants. Davis wrote that cultivating crops also kills animals, because when a tractor traverses a field, animals are accidentally destroyed. Based on a study finding that wood mouse populations dropped from 25 per hectare to five per hectare after harvest (attributed to migration and mortality), Davis estimated that 10 animals per hectare are killed from crop farming every year. If all 120,000,000 acres (490,000 km2) of cropland in the continental United States were used for a vegan diet, then approximately 500 million animals would die each year. But, if half the cropland were converted to ruminant pastureland, he estimated that only 900,000 animals would die each year—assuming people switched from the eight billion poultry killed each year to beef, lamb, and dairy products.[100]
I don’t think the golden rule applies to animals. I would not like to be put on a leash every time I went outside, made to eat from a plate on the floor and do my necessities on the open. But we make our dogs do all these things, not because we don’t love our pets, but because they are different in nature.
Humans are the only omnivores with a conscience. I find it very praiseworthy having in mind the well being of all animals and when vegetarians have the means to substitute meat for the proteins and vitamins found in plants, which I suppose people can do nowadays, then good for them. I personally find that when I eat meat I can go by a longer period of time satisfied than if I ate only carbs, vegetables and fruits.
Regarding the ethics of eating meat, I don’t think it is unethical, specially in times of famine and necessity. I would suppose that is how in some societies people eat all sorts of animals and insects that westerners find really gross. Besides, if I considered myself unethical for eating meat, than would I consider every other omnivore in nature unethical too?
What I find unethical is animal torture. I think if we are going to eat chicken and cows and so forth, at least give the animal a decent life and a clean kill when the time comes.
How does a genocidal rapist (does that even exist?) work to limit the suffering of humans? I’m sure any genocidal rapist would openly admit that he causes human suffering, but it is for a greater good (his own pleasure, the world would be better off without them, etc).
Both vegetarians and omnivores work to limit suffering of animals to differing degrees. Both are responsible for a lot of animal suffering. How is this a fallacious argument? I don’t even GET where you are disagreeing with me.
If you honestly believe that humans should limit the suffering of animals by killing less of them, then you should be advocating for all kinds of inconvenient reforms. But you aren’t. You only care about one issue that you find convenient that honestly wouldn’t make much of a difference in the amount of animals that would die anyway.
Cows and such graze and don’t kill that many animals on their way to becoming meat. Wild-caught fish are another example of meat that are not produced by feeding them grains and alfalfa and other mass-produced agricultural foods.
People who eat “free-range” meats as a primary source of food are not directly responsible for all of the deaths of animals that occur with food that would be made for a vegetarian diet. If I buy an entire cow at a county fair that was raised free-range, I can live off of that meat for a very long time. Number of animals killed for me to enjoy that beef: about 1. If I wanted to subsist on vegetarian foods over the same amount of time, I’d be directly responsible for dozens if not hundreds of deaths of animals. Unless of course I grew my own food and made sure that no little critters were harmed in the production of my crops. Which is completely impractical, of course.
In other words, a true, non-hypocritical point of view would be thus:
Let’s reduce our meat consumption to mostly (or all) animals that feed and graze naturally, where human-caused deaths of animals did not go into feeding/raising them. Things like free range beef, hunting for deer and other wild game, wild caught fish, etc. And then supplement that diet with vegetables and crops that do not need to be harvested with machinery that kill lots of animals.
Of course, that’s not what a vegetarian/vegan wants. They want humanity to stop eating meat REGARDLESS of how many animals would be killed by switching to a vegetarian diet. It’s not about least-harm principle. It’s about the fact that they feel bad about eating another animal, and they think everyone else should feel bad about it too.
“number of” - No offense intended, I’m just trying to stop the slide of all distinctions in the language between a large amount of one thing vs. a large number of many things. (less/fewer being the progenitor). Don’t mind me.
I think it also goes back to the very common distinction most of us unthinkingly draw draw between higher (more evolved, bigger brains, more complex responses, and generally cuter) animals like pigs and cows and chickens vs. bugs or “vermin” mammals like mice and rats.
Except, as has been pointed out numerous times, meat is a rarity that only trickled down to the proles quite recently.
By being less of a hypocrite than the saint that attempts to limit human suffering.
No, he says that they’d die anyway and that he gives them a purpose. After raping them, he kills them quickly: surely a better way to go than cancer, no?
It’s wrong on its premise. Vegetarianism is a limit to the amount of suffering applied to animals as defined, whereas omnivorism implies no such limit (as a human carnivorous diet is not sustainable, it is the default). There are other contiguous areas where suffering could be reduced, but other than in the fact that vegetarianism precludes veganism, it is a strawman to attack them. Address vegetarianism qua vegetarianism, not any number of other issues.
Tu quoque. One cannot live off beef alone, I’m afraid. Can we assume that substituting the pound of sustenance one would attain from crop to free-range beef (making the further assumption that that’d even be plausible, since growing our own crops was already ruled completely impractical) would result in a reduction in pain? Certainly not in the US, as there are no USDA regulations for free-range beef. It’s just as likely that the cattle living further up in the trophic level received far more crops than would have been required to have that pound of sustenance. So one is left with the comission of a death and apparently, the guilt of failing to omit deaths of the various insects killed during the harvesting of the crop to feed the cow.
If we’re going to play at omission, then even producing pasture for cattle causes the deaths and displacements of whatever was there previously and grazing cattle indirectly consume insects (and as grass has less nutritional value than typical feed, especially when not in the vegetative state, cattle raised on it take longer to reach maturation for slaughter - so infrequent killing of insects will tend to accumulate).
