Eating Meat is Ethical/Unethical

Great Debates
141

Except a greater area of land will always be necessary to get the equivalent nutrition from a cow than from a crop. Not to mention that grass only provides adequate food for a cow when the grass is in vegetative state. Nor that their diet is often supplemented by microminerals. Nor that the current trend for cows is to hook them up to hormones in order to stimulate growth as rapidly as possible.

Spotlight fallacy. I only linked the above studies to disprove the claim that a vegetarian diet leads to sickness and death.

142

The egg and dairy world is linked to the meat market, some of your “fryer” chickens tend to be young male, if they are not just destroyed as chicks. In the dairy world you have to produce a calf to get milk, what do you do with the male ones?

I’m just curious how that is ethical but the raising of a bovine for meat is bad.

143

Smaller and less volatile? To what end? And what is the context to my opinion? A rule that benefits mankind does not necessarily mean more humans. It means a better mankind. Not more. Not less. And I think it takes every kind of people. And I welcome every vegetarian an vegan to the mix. If there is a super-Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease out there that is waiting to kill all the flesh eaters - the vegan shall inherit the world. Until his grand kids are back on the horse and especially the horse back in the grand kids.

Ok. saying to “not eat flesh is dangerous” was somewhat overly simplistic but to not consume any animal product? it took me all of five seconds to let google find this:

and I did read some real study somewhere. But I admit that a study someone, somewhere read does not count. And I won’t go through 30 years worth of Science magazine, and the like, just for the fun of it…

But still: it is easier to live on a non vegan diet than to live on a vegan diet. Do you really disagree? If so: Cite?

And survival is hard enough - evolution has no intention to make it harder through arbitrary rules.

144

Ok. Maybe it is my faulty grasp of the English language. But “appeals to evolution” are what???:confused:
You say that there is a more natural, a more basic set of rules to life itself than the rules that govern evolution (as we understand it)? Please explain. Enlighten me.

145

I meant something along the lines of “abandoning the pleasure principle to benefit mankind could result in policies that decimate mankind”.

Depends what you mean by “easier”. It’s been shown that more difficulty is incurred in raising animals for consumption than in raising crops for consumption and that the average vegetarian diet is sufficient for a healthy adult. While these cases are unfortunate, they do not demonstrate evidence that a vegan diet is worse for children than an average diet (a study comparing deaths by malnutrition in the population to vegans as a subset I would consider sufficient evidence). That said, I did find this study which shows that vegan mothers are more likely to give birth to children with birth defects. I suppose taking B12 supplements (which are available in vegan form) could be considered harder than having a balanced diet including meat, though I have heard that pregnant women are averse to raw meat.

Besides, the difficulty of the diet is independent of its ethics, unless there is an undue burden on humans that outweighs our ethical concerns for animals.

No, the naturalistic fallacy is that because something is natural, it must be “good” or “moral”. That’s not necessarily so. Evolution is one example of this: we shouldn’t base the rules of our society on allowing those best adapted to their environment they are in survive, since we can alter the environment to our needs.

146

I’ve read a lot of this thread, but not all of it… but I feel like I understand the thrust of the arguments here, and that is to limit the suffering of animals.

If you want to minimize the suffering of other animals, then the most ethical decision you can make is to kill yourself. Sure, some of your immediate friends and family are going to suffer for a while (maybe even for the rest of their lives to some extent). But you are going to be preventing the suffering of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of animals, to wit:

*Any insect/squirrel/bird you would have it while driving in your car will live because you killed yourself.
*Any vole, gopher, etc that would have been killed in a combine from the wheat used to make the bread you bought in a grocery store would still be alive if you (and others like you) hadn’t been eating all that bread and creating a demand for it
*Any child you might have who grows up not to be a vegetarian will never exist, and that will prevent tons of suffering.
*Any fly or mosquito you would swat would be spared (if you do that sort of nasty thing)
*Bonus points to you if you kill yourself by feeding your corpse to an animal on the endangered species list. Extra bonus points if this animal is pregnant, or about to lay eggs, or nursing, etc.

What’s that you say? You want to limit the suffering to some arbitrary level that you have determined is ethical? You don’t want to have to feed yourself to some starving/endangered wolf (prevent the suffering of the wolves), or stop buying bread (prevent the suffering of field rodents), or stop driving your car (prevent the suffering of insects and others), or using medicines and products that were made through animal testing because it would inconvenience you too much (prevent the suffering of mice, rats, etc)?

**Well then you are at best being illogical, and at worst being a hypocrite. **

Plain and simple. You claim that it’s unethical to do certain things, but the stuff that would be too inconvenient for you is just fine. Ethical arguments for limiting the suffering of animals are just so ridiculous, there’s no logically consistent framework for it.

There are PLENTY of reasons to become a vegetarian. PLENTY. Many have been mentioned here already, if not all. Vegetarians tend to have a healthier diet. There’s lest waste involved. There’s less energy spent producing only vegetarian foods. Less green house gasses. Spend your time hammering on those points, but not this whole “limit the suffering” business.

147

Tu quoque. Not to mention that you’ve alighted at an incorrect strategy for minimising suffering: encouraging many humans to kill themselves. Or perhaps human suicide will have unintended consequences for animals and we should utilise the concepts of consent and the social contract, too?

148

And for those of you on the other side of the argument who are making the claims that it’s ok to eat animals because they don’t understand freedom or experience reality the way we humans do, that’s an equally fallacious argument.

Under that sort of reasoning, you’d have to be perfectly fine with laws that permitted killing and/or eating severely mentally retarded people, or people in comas, etc. Or even with people who have recently died! Let’s just be able to humanely kill all the people in the world who don’t have sentience/consciousness/ability-to-experience-pain-and-reality-the-way-we-do/etc. Why shouldn’t we?

149

I am not ACTUALLY encouraging many people to kill themselves. I am pointing out that people who argue for ‘limit the suffering’ really mean ‘limit the suffering to a point that doesn’t inconvenience me too much.’

150

r.a. I really don’t think you’ve read or at least comprehended the points that I have made.

The specific post you are quoting was merely disputing the claim that it is dangerous for children to not have meat. Such a claim is untrue. I am not claiming that children should grow up as lacto-ovo-vegetarians. Certainly my kids aren’t raised as such … it is hard enough to keep my youngest from being a junkarian. But few meals are centered around beef and a good selection are vegetarian.

Further I have no ethical problem with killing animals for food, in fact I have pointed out that hunting deer to keep their population controlled has significant environmental benefits as well as making for good eatin’. I think the op is a bit silly, honestly. The position I am staking out is that we have an obligation to steward our planet’s resources. Worldwide meat consumption per capita has gone from 21.2 kg/yr in 1961 to 46.6 kg/yr in 2007 (most recent data) with the United States at 122.8 kg/yr. This magnitude of meat, in particular beef, consumption is unsustainable, especially as the world’s population increases. That does not mean everyone or even anyone must be a vegan. But it does mean that if Americans followed Harvard’s advice as encapsulated in their Healthy Eating Plate (a graphic they created to contrast with the MyPlate one) they would likely not only be increasing the odds of their own selves remaining healthy (yes, I know some here will argue that Harvard’s team is wrong, that other approaches are, they believe, better, but leave it at that it would certainly be a healthy nutrition plan), but also contributing to the health of the planet and all of its inhabitants.

So selfish interest (living a longer healthier life) is, at least according to Harvard’s health experts, served by the same actions that reduces the risks of causing harms to others on the planet and that reduces risks of causing harms to future generations of our own. Indeed I will be somewhat selfish and not do things for the abstract good that would cause me great hardship. In fact I believe that a guiding principle of ethics is that I need to look out for my own good as well as for others as stated eloquently inthe old Hillel adage:

But when being for not only myself includes also being for myself? Slam dunk as to what to do.

151

Let’s assume you are correct.

At this point you don’t have anything that I disagree with. Certainly there are negative consequences to modern industrialized meat production. But it is a stretch to declare “eating ALL meat is unethical” based on that.

I’m arguing it’s ok to eat animals because they taste good!:smiley:

152

If I do get this right: I absolutely have no problem with rules that lead to less human population. Or at least not on principle.

As far as I have heard - pregnant women are averse to raw meat. Five minutes before they send you on a quest to find some bloody steak at 3:00 am. :stuck_out_tongue:

I believe you when you say that it is possible to raise a child on a pure vegan diet. I’m only saying that it needs a lot more thought and work than a regular non vegan diet. That is what I mean by saying “it is easier”. And for a vegan diet there may be long term effects lurking around the corner. Maybe some kind of Osteoporosis. Right now – we simply don’t know. Either way – so don’t get me wrong: Don’t know – means: Don’t know.

I think that morals and ethics are not absolute. They are created by fashion. By the zeitgeist. And we should be free to live by any morals we chose. Only if we want to tell our neighbor what rules he should live by - we should argue on a firmer basis than “I believe” and “in my opinion”. And to argue on the basis build by evolution (as we understand it) is a pretty firm ground (IMHO).

153

So far, all we have evidence for is, first, that some children on vegan diets are malnourished. This is also the case with some children not explicitly stated to be on vegan diets. We don’t have the information to compare the two. Second, we know that B12 deficiency can lead to birth defects and this can be corrected by supplements.

154

Humans might taste pretty good too… should we start eating humans who have permanent brain damage, severe mental retardation, etc? Oh wait, Johnathan Swift beat me to the punch there on proposing something like that in ‘A modest proposal’…

155

Yes. And we know that by simply feeding some animal products even the most stupid parents that don’t really care about there child are able to prevent any serious malnourishment. While the well meaning loving vegan parents have to be well informed and really involved (by comparison) to keep their child healthy.

(This is pure speculation) It isn’t completely unreasonable to think that there is some heighten risk of a disease caused by some subtle malnutrition.
Again: I don’t say it is so. But we do know that a non vegan diet works. It worked the last 100.000 years. We don’t know whether a vegan diet works. There are illnesses out there that seem to have some connection to childhood malnourishment. But: We. Don’t. Know. If you wan’t to use your child as a Guinea pig - it’s not my place to criticize. But I won’t.

156

Whenever I see PETA, I think of this (and there probably is a very good reason why it tastes good).

Joke aside, I would buy meat if I knew that the animals it came from were raised in a humane manner over meat whose origins are unknown (especially meat that might have God-knows-what in it).

157

Mmmm, Dallas Jones in New York City served up some pretty decent barbecue years ago… :slight_smile:

158

Top of the food chain mammals (land based at least) tend to not be very prized as food sources. I Have been forced to try bear a few times…it’s bad really really bad.

Heck even sharks spit us out most of the time.

159

Just a quibble here, Neither sodium nitrate or nitrite have been shown to be carcinogenic; sodium nitrite can form into cancer-causing nitrosamines, this is prevented by adding a requirement for Vitamin C or other substances to cured meats. It is the addition of that is which reduced the cancer risk not the reduction of nitrates.

90% of our nitrates are from leafy greens and other vegetables, they mostly have substances that perform the same function.

160

But when one looks at the risks of eating processed meat, the effects of Vitamin C can’t be completely canceling out the effects of nitrites (OK, nitrosamines, but they wouldn’t form without nitrites). Otherwise, something else must be contributing to the risks. Also, according to Wikipedia, they explicitly state that cancer dropped after nitrites were reduced - and long before Vitamin C started to be added (perhaps some other reactions occur, such as whatever happens when meat is cured):

Now I know that correlation doesn’t mean causation, but then what other dietary change(s) occurred around that time?