You say a lot of things. You said, “However…I do think killing animals to eat is wrong. People can call me a hypocrite for that if they wish and they would be correct…”.
Based on what you’ve said, I wouldn’t trust you not to outlaw hunting if you had the authority. I’m calling you a hypocrite, and according to your statement, I would be correct.
“That one steak” isn’t the equivalent to a deer. If ‘you’ stopped buying meat on the order of a large steak for each of four people each week for a year, the aggregate demand would be the same, and combined with other people changing their purchase habits would change production, eventually.
But “that one steak won’t kill an animal” is no more valid an argument than “this one hamburger wrapper won’t litter this stretch of highway” is.
I don’t. And “I eat what I kill” is obviously an argument from a position more similar to mine than yours. If you want to debate whether or not “killing (and eating) animals in general” is immoral, you should invite to a discussion on that instead of the more specific, but from your stance irrelevant, question on hunting and eating vs hunting and not eating.
Bolding mine.
Read this I guess I _do_ cause animal deaths when I eat pre-killed meat. - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board for more on the question of whether your choosing to buy or not buy a steak causes the death of an animal.
p.s. Thanks for the kind words. IMO your heart is in the right place but your head hasn’t caught up yet. You have opinions but don’t know *why *you have them. Wisdom comes from seeking to understand why you believe as you do. Asking here is a step on that road, for this issue and for many others. When you understand why you believe any particular thing, and can defend that why with rational argument, you will indeed be wise. It’s a long haul and not everybody is even trying to get there.
While everything else you said was accurate/relevant, I think this is the main point of your comments, is it not? Well, my response to that is that for 10’s or 100’s of thousands of years man has been brutal and violent and oppressed his fellow tribe memember and neighbor. I do not make the claim that this allways happens, just that it has happened a lot. So how does a long history of a certain set of actions make those actions morally justified just because of longevity?
I suppose the answer to your question is how are you defining ‘morally justified’? I mean, humans have murdered each other for all of that time, probably from before we WERE humans, and sometimes that is ‘morally justified’ and sometimes not. Eating meat, however, or hunting for meat we eat is part of who and what we are still today, at least for some. To me, it’s part of our nature. You can justify being a vegetarian, an omnivore or, like me a mostly carnivore on exactly the same basis…being human and living in the world. EVERYTHING you do as a human, especially a human who obviously lives in a modern industrialized nation causes deaths. The car you drive, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the computer you are typing on and the power that runs it…it all costs many, many organisms their lives. If you were a strict vegetarian you’d be costing many many organisms their lives, since the cropland those veggies are planted on displaced and caused the deaths of those organisms, as did growing the food, harvesting it, processing it and getting it to your local store. There IS no high moral ground here, except those who attempt to ‘morally justify’ their stance one way or another. It’s all the same, though there is a sliding scale of cost. Which is why I said I MIGHT be willing to concede some point if the discussion was one of resources or environmental impact, though, again, it IS a sliding scale with no zero point reached on that scale…not if you want to be alive, anyway.
Let’s take this one step at a time. First, is eating store-bought beef immoral, icky, or otherwise wrong?
Second, that store-bought beef was slaughtered by some blue-collar guy in a plant somewhere. If he goes home and stops at the grocery store for some beef for supper on the way, is that any more immoral, icky, or wrong than the first case?
Third, suppose that, instead of stopping at the grocery store, that blue-collar guy makes a deal with the slaughterhouse: In lieu of part of his pay, each year he gets to take home one of the cows he slaughtered and put it in his freezer in the basement. When he wants a hamburger now, he gets it from that freezer. Is that any more immoral, icky, or wrong than the second case?
Fourth, suppose that the worker decides that he doesn’t need the slaughterhouse at all: He takes up farming, raises his own cattle, and once a year slaughters one in the shed out back for his own consumption. Is that any more immoral, icky, or wrong than the third case?
Finally, suppose that he decides that that’s inefficient, too, sells the farm, and just goes hunting for one beast a year, “slaughtering” it out in the woods. Is that any more immoral, icky, or wrong than the fourth case?
Ok, well apart from calling me a hypocrite and asserting that I would outlaw hunting if only I could, do you have any other comments to add? Or is this the end of our discourse?
I’m not trying to be confrontational, really I’m not, it’s that I only understand 10 to 25 % of what you are saying, apart from the fact that we disagree and that there is a discrepancy between my claims and the way things actually work out in the real world in practical terms. If you could perhaps rephrase your comments I would be interested to read/hear them.
Well, see, I am reluctant to say this because I am actually reluctant to attack hunters. This statement is pretty bold. Let me preface it by saying I don’t hate anyone and I don’t think anyone is WRONG.
At the same time
Staring down the scope of a rifle and killing an animal that is mildly going about it’s day peacefully and unaware is different than walking over to the butcher section of the grocery store and picking up up some meat that has already been killed and processed.
I can’t defend that logically but, must all all values and morals be logical? I know that sounds crazy to say, particularly on SDMB. my point is, can something not be wrong even if I can’t perfectly describe or defend how it is wrong?
My biggest fault, personally, I think, is not taking the effort to eat “free range” beef and chicken. I think the distinction between the two lifestyles for animals in those situations is obvious but if you need me to clarify my comments I will be willing to attempt to do so. Hopefully, however, the differences are obvious.
Yes.
Your points are reasonable, and your uncertainties refreshing.
The deer population where I live is also way too high. So I wish the hunters success.
I’m satisfied with the old-fashioned idea that animals have a right to freedom from human-inflicted cruelty, but not a right to life.
As far as the cruelty of farm-raised animals being crowded, this could be true or false, depending on details. Some – maybe most – animals aren’t interested in an environment characterized by novelty, and appreciate being safe from known-to-them predators. Farm conditions can reasonably be judged on the basis of whether the animals show signs of stress.
As for vegetarianism, the best thing about it, to me, consists of the environmental and economic benefits. Every meal I don’t eat meat – I try to cut down, but do eat some – means that much less demand for grains, keeping down the price of said grains on the world market. If Americans ate half as much meat, people in the third world could better feed their families.
Wow, yeah, we are on agreement here, 100%, at least about the difficulty of being a moral being in the 21st century. How do you propose is the best way to conduct your life? Obviously, I could live like the Amish and retreat into the lifestyle of a former century, that would be kind of hard to do, become an Amish since I am an Atheist, but it would be hard to do in it’s own right.
… as a side note, I sometimes wonder are the Amish, with their simple life with less distractions and less comforts, do they actually have more peace of mind or happiness than we do? Or is it just romantic projection to assume that they do?
… I wonder also in the future… will there be societies like the Amish, but not religious, just people who grow tired of our increasing and increasing levels of technology and complications
But, the main point is, I ask you, how do we live correctly in 2015 in such a complicated world???
I grew up in a family of hunters, hunted into my teens, and my brother and friends still hunt.
I gave it up around 15 years of age since I couldn’t really understand what was supposed to be enjoyable about it. As I got older I started to question what enjoyment others found in it and even started to think that it was kind of a sick hobby.
I’m not against it nor do I find it immoral, I just think people that can find a thrill in are a bit… looney?
It’d be like calling in an exterminator to get rid of a rat infestation and the guy offered to do it for free cause he really “enjoyed the hunt”. Or a guy that works down at the slaughter house and mans the cattle prod who “just loves his job”. Or someone who volunteers to put down aged/sick/dying zoo animals cause it’d be “fun”.
All activites being necessary and are okay by me. But you’d have to agree you’d probably not want befriend any of these oddballs.
Every one of Cecil the Lion’s cubs will be killed by the lion that takes over his pride, so humans-as-animals aren’t particularly brutal.
I raised my kids to respect life, and to never kill without good cause … like for food, protection, make the yard look better. The act of killing and destroying a thing that is beautiful should never be taken lightly, and all things that live are beautiful in their own way. So I ask, is the moral position to wait until something dies first before it’s eaten; or is there a loop-hold that allows something to be killed and then eaten?
Extra credit: Is it only immoral to hunt cute doe-eyed woodland creatures, or does such immorality extend to the trees that were slaughtered to build your home?
Remember when I said that I admit my points can not all be defended logically? Well, your response is a very good demonstration of that. Even though I know my comments have a logical fallacy attached, my main thought is still this, to which I am interested in your reply:
Staring down the scope of a rifle and killing an animal that is mildly going about it’s day peacefully and unaware is different than walking over to the butcher section of the grocery store and picking up up some meat that has already been killed and processed.
(please remember that that comment is not directed at any one individual but to the overall concept)
Ok, well, I’m going to focus on one area, because I agree with most of what you said. My comment is a bit of a tangent but:
Is there not a significant difference in the quality of life between a “free range” chicken or cow and one of the same animals raised on a meat production farm?
Chickens co-evolved with parasitic worms … they won’t kill the bird, but they do make the poor thing’s life miserable … always hungry, lethargic, prone to destructive behaviors … plus free range exposes the chicken to predators, the human’s rational mind may understand there’s not a wolf within a thousand miles, but how is Miss Chicken to know that?
Compared to food abundance and worm-free in a small cage.
Certainly I’m glad I’m not a chicken.
I will have to return to this discussion later. I am falling behind in my readings for a college class I am taking. I will check back here in a few hours.
Some. But there will a lot more Amish because they discourage (without totally forbidding) birth control, and, unlike the Catholics, Amish follow most of what they are taught. Ditto for the Hutterites, and Hasidic Jews.
Someone may mention the Quiverfulls. But there are a lot fewer of them than the groups I just mentioned, and they may not do an effective job of passing on their beliefs to their children.
Note that the Amish double their population every 21 years:
Some of the societies “like the Amish, but not religious” will be that way not because they are rebelling against technology, but because they are rebelling against their parents.
Sorry, no dice. If you eat meat, you’re adding to market demand, adding incentive to meat providers. If you and people like you didn’t eat meat, that steer would never have lived or died.
No moral cover. You’re just letting someone else do the dirty work.
I’m like that. I’ve fished hunted birds, but I wouldn’t enjoy killing a deer. I do enjoy eating them, though (yum!) I can’t claim any moral superiority just because someone else bagged the deer.
Hunting for food is ethically superior, if you consider quality of life. The deer I see (and I see a lot) usually look happy and healthy except in bad weather. They’re much better off than livestock at feed lots.
BTW if you have any empathy for the suffering of animals, never ever eat veal. The cruelty involved in veal is nearly unimaginable. I’m ashamed for humanity, when I think of it.
The thread title makes me think of the extremely obscure rap/horror/comedy film “Now Eat”, about a gang-banger who becomes a cannibal murderer with voices constantly telling him to “eat what you kill…”.
I don’t remember much else about it – I watched it a long time ago while in college and on various substances. I remember laughing a lot, but I don’t know if it was because of my college buddies’ antics, the substances we were taking, or the film itself.
Animals have no moral value, killing them to eat is intrinsically not immoral. The only scenarios in which something done to an animal can be immoral are if it hurts a person (i.e. you are damaging their property) or if it causes you to debase your own human dignity.
I reject the " natural = moral" argument. I’m not saying eating animals is immoral; whether it is or not depends on values.
There may be lots of things that are natural and that humans have been doing for millions of years, but which we collectively decide to put behind us, due to ethical principals. I bet that eating meat becomes one of these, eventually.
[QUOTE=Robert163]
Wow, yeah, we are on agreement here, 100%, at least about the difficulty of being a moral being in the 21st century. How do you propose is the best way to conduct your life? Obviously, I could live like the Amish and retreat into the lifestyle of a former century, that would be kind of hard to do, become an Amish since I am an Atheist, but it would be hard to do in it’s own right.
[/QUOTE]
We live. We are. The best way to conduct YOUR life is going to be what you think is best. I don’t think that living like the Amish is particularly worthy or commendable, nor do I think it’s sustainable for even them, let alone for the majority of humans on this planet…they are able to live as they live because others enable and protect that way of life for them. If they were the last humans on earth they would be forced to change or they would die out…simple as that. And, of course, it’s still a matter of degree there…they still till fields and raise domestic animals and need things like wood, steel and other resources, all of which also cost in lives lost. Their overall foot print is less, but it’s not zero, and it’s more than our other woodland furry friends simply by being human.
Watch some of the shows on the Amish and see for yourself. I can tell you that they seem to be having some issues keeping their youngsters on that path, which should tell you something in and of itself. Myself, as I said I don’t see any particular nobility or moral high ground in their (to me) ridiculous religious aversion to technology. They picked an arbitrary point at which to say that tech is good, then arbitrarily decided that this is where they should stop (except when they don’t). To me, the REAL moral stance is to accept we are human, that we are tool using beings and that we have a greater impact on this world, and then use that technology to try and improve the world…and to see and explore this universe we have before us, and spread ourselves and other species on this plant to other worlds. Myself, I think that sentient life such as us is very rare and precious, and that it’s vital that we use that intelligence and technology not only to protect THIS world, but to spread the life from this world outwards. But then I’m a bit of a nut on this subject, so really it’s what you think as far as your life goes. I’m a live and let live sort of guy, and if the Amish choose to live the way they do, well, that’s what this country is about…choice. The rest of us will shoulder the load so they can live like it’s the psudo-18th century and be good with their God.
I don’t think there is a correct way to live in 2015. Personally, I think that ‘we’, in the west, have a lot of angst and frettage about how we live, but while not perfect I think it’s on the right path. When I look at countries like China and the damage they do, let alone the repression I think ‘well, that’s certainly what NOT to do’. As I said, personally I think that the right or correct thing for humans to be doing at this point is exploration and science, especially in space and the broader solar system and universe. We are the only species we know of, of millions and millions of species, that know, care or appreciate the recent fly by of Pluto, for instance. THAT is special and should be nurtured and fostered and expanded. This world we have is special as well, and it should be nurtured and fostered and protected…but with us being us, being human. The world doesn’t need another hominid in supposed balance with nature that will live, die and eventually become extinct…it needs a species like us that can appreciate it and the broader universe and to spread the life that started on throughout this solar system and, perhaps one day through out this galaxy. Otherwise, in half a billion or so years it won’t matter if we killed and ate a bunch of cows or deer, because everything will start dying off at that point…and in a billion everything on this rock will be dead. End of story. To me, that sucks and I hope we change the ending. We COULD…but will we?