The Ethics of Eating Meat

[Left Coast]

To me, it comes down to a form of prejudice because plants are so different from us in their form and such. It's a problem with primal psychology to make us biased towards our own kind over others. Not too long ago, we thought the same about all non-human animals and many still think the same.

I don't know of a time in history when humans have treated animals more cruelly, and on such a vast scale, than we currently do in factory farming situations, which is how the vast majority of us obtain the animals products we eat.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't know of a time in history when humans have treated animals more cruelly, and on such a vast scale, than we currently do in factory farming situations, which is how the vast majority of us obtain the animals products we eat.

In Paris, they would burn cats in large bonfires. In Spain (I think it was), they would throw a live goat out of a bell tower. Bull baiting, bear baiting, dog fighting and so on were all seen as quite wholesome past times. That was just some examples from parts of Europe. Yes, we have progressed a bit in the area of animal welfare. Industrial slaughterhouses are abhorrent, there I do agree.

 

[Thief]

Lately, I've been having an increasingly hard time ethically justifying meat consumption. Unless you live in some remote wilderness where animals are your only feasible source of nourishment, meat is not necessary for our survival. So I've been asking myself, why needlessly support killing animals simply to satisfy my taste preferences?

Do you consider it ethical to eat meat? If yes, are there any circumstances in which you consider it unethical? Do you eat some types of meat but not others (for ethical reasons)? What reasoning do you use to arrive at your conclusion?

it's chemistry

you need the stuff that grows up from the ground
but you don't have the digestive track of grazing animals

so you eat meat.....and should

 

[Left Coast]

In Paris, they would burn cats in large bonfires. In Spain (I think it was), they would throw a live goat out of a bell tower. Bull baiting, bear baiting, dog fighting and so on were all seen as quite wholesome past times. That was just some examples from parts of Europe. Yes, we have progressed a bit in the area of animal welfare. Industrial slaughterhouses are abhorrent, there I do agree.

That's true, we've made some improvements, particularly when it comes to animals we've arbitrarily decided we don't want to eat.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't follow the logic here. If you refrain from doing something unethical, aren't you by definition behaving more ethically than you would be otherwise?

The main gist is that people to me are not very ethical. Becoming a vegetarian barely scratches the surface.

By refraining from doing something unethical I think we can be unethical. Lions kill, so to oppose their extinction supports killing. That's an example.

Human ethical choices are almost always compromises -- like weighing two rocks against each other. Human A lives in comfort in a city, burns fossil fuels, opposes the burning of the rain forest. Human B lives in the rain forest, is always itchy because of mosquitoes and in danger of snake bites, favors burning the rain forest but wants to make cities create less co2. Pure ethical considerations are warped by the concerns that someone focuses upon -- because ethical decisions are often compromises. In other words the ethical decision balances the pros and cons, and what is pro or con can very upon where you live and what matters to you. This is also true for considerations about what to eat.

Here's an example of an ethical dilemma. A raccoon keeps upsetting your garbage. Do you lock up your garbage can or do you keep letting the raccoon eat from it? Most people would lock up the garbage can and consider that raccoon a nuisance, but wouldn't it be more ethical to feed the raccoon? Maybe its more cruel to encourage it or more cruel not to feed it, but the raccoon is such a nuisance that its hard to think clearly about the topic. One may come to a decision about what to do, however the ethical considerations are weighted rather than starkly obvious in every case.

Now consider that you are kind to animals and your children, but you ignore the needs of orphans and strangers. What is so ethical about you, then? Its not such an extremely ethical life, and its a typical human life. Its not convenient to care about orphans. Its not convenient to care about strangers. Convenience is the death of ethics, but humans are extremely interested in what is convenient. What we eat does not change this. It does not make us much better at all.

 

[McBell]

I've come up with a way to eat meat without the ethical issues... short version "try not to think about it". Works for me.

I think about and have no problems eating meat.
For those who would say I am unethical for eating meat, their bold empty claim reveals more about them than it does about me.

 

[Watchmen]

I would not eat cloned meat, same as i dont eat food thas been genetically modified

What do you eat?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's true, we've made some improvements, particularly when it comes to animals we've arbitrarily decided we don't want to eat.

I don't think it's so arbitrary.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't think it's so arbitrary.

What's the rationale? Dogs are considered a viable meal in China.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What's the rationale? Dogs are considered a viable meal in China.

I already said, it's because dogs weren't domesticated as livestock, is why I don't approve of eating them as a cultural norm. Thats not arbitrary. Dogs are the animals that our species has the strongest bond to. They're very attuned to us because we bred them that way. Honestly, East Asian cultures in general tend to treat animals hideously as compared to the rest of the world (such as eating animals alive and torturing dogs on death on purpose). I'm not sure exactly what that stems from.

 

[Left Coast]

I already said, it's because dogs weren't domesticated as livestock, is why I don't approve of eating them as a cultural norm. Thats not arbitrary. Dogs are the animals that our species has the strongest bond to. They're very attuned to us because we bred them that way. Honestly, East Asian cultures in general tend to treat animals hideously as compared to the rest of the world (such as eating animals alive and torturing dogs on death on purpose). I'm not sure exactly what that stems from.

Dogs are the animals we have the strongest bond to because we chose to make it that way. But pigs are just as intelligent and as capable of being loving and bonded with humans as dogs. Some people actually keep them as pets. The distinction between them, in terms of what we think is acceptable to eat and don't, is cultural and arbitrary.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Dogs are the animals we have the strongest bond to because we chose to make it that way. But pigs are just as intelligent and as capable of being loving and bonded with humans as dogs. Some people actually keep them as pets. The distinction between them, in terms of what we think is acceptable to eat and don't, is cultural and arbitrary.

Cultural, but not arbitrary. We didn't domesticate pigs as companions and work animals. We domesticated them as livestock. Keeping them as pets is as much the exception as eating dogs and cats (most cultures would be adverse to both). You may think it's a silly distinction but it does make a difference in terms of human psychology.

 

[Left Coast]

Cultural, but not arbitrary. We didn't domesticate pigs as companions and work animals. We domesticated them as livestock. Keeping them as pets is as much the exception as eating dogs and cats (most cultures would be adverse to both). You may think it's a silly distinction but it does make a difference in terms of human psychology.

Human psychology can change though. I think that's a big part of the hurdle in terms of getting people to think differently about the ethical treatment of animals. Most people in general want animals to be treated ethically, ie humanely, not harmed, etc. Yet psychologically they are completely divorced from the traumatic conditions in which factory farmed animals live and die. And they have a psychological carve-out in their mind where they want animals to be treated well, but still think it's acceptable to literally kill them (well, for someone else to kill them) so they can enjoy a delicious meal, when they could as easily enjoy another one that wouldn't involve killing said animal. And the rationalization is...well, we bred them for that. Yeah, we did. Does that make it ethical? In my mind, that just makes the ethical dilemma systemic rather than merely individual.

 

[McBell]

I already said, it's because dogs weren't domesticated as livestock, is why I don't approve of eating them as a cultural norm. Thats not arbitrary. Dogs are the animals that our species has the strongest bond to. They're very attuned to us because we bred them that way. Honestly, East Asian cultures in general tend to treat animals hideously as compared to the rest of the world (such as eating animals alive and torturing dogs on death on purpose). I'm not sure exactly what that stems from.

Unless you are India.
They like cows

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Human psychology can change though. I think that's a big part of the hurdle in terms of getting people to think differently about the ethical treatment of animals. Most people in general want animals to be treated ethically, ie humanely, not harmed, etc. Yet psychologically they are completely divorced from the traumatic conditions in which factory farmed animals live and die. And they have a psychological carve-out in their mind where they want animals to be treated well, but still think it's acceptable to literally kill them (well, for someone else to kill them) so they can enjoy a delicious meal, when they could as easily enjoy another one that wouldn't involve killing said animal. And the rationalization is...well, we bred them for that. Yeah, we did. Does that make it ethical? In my mind, that just makes the ethical dilemma systemic rather than merely individual.

I do think that factory farming is horrible. I've seen plenty of videos of that and don't wish to ever see them again. So I know exactly what you're talking about in terms of the cruelty. I think throwing male chicks in a grinder right after they're born is awful. Personally, I would be in favor of lab grown meat. I would eat it. I hope it becomes feasible to sell on a large scale in the near future.

But I still do don't think the problem is with eating meat itself. After all, we are animals ourselves and far be it from me to think as if we are above nature and have the right to judge one of its mechanisms for survival. To me, the problem is industrialisation. A hunter and a small farmer killing an animal one on one is one thing, but conveyer belt slaughter is another.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Unless you are India.
They like cows

Yes, that's another exception. Their cow worship is very odd according to the global norm.

 

[Left Coast]

The main gist is that people to me are not very ethical. Becoming a vegetarian barely scratches the surface.

By refraining from doing something unethical I think we can be unethical. Lions kill, so to oppose their extinction supports killing. That's an example.

All killing isn't a matter of ethics. Ethics only become involved when ethical actors become involved, individuals who can reason about what should or shouldn't be done.

Human ethical choices are almost always compromises -- like weighing two rocks against each other. Human A lives in comfort in a city, burns fossil fuels, opposes the burning of the rain forest. Human B lives in the rain forest, is always itchy because of mosquitoes and in danger of snake bites, favors burning the rain forest but wants to make cities create less co2. Pure ethical considerations are warped by the concerns that someone focuses upon -- because ethical decisions are often compromises. In other words the ethical decision balances the pros and cons, and what is pro or con can very upon where you live and what matters to you. This is also true for considerations about what to eat.

Here's an example of an ethical dilemma. A raccoon keeps upsetting your garbage. Do you lock up your garbage can or do you keep letting the raccoon eat from it? Most people would lock up the garbage can and consider that raccoon a nuisance, but wouldn't it be more ethical to feed the raccoon? Maybe its more cruel to encourage it or more cruel not to feed it, but the raccoon is such a nuisance that its hard to think clearly about the topic. One may come to a decision about what to do, however the ethical considerations are weighted rather than starkly obvious in every case.

I wholeheartedly agree that ethical questions are often quite complex and involve a "lesser of two evils" approach. I tend to be an ethical utilitarian, so my approach would ask what action produces least harm. And while that can be a difficult question, I don't think it's an unsolvable one most of the time.

Now consider that you are kind to animals and your children, but you ignore the needs of orphans and strangers. What is so ethical about you, then? Its not such an extremely ethical life, and its a typical human life. Its not convenient to care about orphans. Its not convenient to care about strangers. Convenience is the death of ethics, but humans are extremely interested in what is convenient. What we eat does not change this. It does not make us much better at all.

This strikes me as a rationalization to simply keep doing things that one recognizes are unethical because other things they're doing are also unethical. One has to start somewhere. If you believe you should be doing more to help orphans and strangers, then do more. But that's a separate question.

 

[Left Coast]

I do think that factory farming is horrible. I've seen plenty of videos of that and don't wish to ever see them again. So I know exactly what you're talking about in terms of the cruelty. I think throwing male chicks in a grinder right after they're born is awful. Personally, I would be in favor of lab grown meat. I would eat it. I hope it becomes feasible to sell on a large scale in the near future.

But I still do don't think the problem is with eating meat itself. After all, we are animals ourselves and far be it from me to think as if we are above nature and have the right to judge one of its mechanisms for survival. To me, the problem is industrialisation. A hunter and a small farmer killing an animal one on one is one thing, but conveyer belt slaughter is another.

The logic that because x occurs somewhere in nature, therefore we're morally justified to do x has always struck me as a bizarre line of reasoning. There are species of spiders where the female kills her male sexual partner immediately after he has sex with her. I assume you're not in favor of humans engaging in that behavior?

I do agree that if factory farming ended, and people only ate animals they themselves killed, we'd see meat consumption plummet. Most people eat it because it's convenient, it's what they're accustomed to eating, and because our uber-convenient modern society completely disconnects us from where our food actually comes from. I don't think most modern Westerners could bring themselves to personally slit the throat of a cow or pig.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The logic that because x occurs somewhere in nature, therefore we're morally justified to do x has always struck me as a bizarre line of reasoning. There are species of spiders where the female kills her male sexual partner immediately after he has sex with her. I assume you're not in favor of humans engaging in that behavior?

I do agree that if factory farming ended, and people only ate animals they themselves killed, we'd see meat consumption plummet. Most people eat it because it's convenient, it's what they're accustomed to eating, and because our uber-convenient modern society completely disconnects us from where our food actually comes from. I don't think most modern Westerners could bring themselves to personally slit the throat of a cow or pig.

Obviously I would not condone the behavior of the spider in humans as that has not evolved to be an advantageous trait in humanity. Eating meat, however, can be good in its proper place.

 

[Secret Chief]

So, because it's brainless it's OK to kill it? That's not really a justification... Harming a life-form is still harming a life-form.

Vegetarians are typically at least partly motivated by a desire not to cause unnecessary suffering. So yes of course it's OK to kill a brainless carrot due to the absence of said suffering. The alternative I presume is to live on a diet of pebbles.