Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with I.
Premise II is what I dispute. Eating meat does not cause suffering. The dead feel no pain and do not suffer. Everyone dies.
I suppose I dispute its soundness being that eating meat does not cause suffering. We do not eat them alive. Slaughter is reasonable quick and humane compared to other ways an animal could die; disease, other predators, starvation, being struck by vehicles, other injuries. To live a relatively safe life with abundant food, water and medical attention and have your life end quickly and with limited consciousness of pain or suffering would be preferable to non-existence.
So you admit that there is actually suffering involved? There is no doubt that being a meat eater causes suffering. Of course meat is dead, but your purchasing meat causes future animals to be raised and killed due to the increase in demand. There is inevitably suffering. In our current meat system, the suffering is extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
If your argument for vegetarianism is the existence of some isolated inhumane treatment at some facilities the more logical action would to be to eliminate this type of treatment via. education, exposure and legal avenues.
First, that's not my argument. Second, even if it were, the inhumane treatment is not isolated. Factory farms have terrible conditions, and 98% of our meat comes from factory farms.
Not eating meat causes suffering too. What happens to those animals that don't have a predator that hunts them and eats them? They live longer and overpopulate and diminish their food supply. Death by starvation is suffering also. Eating meat helps to keep the animal population balanced out.
The vast majority, as in probably 99%+, of our meat is farmed, not wild. It's interesting that this response always comes up.
However, it seems like there is a big moral difference between nature causing death and us causing death intentionally. Imagine I went and killed a bunch of kids in a poverty-stricken nation. When you ask me why I've done such a terrible thing, I respond "They were going to die anyway, and it probably would have been from some terrible disease!" Would that response satisfy you?
I think the statement that not having a central nervous system positively proves that there is no consciousness, with no other evidence, is an example of a fault in logic. What if you are wrong? What if plants actually do suffer when they are cut or torn from the ground?
That's not a fault in logic. It may be empirically false, but it's not a fault in logic. If plants suffer, then we would have a much larger issue to tackle. Suffering may be unavoidable. But there is no evidence that plants are conscious.
Moderator cut: -
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-02-2015 at 07:32 AM..
Reason: If you think something is wrong about a post report it, don't comment on it
I. Define reasonably avoidable? And actually, define suffering? Who's suffering are we referring too? And if the quantity of suffering a factor? If a man holds a gun to you're head, and you have a knife, what do you do? You could stab him, he would bleed out, and slowly die. That's great suffering. If he shoots you in the head, you'll die instantly; painless. Do you endure minimal suffering at the expense of you're life in order to avoid causing reasonably avoidable suffering?
The standard for "reasonably avoidable" can be pretty low and the argument still work. Something that you could avoid without causing yourself any harm would be reasonably avoidable. The suffering we are referring to is the animal's, and of course quantity matters.
If a man holds a gun to my head, I cannot reasonably avoid defending myself. Letting myself die is not a reasonable thing to do. Note that I didn't say "Avoid causing suffering when that avoidance can be accomplished without suffering." That would be relevant to the gun situation. It isn't reasonable to die at the hands of a criminal, whether I'm suffering or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
II. Do eating meat cause suffering? Two whom? Health wise, meat may not be the best for you but a person who lives an active life style will negate any negative side effects. Does it cause harm to the animal? Not really. Once dead, eating the meat no longer changes anything. I'd say that not eating the meat causes more suffering; the animal died for nothing. What you're actually arguing is that we shouldn't kill animals... but we do. So we should eat meat or we let a resource go to waste.
The suffering happens before the "once dead" part.
The animal died for no good reason whether you eat it or not. You didn't need it for nutrition, you chose it for nutrition. It was a bad reason to kill it.
Of course I'm arguing that we shouldn't kill animals for food. I'm not literally saying the act of putting meat in your mouth directly causes suffering to that meat. That's obvious, and it's a petty critique. It's similar to saying "I know this diamond I'm about to buy is a blood diamond, but it's already here, so it'd be a waste of a diamond that was mined on the backs of slaves to not buy it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
III. Is eating meat reasonably avoidable? In some cases, sure. But certainly not all cases. Some places don't have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, but you can buy packaged meat that is fresh. Should this person purchase lower quality food in order to reasonably avoid eating an animals who has already died?
If we're talking about the US, I do not believe there is an area where one cannot eat a healthy plant-based diet. If we're talking about a poverty-stricken nation, those people should eat meat if it is crucial to their health.
Insofar as eating meat is reasonably avoidable, people should avoid it.
The below argument for vegetarianism is very straightforward, yet I've never heard an actual rebuttal to it that held water:
I. One should avoid causing suffering that is reasonably avoidable.
II. Eating meat causes suffering.
III. Eating meat is reasonably avoidable.
Conclusion: One should not eat meat.
The argument is obviously valid, and premises II and III seem to me to be clearly sound. I'm really not sure where meat eaters disagree, but I'm guessing it must be premise I.
Meat eaters: What do you dispute about this argument? Do you dispute its validity or its soundness, and if it's soundness, which premise do you dispute?
Nothing to "argue" about or discuss.
If one chooses to be vegetarian so be it, their choice
If one chooses not to be vegetarian so be it, their choice.
I choose not to be a vegetarian because I choose to avoid "suffering". That would be my own suffering from hunger if I was a vegetarian.
PS ~~ Some of us have actual medical conditions that require that we avoid being vegetarian because our bodies need specific nutrients that are not provided by vegetarian foods or supplements.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-02-2015 at 07:33 AM..
Reason: Edited quote
So you admit that there is actually suffering involved? There is no doubt that being a meat eater causes suffering. Of course meat is dead, but your purchasing meat causes future animals to be raised and killed due to the increase in demand. There is inevitably suffering. In our current meat system, the suffering is extreme.
I have never died so there for can not say if one suffers at the time of death. So how could I admit there is suffering. I have had to shoot animals that were actually suffering due to being attacked by other animals or ones that were sick and dying. I could see the suffering. I have slaughtered chickens, rabbits and pigs with swift death. I saw no such suffering.
How can you say without a doubt that being a meat eater causes suffering. What becomes of animals that are meant for eating if no one is to care for them during their life? Do you wish them to just become extinct?
Quote:
First, that's not my argument. Second, even if it were, the inhumane treatment is not isolated. Factory farms have terrible conditions, and 98% of our meat comes from factory farms
What then is your argument?
If there is so much suffering and terrible conditions changing that would be the answer not having the entire populace stop eating meat. The fate of these animals left to their own devices would surly cause terrible suffering.
I'm was a vegetarian by choice, but became a vegan because of allergies. I have lived quite well without meat. Humans can be omnivores, but are more than capable of surviving (and thriving) without meat.
Humans (especially Americans) eat too much meat, but much suffering would occur unless there was a slow withdrawal of it. So in the current state of affairs a mass exodus of meat eaters would be problematic.
Some cultures eat bugs. Do you have the same problem with eating bugs as eating meat?
Are you actually a vegan (no animal products at all) or do you have some dairy, eggs, fish, etc? I think only a true vegan could satisfy your initial argument.
The below argument for vegetarianism is very straightforward, yet I've never heard an actual rebuttal to it that held water:
I. One should avoid causing suffering that is reasonably avoidable.
II. Eating meat causes suffering.
III. Eating meat is reasonably avoidable.
Conclusion: One should not eat meat.
The argument is obviously valid, and premises II and III seem to me to be clearly sound. I'm really not sure where meat eaters disagree, but I'm guessing it must be premise I.
Meat eaters: What do you dispute about this argument? Do you dispute its validity or its soundness, and if it's soundness, which premise do you dispute?
Your argument fails because it is not rooted in tangible fact and/or guaranteed consent by the populace.
One should avoid causing suffering that is reasonably avoidable.
-You used the word ‘should.” How are you determining what should or should not happen? The word “should” implies a universally agreed upon idea and/or course of action. You say that “one should avoid causing suffering…” Says who? Humans have free will and the ability to choose. The choice to cause suffering is as valid a choice as choosing to not cause suffering. Hence, you cannot say that any course of action “should” take place.
-Suffering. You have failed to define “suffering.” Assuming you mean death, then you have failed to draw a correlation between the 100% natural phenomenon that we call death with the idea of suffering. Everything that lives will die. It doesn’t matter if that life is 1 minute or 1 million years. For clarification, I am also including slow decay in my definition of “die.” So, the fact that an animal dies ever, is just nature doing its thing. Death is not suffering.
Eating meat causes suffering.
-Even though you have failed to support your idea of suffering, I will continue. I will assume you mean the idea of intentionally inflicting death upon an animal for food. For this, I will go back to nature. The food chain is a real thing and most species have what are called “natural predators.” You are well aware that lions kill zebras for food. Human (i.e. animals) are as much a part of the food chain as a lion. Therefore, it is another part of nature that we see humans killing our fellow animals for food. I will also toss in the fact that the human body has the teeth and digestive system that allows it to eat and digest meat. Some could argue that this fact lends itself to the idea that there is an evolutionary basis for human consumption of meat. Animals that are herbivores don’t have the digestive systems that can process meat because it is not evolutionarily needed. Animals (i.e. humans) have the digestive systems that can process meat. This is nature and/or evolution at work. Are you going to argue that nature equals suffering? Or is nature…just nature?
Eating meat is reasonably avoidable
-What is reasonable? Again, you are using declarative statements for ideas and concepts that are not universally agreed upon. Until you provide a valid argument or definition as to the “reasonableness” of anything, that part of your statement has no merit.
-Avoidable. Who determines what is avoidable? Using our jungle friends, can a lion avoid eating a zebra? If a human is out in the woods and there are a myriad of unknown species of plants and a wild chicken running about, it can be said that the potential harm that come from consuming potentially dangerous plants (hemlock anyone?) makes eating the chicken a better choice. When staring at starvation, eating the chicken is not as avoidable as one would think. Now play with the idea that while we live in a modern world with global food commerce, such a world in tenuous at best and is subject to the elements. Nature produces storms that can wipe out entire crops of plant food. Swarms of insects can also destroy crops of plant food. Weather, heat and drought can destroy crops. In such a scenario, nature has provided the additional food source of animals. The human drive to live will make eating meat less avoidable. I will acknowledge that a human may choose to die instead of eating the animal, but a free will choice is not the same thing as something being avoidable. Choice takes away the concept of “avoidable” since all choices are valid. Thus, eating meat is just as valid as not eating meat.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-02-2015 at 07:35 AM..
Reason: Edited quote
Actually, being a vegetarian still results in the mass slaughter of animals. What do you think happens to all those male offspring of milk cows? And the baby roosters that are done away with because they won't grow up to lay eggs?
I considered vegetarianism a long time ago, but when I realized that for true ethical "rightness" I would need to become a vegan, I gave the idea up.
I do see veganism as the most ethical choice, but I'm not willing to go that far for moral perfection. I live my life under the premise that empathy is the greatest moral guidepost. The question of "Would you want someone to do it to you?" pretty much solves any ethical dilemma. But I'm not at the point where I'm prepared to extend that to farm animals. I do go out of my way to buy ethically raised meat for my home cooking as much as my budget will allow, but I'm at peace with the personal selfishness that allows me to continue to eat meat.
It's similar to the question of why I don't donate all of my disposable income to children living in the Third World. I don't NEED so many of the things I have in my life - why haven't I tried to improve (or even SAVE) the lives of people who have so much less than me? I got a hefty tax rebate this year - I could probably buy a ton of medical supplies and ship them off to Somalia. Instead, I'm putting in a fence in my front yard, because I want - note, I did not say NEED - to do some landscaping. I'm at peace with that.
The problem with arguments like this is they rarely go far enough. This particular argument is more about food control than animals IMO. People may think they are doing it for the animals but the truth is we are not (well, most of us are not) going to put animals on the same level as humans. We will ALWAYS have to kill animals, it's ridiculous to argue otherwise, but once it's not about food people stop worrying about it. Food control. It's like the people and groups that want you to wear a ribbon for a cause. Ok I just say an episode of Seinfeld about this, "wear the ribbon or you are a bad person", or a flag pin or whatever. It's an outward show that doesn't really mean much.
However, I have no problems with food control and people can eat what they like or what they don't. I've gone months without meat, it doesn't mean a lot to me, but I'm not about control and obsessive behavior so being a vegetarian doesn't appeal to me. Never mind vegan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
