# What justification is there for eating meat? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2017, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659 "2017-07-07T00:25:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/261 "2017-07-23T19:18:21Z")
“Sentient” has a secondary definition of “sapient.” In some places, the primary and secondary definitions have swapped. ---
**Author:** ![Murph1111](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@Murph1111](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Murph1111)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2017, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/262 "2017-07-23T21:44:42Z")
“Professor Leafmoore?” “Yes, Woody?” “I was looking at the encyclopedia entry for inhabited planets, and I noticed that one was marked “OFF LIMITS!”. Why is that, sir?” “Well, my boy, that is the only planet in the galaxy known to have cults devoted solely to eating people like us.” “They’re cannibals? Don’t they have anything else to eat?” “Certainly they do, but those other things are more mobile than us, so they tend to run away or fight back. Folks like us can’t run.” “Grandma Bean is a runner…” “Not the same, Woody…” ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/263 "2017-07-24T00:38:11Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > …I’ve never once missed eating meat… > The key factor in my decision-making was my love for a dog. I wouldn’t eat dog meat either. Thankfully it’s not [a BBQ staple](https://www.killensbarbecue.com). I suppose we should all engage in sustainable eating practices. Eating sentient creatures like animals _and_ plants is not sustainable. _A recent spate of studies…is proving that plants have volition, show altruism and understand kinship much like many animal species. Could this dramatically change how we view plants and, in turn, make us care about what happens to them in the way we’re concerned about threatened, charismatic wildlife?_ > **[Research Shows Plants Are Sentient. Will We Act Accordingly?](https://www.nathab.com/blog/research-shows-plants-are-sentient-will-we-act-accordingly/)** > > New studies are showing that plants are far more intelligent than previously thought. Could this be the start of new protections for them? That leaves us with bacteria (which could eventually prove to demonstrate altruism) or better yet, breatharianism - which however runs us smack into the sustainability issue again. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/264 "2017-07-24T01:43:50Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Debates over the morality of eating animals have thoroughly convinced me that our moral systems are arbitrary. That is trivially disproven. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. If our moral systems were arbitrary, then we could create one where those things are acceptable. But murder is wrong at a fundamental “I would not want you to do that to me” level. Rape may even be more fundamentally wrong, since consent is involved. The fact that someone has been raped inherently makes it something the other person did not want. I won’t quote the rest of your post to avoid post parsing. It’s easier to address the rest of what you said as a whole. Yes, different arguments are used in these situations. Because the issues are different. For one, the issue is being asked in the positive. We’re being asked why something is acceptable, rather than why it is unacceptable. Most moral debates go the other direction. In this situation, what is natural (or how we’ve evolved) is actually relevant, as it forms the null hypothesis. To argue something to be immoral, you have to provide some argument that is greater than that. The reciprocity principle above is a good one, but there are others. Establishing that eating meat is the default, and that you have to provide a reason for why eating meat is immoral, is a foundation of a positive moral argument. And, since no substantial counterargument has been made, establishing that default predominates the discussion. The mockery comes from how low stakes this is. Neither position here is wrong enough to matter. One person thinks eating meat is okay, and one person thinks it’s not. The person who thinks it’s not has no power to force the people who think it is okay to stop. And no one who wants to eat meat wants to force those who don’t to consume it. I don’t actually see any vitriol. I don’t see anyone giving any indication they think the OP is anything more than a harmless guy with a stance they disagree with. Most moral arguments have higher stakes, and thus people get really angry at the person whose morals they disagree with. The disagreement itself is seen as harmful. Morality isn’t arbitrary. It’s just complicated. It doesn’t have parts that can be unambiguously tested via rigorous experimentation. We can’t take this question of whether it is wrong to eat meat and make an experiment where we test it. We can only test things like what is more healthy or how difficult it is. It is something that arises from having conscious, intelligent, sapient beings. And we don’t understand any of those three things very well, let alone what follows from them. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/265 "2017-07-24T01:46:02Z")
> [@Clawdio](#): > > I guess I don’t understand why meat eaters take it as a personal attack. It’s just a thought exercise. > > If I start a thread saying “I don’t think Zelda: Breath of the Wild is a good game, if you disagree please justify your opinion”, you wouldn’t get 20 replies from Zelda fans saying " I don’t have to justify why I like it, I don’t answer to you, I’m going to play it tonight, and for every time you say you don’t like it, I’m going to play it more!" Because that is merely a matter of taste, and not a moral argument at all. There’s no morality being attached to whether or not you like the game. But, in this situation, where people refuse to eat meat for moral reasons, there is an inherent moral opprobrium attached to it. The OP, in effect, is saying “Eating meat is immoral. Prove me wrong.” Remember, he linked eating meat to cannibalism, a form of murder. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/266 "2017-07-24T01:46:51Z")
In wartime, murder might not be wrong. (I’m not going to defend rape under any circumstances.) Morality really is arbitrary; we’re just fortunate that there are areas with extremely broad consensus. There are also areas where there isn’t a consensus, and opinions and values differ. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/267 "2017-07-24T02:16:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The animal rights argument goes something like this: A human should reduce animal suffering to the furthest degree possible without sacrificing human health because the suffering of non-human animals is bad. As this is merely a premise, you must show why this is correct before you can start demanding that others refute it. The default is that this statement is incorrect. That is not the current state of how animal cruelty is understood. Human health is not at all the only limiting factor. > [@](#): > > If that moral premise is correct, it is no rebuttal to say that animal welfare is improving in the meat industry unless you contend that it has improved to the point that there is a level of pain and suffering commensurate with growing plants (since we kill a lot of rodents and stuff in pest control). No, that does not follow. Your argument above is that we should reduce animal suffering as far as possible as long as it doesn’t negatively impact human health. But human health is not even mentioned here. There is no reason why “the pain and suffering commensurate with growing plants” is the limit. The limit you created in your premise was “human health.” It is true that it is not a refutation, but that’s simply because it’s not intended to be one. It is merely agreeing with “meat production is currently too cruel” and arguing that we are working on a solution to that problem. If it refutes anything, it’s the claim that the system can never be less cruel–a claim that is not usually made. > [@](#): > > So real rebuttal needs to actually tackle the premise somehow. One possible rebuttal is that you cannot be a healthy vegetarian, and therefore human health is more important than or at least as important as animal suffering. I think that’s clearly wrong as to the health claim, but it’s a valid moral argument here.The other seemingly valid arguments are “animals aren’t moral agents and so their suffering has no moral relevance,” or “human aesthetic pleasure is a value that justifies animal suffering.” This I agree with (as long as “the other valid arguments” isn’t meant to limit to just those two.) However, those are the exact arguments being made in this thread, where you claimed that no moral arguments were being made. You specifically made fun of some of them. Granted, the health claim is more limited, saying _some_ people can’t be healthy vegetarians. And the moral agents argument is not being made in those terms. The third one, however, is the exact same argument as “meat tastes good,” which you decried. > [@](#): > > I think that, for the moral commitments of most people who believe in things like animal abuse laws, your only real option is to contend that human aesthetic pleasure is a value that justifies animal suffering. That’s the correct moral rebuttal, but people are very uncomfortable with it because of the implications. Suddenly you find yourself in a moral morass of balancing suffering against pleasure and you have to actually think carefully about things like foie gras or elephants in circuses and all kinds of other cans of worms (metaphorically!). People prefer to think they have some categorical rule, even if they only believe that because they haven’t carefully examined their own moral premises. And yet it is a common argument being made in this thread. It is you who had a problem with it. You called it “not a moral argument at all.” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/268 "2017-07-24T02:23:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > In wartime, murder might not be wrong. (I’m not going to defend rape under any circumstances.) > > Morality really is arbitrary; we’re just fortunate that there are areas with extremely broad consensus. There are also areas where there isn’t a consensus, and opinions and values differ. No, murder in war is always wrong. The issue is that killing someone who is trying to kill you is not murder. And you just undermined your own point by saying you won’t defend rape. You just admitted that it is wrong. There are parts of morality that are mere social constructs. But that does NOT mean all of morality is arbitrary. There are things we have discovered are always wrong. Those cultures where those things are accepted? They are wrong. I could be in a prison where rape was a normal part of life, and not considered wrong at all. Rape would still be wrong. I can be among a group of racists, and racism would still be wrong. Morality is a philosophical pursuit, and those can genuinely find truth. It is not, as many people think, merely people trading opinions. It is actually exploring aspects of humanity that we cannot explore through experimentation. And, no, that does not mean I embrace any sort of supernatural. Morality is merely an emergent phenomenon to sapience and community. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/269 "2017-07-24T02:35:30Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > But murder is wrong at a fundamental “I would not want you to do that to me” level. Rape may even be more fundamentally wrong, since consent is involved. The fact that someone has been raped inherently makes it something the other person did not want. > [@Trinopus](#): > > In wartime, murder might not be wrong. (I’m not going to defend rape under any circumstances.) Rape may be worse than murder. :dubious: It is unbelievable that someone would put rape on the same level as murder let alone state that it could be worse. This is NOT to say rape isn’t serious, either. One is permanent, the other isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/270 "2017-07-24T04:28:13Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That is trivially disproven. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. If our moral systems were arbitrary, then we could create one where those things are acceptable. But murder is wrong at a fundamental “I would not want you to do that to me” level. The Aztecs actually built a civilization on the brutal killing of human beings and insisted on eternal war. Of course, that was _sanctioned_ killing, unauthorized killing was still, presumably, not allowed but clearly you _can_ build a viable system that permits or even insists on killing human beings. ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/271 "2017-07-24T11:18:58Z")
What about the plants of the field that just want to be free ? Unable to spread their seed, the basic function of life. Controlled and contained in fields and not allowed to establish roots wherever they like. Smothered with harsh chemicals that cause god knows what damage. Do these chemicals cause pain ? Brutally cut and picked, sometime either frozen or boiled. All are harvested before they are allowed to naturally live out their lives for the season. Then packed in small containers in crowded conditions. So, do any of the veggie people have concerns for what you are promoting ? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/272 "2017-07-24T12:07:41Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > What about the plants of the field that just want to be free? _All the world over, so easy to see Plants of the field just wanna be free I can’t understand it, so simple to me Crops in the valley just got to be free_ ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/273 "2017-07-24T17:56:21Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > I still eat mammal dairy products The best kind of dairy products, in my view. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/274 "2017-07-24T23:25:37Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > . . . And you just undermined your own point by saying you won’t defend rape. You just admitted that it is wrong. . . . Well, no. There is just so very high a consensus that it’s foolish (and even dangerous) to argue for the minority viewpoint. It isn’t “wrong” in a “God said it from On High” sense. It isn’t “intrinsically” wrong. It’s just a very patent violation of a HUGE swath of human cultural norms. Morality is arbitrary. Sometimes, 99.99% of us agree on it, but it is still arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/275 "2017-07-24T23:27:29Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Rape may be worse than murder. :dubious: It is unbelievable that someone would put rape on the same level as murder let alone state that it could be worse. This is NOT to say rape isn’t serious, either. One is permanent, the other isn’t. Actually, I didn’t do either of those things. My reasoning, instead, is that I would face greater social criticism here on the SDMB if I defended rape than if I defended murder. (Especially since I include killing in war as part of “murder.”) ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2017, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/276 "2017-07-25T01:05:07Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > My reasoning, instead, is that I would face greater social criticism here on the SDMB if I defended rape than if I defended murder. Cut to the chase. Pro-rape or Pro-murder? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2017, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/277 "2017-07-25T23:21:42Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Cut to the chase. Pro-rape or Pro-murder? It may seem funny (or just ugly, I dunno) but if I absolutely had to do one or the other, I’d choose to murder someone rather than rape someone. I wouldn’t have that much trouble finding someone who deserved to die – Charles Manson comes to mind – but I honestly do not believe anyone deserves to be raped. (I am still not declaring that one is worse than the other in any kind of objective sense!) ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2017, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/278 "2017-07-25T23:37:04Z")
You don’t rape someone to prevent being raped. You might have to kill someone to prevent being killed. From the pov of the victim, a person who has been raped has a chance to recover. Someone who is murdered has no chance of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/279 "2017-07-26T05:30:30Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It may seem funny (or just ugly, I dunno) but if I absolutely had to do one or the other, I’d choose to murder someone rather than rape someone. > > I wouldn’t have that much trouble finding someone who deserved to die – Charles Manson comes to mind – but I honestly do not believe anyone deserves to be raped. > > (I am still not declaring that one is worse than the other in any kind of objective sense!) You’re still trying to wiggle out of it. If you had to choose, would you rather be murdered or go with being raped? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659/280 "2017-07-26T12:13:51Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The best kind of dairy products, in my view. Whatcha got against soy milk (gluten-free and non-GMO, of course)? 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-justification-is-there-for-eating-meat/790659.md?page=15)