Depends on what you mean by understand. I recognize that some people believe this, yes, but I’ve never heard a compelling argument for why it should be considered a valid belief.
First of all, I vehemently disagree that it’s not necessary, because I vehemently disagree that a plant-based diet is the most healthy diet for everyone, but that is so a completely different thread let’s leave that there.
Secondly, simply stating that it’s inherently inhumane doesn’t mean anything. Why? How? Based on what? The fact that the animals die? Is the argument that death simply is inherently inhumane, because if that is the argument I very much disagree.
So in order to discuss whether killing animals for food is or is not inhumane, it will have to be explained more fully and specifically what that means to those who believe it.
I can’t figure that out until I understand the underlying basis for their belief, as I noted in my previous post. So I hope someone will be able to clarify it for me.
<shrugs> Yeah, the world sucks pretty bad sometimes, news at 11. Anyway, I’m vegetarian just because I am; for me it means part of living consciously with ahimsa, and in fact I don’t bug anyone else about it and absolutely mind my own beeswax about it, and I like it that way.
Yes, fewer animals are suffering. If you have one scenario where 20 million animals are raised in captivity, slaughtered, and eaten, and another where it’s only 10 million, animal rights activists (along with anyone who can do math) will tell you that fewer animals are suffering under the second scenario, and that means the second is unarguably and unequivocally better than the first from an animal rights point of view. It doesn’t matter if the second scenario includes another 10 million animals living happily in the wild or not. Fewer animals are suffering in the second case, and they want fewer animals to suffer.
If these people were conservationists dedicated to preserving the cow and chicken species, they might be in kind of a bind here because those species would certainly dwindle in number if we weren’t raising them for human use. But they aren’t- not that we’re at risk of cattle and chickens going extinct.
As I said earlier, I don’t think it’s one or the other: meat producers will make changes if they think it’s worthwhile for them financially. It doesn’t really matter whether they decide it’s worthwhile to them financially because people are lobbying them to treat the animals better or because people are swearing off meat until they make changes. In the real world I figure people are doing both, so we’re really quibbling about the ratio of the two - and I don’t think that’s very important.
And Stoid, I think you’re losing sight of the reason that the “inherently inhumane” issue was brought up. I think the point was that there are essentially two ways of dealing with objectionable business practices: you can boycott the business or service until it complies with your demands that it improve, or you can work with it to moderate the most objectionable practices. There are potential problems with both, but you’ve declared that one of them is “lousy” because as soon as you stop being a customer, the business has no reason to give a fuck about your opinion. That’s incorrect, and it overlooks the problem with the second approach, which is that if you remain a customer while saying you want the business to change its practices, the business may conclude that you don’t care very much and that it doesn’t need to change or doesn’t need to change very much.
A “compelling argument”, huh? Given you started this thread, please be so good as to briefly summarize Singer’s or Regan’s positions on ethical actions toward animals, along with your analysis of the flaws in their reasoning.
I’d bet my next mortgage that you can’t do so, of course, which makes this thread akin to railing against free market capitalism without having any idea who John Locke or Adam Smith were.
Considering a strategy hopeless does not equal dimissing ideals and goals that I am actually arguing for. <emphasis designed to make sure you don’t miss that word, which is important.
As I’ve stated several times and several ways, I share the goal of reducing suffering. Passionately, actually. Which is why I care about the effectiveness of the strategy. If I didn’t care about the goal and didn’t share the ideal, I wouldn’t care enough to open the discussion. It’s because I do care very much that I object to what I view as empty, ineffective strategies.
If you care very much, take the time to educate yourself using the best possible sources. The best possible sources aren’t some schmucks on the internet, but rather the leading philosophers of animal rights (or, if you’d prefer, preferential utilitarianism). These books should be available at your library.
Hang on. The OP is, seemingly without provocation, picking a fight with vegetarians? Jeez, aren’t there any Zen Buddhist monks or underage schoolchildren around that he can pick on?
Weirder still, he doesn’t appear to be in any serious disagreement with them. He seems to be all in favor of animal welfare and humane farming practices. In fact, Ill quote:
I was going to reply, but I can’t really see the why the heck there should be an argument here.
Seriously, dude, what’s with the harsh tone? Come in, have a soy smoothie. We can talk, I’m sure.
I was persuaded to change my dietary habits based on reading some philosophical arguments for animal rights. As a result, I eat much less meat than I ever did before, and the meat I do eat I pay more attention to how the animals are treated.
As a direct result of advocacy on this issue, there are now fewer animals suffering in the world than there would be in some parallel universe where no one was advocating for that position.
Will such advocacy convince everyone in the entire world? No. But no single strategy will ever do such a thing. For any cause. Advocacy will convince some people, which is why I consider it a valid strategy.
Does that explanation make sense?
Morality is not that simple. You don’t believe that the way we treat animals is immoral, so you think the argument is nonsensical. But slavery and treating young girls as sexual property used to be just part of life. Most people in slave-holding societies or who had child-brides would not have agreed with you that there was anything inherently wrong about what they did.
Why are slavery and child abuse “inherently inhumane?”
Having finished my bacon cheeseburger, I think I’ll take a crack at that:
It’s inherently immoral to cause suffering in others. Animals can suffer as much as humans. Killing an animal, even humanely, still causes suffering. It’s possible to live on a meat-free diet. It might not be as healthy as an omnivorous diet, but convenience is not a sufficient excuse for immoral acts. Therefore, eating meat is inherently immoral.
Admittedly, I don’t find this argument compelling, as can be demonstrated by the fact that I still eat meat. But it’s a logically consistent ethical stance, and, I believe, a reasonably accurate summation of the mainstream ethical vegetarian viewpoint.
Just for the record, there’s no reason to think that a meat-free diet isn’t healthy. In fact, a vegetarian diet may well be healthier than an omnivorous diet, especially concerning obesity and risk of cardiovascular disease. For vegans, the main issue is running short of vitamin B12, but this can be easily sorted with supplements. (Lazy Wiki link.)
But you appear to not understand or care about anyone else’s point of view.
You asked “how is it that other people see anger in my OP?” but when I answered you, instead of saying “thanks, I hadn’t thought of it that way” you just deny that my explanation is reasonable or of any value at all.
Much like what your OP is about: you fail to understand what others are thinking, and appear, to me, to not even be trying to see anyone else’s point of view.
I believe that you care, but your arguments suggest that you think that vegetarianism is simply about preventing the suffering or death of animals. That is probably the reason most people choose a meatless diet, but the philosophy is quite a bit more comprehensive than just “killing animals = bad.” The main reason i advocate for a (mostly) vegetarian diet is that i don’t believe a meat-and-fish-based one is environmentally sustainable given current population levels, let alone for future levels. Meat and fish production has ecological impacts far greater than vegetable farming (though impacts there are still significant). Forests are cut down, wetlands are degraded, and grasslands overgrazed woldwide, pushing native species that need those habitats toward decline and possible extinction in many cases.
Marine habitats are hit even harder by human food impacts. Fish, marine mammals, seabirds, and most other life in the oceans face record population lows. Overfishing and harvesting practices that destroy habitat cannot be sustained at current levels without severe impact to the oceans. We could get away with it in the past because there were fewer people and our extraction methods were not so efficient.
Ecological arguments like these are a big reason why it’s not an empty or ineffective strategy to greatly reduce the amount of animal products one consumes, or to try and convince others that reducing consumption is a good idea. I think that caring about animal welfare ultimately means that of wild animals, too, and the only way to preserve their habitat is to reduce our footprint on the planet. Shifting toward a vegetable diet helps us get there more quickly.
For the record, i was vegetarian for almost 20 years and just a year ago started eating a very occasional bit of ethically farmed meat and sustainably caught fish (which is why, i suppose, this particular conversation engaged me enough to stop lurking). I’m not a purist. I ate a grass-fed, organic steak a couple months ago. I may barbecue a wild-caught Alaskan salmon fillet next week if the weather stays warm. Once every couple months seems about right.
I dont know if anyone has brought this up but eating veal is about the most humane thing we do to milk bull calves. You should see what we do to the ones we don’t turn into veal.
I don’t find slavery inherently inhumane (not evil) “just because” - I find it inhumane because most human beings have an advanced cognitive ability to actively desire self-determination and when they are deprived of it it is psychologically painful.
The other thing referred to was sexual abuse of children by priests (please stop changing things) which I find to be inherently inhumane because human children in our society experience this in ways which are painful and psychologically damaging, even when carried out gently.
We know these things for a fact, because human beings have reported their experiences. So we absolutely know that these things are inhumane as those who have been through them have confirmed.
If some people believe that animals which are allowed space and fresh air to hang out and just be themselves and eat their natural food in a natural way and then are killed quickly are experiencing similar psychological and emotional responses to enslaved people and sexually abused children, they are certainly entitled to believe that, but there’s very no evidence to suggest that it’s true.
A belief that lacks an evidentiary foundation, no matter how passionately held, is not equivalent to knowledge backed by direct evidence in the form of first person reporting as well as observed evidence in the form of the behavior and reactions of the victims. Free-range sheep gamboling around and wallowing pigs don’t strike me as suffering in the slightest.
Death comes to us all, so it is not inherently inhumane, especially when it is delivered quickly, without any forewarning. I think if I had to choose I’d pick an unseen bolt to the back of the head that takes me out instantly than a lingering death from cancer or being chased down and ripped apart by lions. A bolt to the brain seems exceptionally humane in fact.
The OP was not “All vegetarians and vegans eat that way to prevent the suffering of animals (and they are wrong to do so)” My argument defines exactly what I’m referring to: promoting vegetarianism as a solution to animal cruelty is an extremely poor strategy for acheiving that goal. Period.
I have no feelings at all about people choosing to be vegetarians or vegan in and of itself, to each his own and I’m very much aware that there are many reasons for it, reasons I totally respect, yours being high on that list.
This isn’t about vegetarianism at all, it’s about animal suffering and what will work or not work to reduce and eliminate it.
I think this concern will be more likely solved with artificial meat than veganism or vegetarianism. People just aren’t willing to give up the taste of meat as long as it’s theoretically available. While I’ve rarely met a vegetable I don’t like, I still find them wanting when I want a meal. I don’t think I’m that unusual in this.
I’m with the OP. I have thought about this often, wondering what the most ethical thing to do was. It is simple economics; there has to be a market for organic.animal friendly animal products.
I still think it is more ethical to go vegetarian or vegan; but if that is not easily accomplished, eating organic meat is a good second best.
Understanding isn’t measured by agreement or lack of disagreement. I have been frank about things that I do not understand and have asked for clarity: are you berating me for that?
The parts that I do understand I disagree with, as I’ve expressed.
For the record, I also disagree with the notion that everyone’s ideas, thoughts, beliefs, points of view or what have you are all equally deserving of equal degrees of respect and deference. That’s not so unusual in a debate.
We think about these things very differently, that’s much is extremely clear.