We don’t know if we are the most intelligent species. We have a entire universe out there, with possible space travel and star seeding. We might be one of the least intelligent species. I would say with the size of the universe it is most likely false that we are the most intelligent species. The question gets a bit fuzzier if you add with contact with earth. But it is the premise that our intelligence is nothing to boast about.
Also we might be guided by other intelligent beings, from a space seeding race to God Himself, so we should consider our knowledge and wisdom imperfect as a species.
Your premise seems to be be kind to animals and that will bring about a better humanity. I sort of agree with it and think the factory farming of animals has lead us to think that it is OK to ‘factory farm’ our children in public schools, so yes there is a relationship, but that again has to do with factory farming and not to the eating of animals. Also it is by equating animals and humans that you can better accept that what we do to animals we can do to humans, it is by elevating humans over animals that makes it possible to say that it is unacceptable to treat humans as animals. So your premise of extending the golden rule to animals would ahve the effect of extending animal cruelty to humans.
I’ve got to disagree with you there. Most ethics stems from reciprocity and empathy. Murder is wrong because it harms the victim and causes the victim’s family and friends to endure pain. Since few of us enjoy pain; it is sensible to avoid actions which will make it more likely for others, and by extension ourselves, to experience it. Now of course you cannot prove empirically that that anything is “wrong” other than in the factual sense of the word, but that is really splitting hairs. It would be better to say that “Murder is always wrong, but it could be the Least wrong of the available options.” That is a little stronger than a mere assertion.
I can see that my meaning was unclear, Tao, and I apologize. Not only is eating meat “natural” but it was most certainly a matter of biological necessity for the survival of most hunter/gatherer homos. For some groups of humans, the Inuit for example, animals were pretty much the only game in town when it came to food. I don’t see how a biological necessity can be morally wrong. Of course meat eating today for a lot of people isn’t a biological necessity because we can get nutritious calorie packed foods from other sources. So, at what point did eating meat become immoral?
Some people, when put under enough pressure, and deprived of enough resources, will do things like raiding, raping, and pillaging - things that in our current, civilized, and resource-full society are viewed as immoral and unethical.
Because if you can agree on that, then why can’t we say that:
Some people, when put under enough pressure, and deprived of adequate protein, will do things like killing animals, and eating their meat - things that in our current, civilized, and protein-full society should be viewed as immoral and unethical.
Hrmm. If we have enough non-animal foods to meet our biological needs… then why are we killing animals again? I mean… some people genuinely enjoy raiding, raping, and pillaging, but our society still forbids it and deems it immoral - enjoyment is not a good enough reason. But the only reason we’re killing animals right now is similarly just for our own enjoyment.
I am not claiming it is always unhealthy to be a vegetarian, but it is difficult.
Your enjoyment claim is just pure conjecture and a straw-man.
How to you justify the destruction of habitat that farming causes, the death the harvest causes or the “pest control” that every farmer has to endure to raise their crop.
To add another wrinkle, the breeds of animals we eat would not exist and could not continue to exist without our desire to eat them. If we stop eating meat its not like these cattle will run and frolic in the meadow living a peaceful happy life. More likely they will cease to exist. From an evolutionary standpoint angus cattle is highly successful having found its natural niche as a food product for humans. Its tastiness and ease of domestication has been their primary evolutionary advantage and is why they outnumber other wild species of cattle.
I find it hard to believe that someone is trying to contest the claim that “It is natural/normal for some humans to raid, rape, and pillage, when under resource-deprived conditions.” If you really disagree with that, then I’d be forced to ask what your personal definition of “natural” and “normal” is.
Straw-man? Where is the straw-man?
You can avoid meat and stay healthy. It’s difficult but possible. But let’s say you eat the minimum recommended daily intake of animal protein because you can’t get it through plant-based food. Why do most people eat more than that? It’s for personal enjoyment.
Because we have enough resources in 2012 (in civilized countries), that we no longer need to go raiding, raping, and pillaging - it’s not ethically justifiable if you want to do it simply for the purposes of personal enjoyment. Since eating meat beyond the minimum biological requirements is not needed - I contest that it’s not ethically justifiable to continue to do so for the purposes of personal enjoyment.
Now you may say that your personal enjoyment is - using some kind of strange ethical system - worth more than the pain and suffering that the animals had to go through in order for you to be provided with that enjoyment. If there is an ethical justification or ethical rule-set that supports this, then I’d more than love to hear about it.
Borzo, I don’t know what use the adjective “natural” serves, I tend to be of the opinion in discussions such as these that it fails to select anything in particular. If one wishes to argue whether a house or a bird nest is a “natural” formation I’ll think there is a point (and that point would be that neither are natural) but if we simply substitute “natural” for “everything not associated with human action” then I think it has gone beyond a useful word. So I accept your concern there.
Normal, on the other hand, is a different matter. I am not aware of many societies where rape and killing are normal. Rapists and killers are exceptional, not common, and punished, not aided. Handicapped are exceptional, not common, and aided, not punished. They are not normal in the sense of characteristic or able to serve as exemplars. Rapists are not good exemplars. We don’t want them to stand for us. If we picture a human being in the abstract, they are not rapists in wheelchairs with Down Syndrome. So, they’re definitely not normal.
More straw man, how do you know I eat more meat than needed.
Please cite where I was raiding, raping, and pillaging anything please.
Please cite where I cause pain and suffering that the animals I eat.
Kill them yes, but your argument thus far has not been about that.
You are using false dichotomy and hyperbole
So how do you find your self in a morally higher position because you consume plants, where the animal deaths are hidden from your view but still very real vs the direct consumption of their flesh.
I would say being honest and confronting the cost your life has on other beings is more ethical than feeling better because killing is hidden from your view.
This is getting into a one-downsmanship discussion that revolves around ‘need’. Well, you don’t NEED that meat. Um, well, ok…you do need some, but you don’t ‘need’ as much as you are eating? What? Oh…well, you shouldn’t eat more than the minimum daily recommendation. Huh? Oh…because then that would be for personal enjoyment, obviously. Why is that a problem? Well, animals are suffering, obviously…
What? Why are you asking me what I’m typing this on? What difference does it…oh. Well, I didn’t realize that electricity and the modern manufacturing and distribution process harms animals too. But I NEED this internet connection so I can type this stuff to…oh, I see your point. I also like having my carrot juice extract cold and…oh, yeah. What? Are you saying that the planting, harvesting and distribution of PLANTS causes…oh.
Well, you just shouldn’t eat meat because it’s for personal enjoyment, and that’s that. Now shut up so I can enjoy my chilled carrot juice while I surf the saving the whales porn sites in peace and smugly superior quiet, you raping, pillaging and meat eating barbarians…
The “natural” argument isn’t really relevant. I don’t want to get into an argument over whether or not the naturalistic fallacy exists or not. It’s really besides the point… I just brought it up in response to the fact that someone challenged me on it. But to clarify, let me include my actual statement that you may have skimmed over, for reference:
Some people, when put under enough pressure, and deprived of enough resources, will do things like raiding, raping, and pillaging - things that in our current, civilized, and resource-full society are viewed as immoral and unethical.
Let’s replace the idea of “normal” or “natural” with “average”. *Average *societies, when put under extreme pressure and deprived of sufficient resources, will result in having some members of their populations carrying out actions that may include raiding, raping, and pillaging.
But this isn’t really what I wanted to talk about, or what this thread is about. The only reason the naturalistic fallacy has been brought up is because some people believe it applies to eating meat. We’ve sort of lost sight of that point.
[QUOTE=Borzo]
The only reason the naturalistic fallacy has been brought up is because some people believe it applies to eating meat.
[/QUOTE]
They probably believe that because it’s true. You CAN eat an all vegetarian diet, but it’s not as simple as just eating veggies and some fruit. You need to plan things out, because the human body requires several micro-nutrients that mainly come from meat. 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.
Your argument revolves around some concept of ‘need’…‘need’ as defined by you, of course. We don’t ‘need’ to eat as much meat as we do, because our basic, minimal nutritional needs are met by eating far less. Problem is, ‘need’ varies, and ‘personal enjoyment’ is in the eyes of the beholder. You don’t, in fact, ‘need’ that computer you are typing this in on. You don’t ‘need’ the electricity you are using to run that computer. You don’t ‘need’ as elaborate a house, apartment, or whatever you have for a dwelling. You don’t ‘need’ that car you drive…or, if you don’t have a car, that bicycle you use. You don’t ‘need’ those shoes you are wearing either (gods forbid they are…gulp…LEATHER! :eek:). There are a lot of things you don’t ‘need’, and that you use simply for ‘personal enjoyment’…and I’d guess that most if not all of them come at some cost to non-human animals somewhere.
That’s the reality behind the smug, holier than thou attitude of stating that someone doesn’t ‘need’ something YOU don’t think they ‘need’ because, damn-it, you don’t think they ‘need’ it, and that’s that!
I’m sorry if you’re taking this so personally… but I’m not talking about you specifically. I’m telling you that my opinion is that: eating more meat than biologically required is unethical.
Maybe you think I’m saying something more than that, or that I’m saying something that I’m not… I don’t know… what is my straw-man argument that you keep referring to? You’ve mentioned it multiple times, but you’ve failed to point it out to me. Are you just attempting to be insulting, or do you actually have something meaningful to say?
I suppose my analogy was not understood - even though I attempted to make it painfully clear. It’s not too relevant overall, but let me clear it up nonetheless.
Sociologists and anthropologists would say that under certain circumstances (usually those involving resource deprivation), some humans turn to raiding, raping, and pillaging. I wasn’t accusing YOU of raiding, raping, and pillaging, and I apologize if you took my statements that way. The sole purpose of the analogy was to highlight the “naturalistic fallacy” aka the appeal to nature: Just because something is natural, normal, common, or average, doesn’t automatically make it morally or ethically right. Things happen in nature all the time that aren’t necessarily ethically or morally “good” or “right” or “ideal”. This fallacy is often illustrated using the example of rape or murder, etc. I quoted “raiding, raping, and pillaging” simply because another poster had already used that terminology.
I believe eating meat also falls under this, to some extent. Just because we CAN eat meat, and because we DO eat meat, and because we HAVE eaten meat in the past, doesn’t somehow automatically make it ethically and morally okay to eat meat here and now. That is not a sufficient logical or rational argument to ethically or morally justify meat-eating.
Once again, it’s not about you in particular. If you are unaware how the standard methods of raising and slaughter animals might cause pain and suffering, you can always start with a film like Food Inc. While it’s not the most unbiased and rigorous piece of journalism out there, it’s a good place to start for someone who knows nothing about how the system works.
I apologize if this is the case, though I do not see it. If you have a chance, please provide me with some - or any - details so that I can correct myself.
I believe that the ethically and morally “right thing to do” involves choosing actions that minimize pain and suffering whenever possible. That is all.
People with similar beliefs are sometimes vegetarians. Others simply minimize meat consumption. Others are selective about where their meat comes from - only purchasing meat from farms and slaughter houses that meet their ethical and moral standards. Some people simply believe that their overwhelming joy and pleasure that they receive from eating meat outweighs all the pain and suffering that the animal had to endure to provide that meat.
That was an interesting experiment in idiocy, congratulations. Now try it again, but this time pretend to be an intelligent, logical, rational human being. What happens then? You might realize that you have the ability to reason, weigh pros vs cons, assess different situations, circumstances, and outcomes, and make informed decisions.
Or are you suggesting (through the above quote) that this is impossible? Please clarify.
You sound like your projecting your anger and bitterness towards previous and past environmentalists and animal rights activists onto me. Would you perhaps consider that this might be unreasonable? Or perhaps a bit emotional and irrational?
I consistently find it amusing that humans have this *need *to think of things in terms of black & white. They run in panic at the sight of grey! Heaven forbid they have to think about something or assess a situation that doesn’t have a simple answer.
The choices we make have consequences. We have differing levels of need - and the associated choices we make have differing levels of consequences. Each choice you make should involve some sort of decision-making process where you weigh the ethical and moral pros and cons. Or at least that’s what I’d expect of an intelligent, logical, and rational human being.
What you seem to be saying sounds a bit like whining: Oh noes! I have too many choices and decisions to make! And thinking about the ethics and morality behind my decisions is just so hard! I’m so lazy and of such weak intellect that I’m just gonna ignore the consequences of my actions completely, and reject any responsibility for them!
If this is not your intent, please clarify.
Ethics and morality is a complex issue… but that’s not a good enough reason to simply surrender and claim intellectual defeat and ignore it.
Absent the knowledge of the suffering we cause other humans, we would not care about humans rights at all. Except for maybe some selfish reason to try to get it back to us. Yet we still see disparities in how people are judged. Your point?
We should not value animal suffering as much as our own for the same reason we should not value the suffering of an insect the same as the suffering of an animal. What is important is that we take equal consideration of all lives into account and choose the option with the greatest good, regardless of our own selfish interests.
If a mosquito is attacking you, you are able to defend yourself up to and including killing if necessary. However, not hesitating to eat animals shows you are not taking into account equal consideration of their interests. You are ignoring their interests for your own. Hence, why it is unethical.
Cultured meat grown in facilities would absolutely be ethical. It will do more for the environment than if the entire world traded their cars for bicycles. It will prevent rather cause heart attacks. Considering over the next forty years, we will need to produce the same amount of food we have produced over the last eight thousand years, this will be able to feed the world. This will prevent more suffering than any other single cause since the beginning of human history.
