Sounds very much like “might makes right” to me. “Winning on the evolutionary ladder” isn’t something you’ve done; it’s a trick of inheritance. I find inherited privilege to be suspect in feudalism, and I find it suspect here.
In other words, it’s not really a justification at all.
That’s more reasonable, and falls under social contractarianism. The problem with using that as a justification is that certain sorts of cannibalism–eating one’s own offspring without bothering anyone else–wouldn’t cause any particular harm to a society that allowed for it. But those sorts of cannibalism are even more offensive than normal vanilla cannibalism.
I have a personal rule not to debate vegetarianism or veganism. It’s more inflammatory than discussing religion and politics (although less inflammatory than racism and misogyny/rape culture). So I don’t think I’ll have much to contribute.
I just want to register that I’m lacto-ovo-vegetarian. I’ve been vegetarian (and temporarily vegan) for over half my lifespan. And what’s I’m here to witness is that I’m that way because I like it. Because I’m happy this way. And that’s all the reason anybody needs.
As for anyone else’s preferences, I don’t even give a good cahoot. It would be sweet if everybody just minded their own business on such a matter. What could be more intimate and personal than what you like to introduce into your own body? Yes, food is like sexuality in that respect. I’m sick of carnivores getting all up in my grill when they see me taking only vegetarian food and telling the same stupidass joke about Indian hunters every. damn. time. OK, walking that back a little, since this isn’t in the BBQ Pit (yet).
My point is that I never even mention the subject in any social setting. I would never speak of it at all if it weren’t for carnivores inspecting my plate and deluding themselves that they have some excuse to mind my own business.
I think the second argument is closest to the one I subscribe to to justify my consumption of meat – I don’t think animals have any concept of death, and desire to avoid pain and suffering, and that’s it. I think it’s ethical to raise and kill animals for food or any other purpose (leather, fur, research, religious ceremonies, etc.) as long as they are treated humanely and killed painlessly. Of course, modern factory farming seems to cause a lot of pain and suffering to animals, and I don’t eschew factory farmed meat even though I prefer free range/humanely-raised meat and eggs and dairy when convenient. So I’ll admit to a bit of hypocrisy.
I’ll add that arguments about pain and suffering probably do not apply to all animals – I don’t see any problem with farming and consuming animals like oysters and clams for which there is no evidence of capability for pain and suffering, no matter the method.
A person can be concerned about the environment or animals, or both, and still have no problem with eating meat. I know, it’s a tough concept.
Perfect, that comports nicely with the fact that your views on meat eating is of very little importance to the majority of everyone else.
I said “lottery”, not ladder. And yes, it is very close to might makes right. One less giant asteroid and some good luck for the dinosaurs and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Is there such a thing as ‘species privilege’? If there is, we have it coming out the wazoo and there’s no point to deny it.
I’m all for minimizing the suffering of animals. The main (not only) idea behind that is not for their benefit, but for our own. It is not because we are morally on the same plane as various other animals, but rather how we treat others including the animals is a reflection on ourselves.
I fully agree with you that how we treat animals reflects on ourselves, although “not for their benefit but for our own” is an odd way of putting it. It seems to me turn a fundamental moral and ethical issue into a platitude, like saying that you should help out a poor person because it will make you feel good.
The “might makes right” maxim also sidesteps the moral and ethical issues, rather more blatantly. The late Clifford Geertz, a greatly respected cultural anthropologist, once said that “Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun.” The difference between humans and the other animals is only one of degree, and we constantly underestimate the intelligence of many animals and downplay their sentience, their ability to feel fear and pain just as we do. Our place in the food chain is not the result of some God-given right, but just of our power to exert our dominance over other creatures, and it’s a power that any moral ethos must demand be balanced by responsibility and compassion.
On multiple occasions in this thread you’ve made your debate with Crazyhorse personal with direct shots at him, his character and his knowledge. That shouldn’t be done.
:smack: My apologies, and the way you said it makes more sense, although I still disagree with it.
Well, sure–in the same way that being born a straight white male to college-educated parents in the 20th century US means I have privilege coming out the wazoo. I still don’t think I get to eat children from poorer countries. My privilege doesn’t confer me any sort of ethical rights over others.
I’m curious about three things here:
Your parenthetical (not only). What else, besides benefiting us, leads to your advocacy for minimizing the suffering of animals?
If how we treat them reflects on us, why doesn’t whether we kill them for our pleasure reflect on us?
If you want to minimize the suffering of animals, couldn’t you do so by not having them slaughtered for meat?
There’s a lot of foods both plant (fruits) and animal (milk, eggs) that you can eat without killing the source.
Hell, some plants want you to eat their fruit. I mean, they really want you to…
Damnit, the Winkie isn’t suggestive enough. We need an eyebrow-wiggling smiley.
The Argument from Moral Laziness. As a matter of self-discipline and emotional well-being, I cannot do everything that I am morally compelled to do because I have a limited capacity for self-regulation and self-negation. Abstaining from eating animals consumes my limited capacity for self-negation. It is rational to place all moral obligations to end severe human suffering above any moral obligations to animals–if for no other reason than we know a lot more, with more certainty, about the content and consequences of human suffering. Since my capacity for self-regulation and self-negation is exhausted by my efforts to satisfy my moral obligations to humans, I am obligated to use my limited capacities for humans alone. Therefore, it is moral not to refrain from eating animals even if it is wrong to eat animals.
I’m not quite sure what to make of that argument. I see some flaws in it. But I actually think it, or something like it, describes the moral reasoning of a whole lot of folks. And not just on vegetarianism, but whole categories of things.
That’s why I refer to species rather than individual members of a species. Certainly there are some animals more intelligent, more capable of feeling pain, more sentient than some humans, individually. To be consistent, I consider the species as a whole. And I’m not saying the eating of animals is ethical per se - rather, it’s not an ethical decision.
[ol]
[li]We know that some animals feel pain. Causing pain unnecessarily is bad. Granted, we are killing them to eat them, but if there is a method to do that that causes less suffering then that is a superior choice, all other things being equal. But when comparisons of relative value of costs and benefits when comparing humans and other non-human animals, the scale tips heavily in favor of humans.[/li][li]It does - I’m not a fan of killing animals for pleasure. I would prefer we don’t do that. I try to not even kill bugs outside my house. But similar to #1, when making relative comparisons, human desires vastly outweigh those of animals and there are a lot more things that humans do that I’d prefer they didn’t so on the scale of things to be upset over, this ranks very low.[/li][li]Yes - that is possible. It’s unrealistic and would likely not happen. But minimizing suffering of animals is a goal, that competes with all other goals. Going back to #1, the relative value of that goal is low compared to other goals. Like me wanting a hamburger.[/li][/ol]
But this people are very serious and there is a lot of disagreement within the ranks … Pretty much everyone agrees that naturally fallen fruits are OK, but things like fruits picked from the tree, vine vegetables, and seeds and nuts can be the subject of some crazy conflicts.
This article does a good job of reflecting the craziness.
Although this particular group doesnt really seem so much into the non-violence ( ahimsa) aspect of the diet, they are more driven by the belief that an ideal diet should be at least 80% carbs and no more than 10% each fat and protein. So they eschew nuts and beans more because they are protein and less because they contain the seeds of life.
It’s not a tough concept to me. Since hamburgers seem to be your thing (I’m a fan myself) you could eat three quarter pounders every day, 365 days a year, and just be on par with the average meat consumption in North America.
If the average person ate just one quarter pounder per day, every day, 365 days a year, they would be helping reduce excessive meat consumption in a big way.
If they chose to do so just a few times per week even better. That of course is assuming they don’t also have bacon, sausage, and ham with breakfast and a roast for dinner.
The remedy for excess is moderation, not necessarily abstinence.
??? Half the people in N.A. eat more meat than the equivalent of three quarter pounders every day?
That…doesn’t sound right.
Is there, like, one really huge guy out there who’s eating five hundred quarter pounders a day, pushing the average way up? Or 15,000 really dedicated beefeaters? I’m not figuring how this can work.
270lbs per year average, times 16 ounces per pound divided by 365 days in a year = 11.8 ounces per day on average.
Since there are also some vegetarians, babies who don’t yet eat meat, etc. that average is even more amazing. There certainly have to be some mighty big eaters out there at the high end of the curve.
But one 16 Oz. T-bone is four quarter pounders by itself, and someone might chomp one of those down along with their salad with bacon bits, baked potato with chili cheese and onion, and green beans with ham. And all as one meal out of three in the day. It’s not actually that hard to imagine how we’re able to pack so much away when you look around at menus out there.
I’ve considered killing humans for food, in the sense of it crossing my mind when stuck in line at McDonald’s behind someone who waited until reaching the cashier before bothering to look up at the menu and starting their decision process, which for some reason includes quizzing the cashier about transfat and gluten content.
