As said before, eating has nothing to do with anything. It is irrelevant to the discussion. I refuse to answer and give credence to any underlying logic.
And note, I am a meat eater. I’m not trying to down you for eating meat. I’m just trying to help you understand why the statements above are nonsensical, since you seem to still believe otherwise, even if you have disavowed them.
What in the holy hell are you talking about? Eating is literally the central concept in this discussion. The very issue at question, the very thing asked about in the OP, is that of whether eating this hamburger causes an animal to die. ETA: I mean–look at the title of the thread!
One could step it back and ask, instead, whether “buying” it causes an animal to die. Much the same conversation could be had, sure. But of course the vast, vast majority of meat-buying being done at the everyday household level is for the purpose of eating it.
Sage Rat, I’m sorry, but at this point I have serious doubts you have any idea what claims I believe and what claims I have disavowed. I see little evidence you understand anything that is happening in this conversation. See above.
When did you decide to eat a hamburger?
You didn’t decide to eat a hamburger when you saw it in front of you. You decided long ago to be a hamburger eater and all the hamburgers out there exist to fulfill that need.
Even at that party you caused an animal to die because you are a hamburger eater going to the party and that’s why they have hamburgers. If it was a party full of vegans then there would be vegan burgers or some other sort of food.
Frylock, I get exactly what you’re saying, and it’s a pretty common idea. I’ve explained to my kindergartener why buying meat would lead to future animal deaths (that conversation may have something to do with her decision last week to become vegetarian). It’s not a straightforward idea.
But I’d say that your focus on eating hamburgers is very slightly misplaced: the act that kills more cows is **creating a data-point of demand for hamburgers, a data-point that will be used in market analysis by animal breeders. You can do this by buying a hamburger for someone else, or you can do it by letting someone know that you’re going to eat burgers at their house, or you can do it by buying a burger for yourself. You can avoid it by going the “freegan” route of not eating meat except for meat that would otherwise be thrown away.
Folks who talk about how yeah, you’re resulting in more animals being killed, but you’re also resulting in more animals being born–these people baffle me. What, there’s something noble about getting a pig born into this environment?
I’ve said before that I eat meat, so I’m not out there lecturing folks who join me in enjoying a tasty steak taco like the one I had for dinner tonight. But I think meat-eating is ethically problematic, and I agree with you that we shouldn’t shy away from the ethical implications of our actions.
Fortunately, not all meat is raised in factory farms. We raise (humanely) some of our own meat, and buy some of it from our neighbors, who also raise their animals in good environments. It’s hard killing animals, but I actually feel better about eating the animals that I’m directly responsible for the deaths of, because I know that they had good lives, and quick deaths. The stuff in packages at the grocery stores, not so much.
I realize that not everyone has the room or inclination to, say, raise hogs, but but supporting farmers that aren’t factories is just as good.
Because replacing what you use up is pretty much how we justify anything. You’re throwing in suffering, which is not the issue being discussed. Suffering is about how you kill (including how you raise), not killing itself.
I also don’t see how you can both eat meat and think that eating meat is ethically problematic. The only way I could see you doing so is if you ate meat with a ton of guilt. Something that you believe is ethically problematic is something you think it is wrong to do, at least to some degree.
As for myself, I have to be pragmatic about the whole thing. I’m not going to stop eating meat. I’ve tried it and I just can’t handle it, and I have dietary issues that already restrict my diet. I also can’t afford to only pay for well-treated animals. What ethical requirements I may have are just not possible for me, so I am absolved.
Continuing to think about it after that point is just going to needlessly make me feel guilty, when I can’t help. What time I do have to spend is spent on much more pressing ethical matters.
The only thing relevant to me is what I mentioned in the first paragraph. And that I don’t actively enjoy causing the death of another living being, because that route leads to enjoying the death of humans–our monkey brains can’t really tell the difference.
Bullshit. I hunt. I kill deer, killing deer for my own consumption and turkey for my family’s. Been doing thwt for 30-some years. That hasn’t led me know to kill a human or to contemplate doing so, because turkeys and deer are not moral agents in the way humans are.
Good riddance, mostly.
Meh, the cow was sickly anyways.
:eek:
You named the deer Wellington before you even SHOT it?
You MONSTER!!!
No shit… the level of mental gymnastics and denial in this thread is mind-boggling. The morally inferior position to take is the refusal to confront and acknowledge where your food comes from. I sincerely hope it is a whoosh.
How can my living now have been caused by my being born in the past? Cause and effect sure are confusing! :dubious:
The cause of the cow’s early death is you have a habit of eating them, a habit so regular that they know they have to kill that cow so you can go on with your habit.
If you break the habit a cow will still die in the future because they don’t know that yet, but the next one will not as they will learn you no longer eat cows.
However at first there was a delay too, as they needed to know that you desired to eat a cow, then kill one - so that extra cow balances out in the end.
Um buddy? You switched around past and future there.
To parallel my question, you’d have to ask the following:
“How can my living now cause myself to be born in the past.”
You’re right, cause and effect apparently are confusing. But it is manifestly not me who is confused.
Unless it is the very first time you’ve eaten a burger , you have not stepped back far enough.
By eating the last burger you ate, you sustained demand for cows being killed for beef. Therefore, you are still fractionally responsible for this cow’s death as well as contributing to the next cow’s death by sustaining demand by eating the current burger.
A friend of mine let his kids name their steer. They named it T-Bone.
I agree with you; my dad hunted and fished for as long as I can remember, and my grandmother kept chickens that she used for meat and eggs, so I have always equated meat with a once-living critter.
That was a lot of words to say you discovered supply and demand.
It’s true that, by yourself, or perhaps even your entire town is just a rounding error on the demand side. But it adds up. Just like one water drop or one snow flake is practically nothing, but get a bunch of them together and you can flood a town or cause an avalanche. Or how no one will notice if you litter, but if everyone had that attitude then the streets would be knee deep in garbage.
Drinking milk and eating cheese causes animals to be killed.
You can’t get milk from a cow unless it gets pregnant and has a calf. The young calves are mostly not required so are sold off as veal.
And worms killed by ploughs, and critters run over by various farm vehicles.
I wonder if many vegans grow their own produce in order to avoid those sorts of deaths.
This is stupid. I didn’t “discover supply and demand,” rather, I noticed an implication of it that I hadn’t noticed before. It is not obvious, not at all, that my buying this burger now causes any deaths, because the most obvious death involved in the transaction already happened.
And a new baby cow means “More veal” so it’s all good on every level.