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 am in search for logical arguments in regards to the ethics of eating meat. Specifically, I am looking for ethical justification in support of meat consumption. For the purpose of this thread, let's define meat as the flesh of a sentient animal, so let's keep the argument focused around birds and mammals mainly as sentience is quite clear. Please do not use any of the following arguments outlined here:Eight Arguments In Favor Of Eating Meat And Objections Thereto
Thanks!
ok, since we are not allowed to use any of the reasons posted on your link, then how about this?
because I can afford it, and because I can.
if you do not want to cause pain for eating a living organism, then I look forward to seeing you starve as you should not also be eating any kind of vegetable either. as they are living organisms too, and they might be feeling pain each time you cut them or eat them.
I will be eating meat until I am put into the ground.
Actually crop based agriculture probably slaughters as many if not more creatures of the animal kingdom as traditional meat agriculture.
Here's the problem, to grow crops you need land, land that is inhabited by native plant and animal species. You clear that land of those species, and then plant specific species of crops to harvest. During growth they often require artificial watering (which native plant life did not) and patrolling for pests (plant or animal which are often killed). After harvest then the stored crops need protecting from vermin (mice/rats/insects) again most commonly exterminated.
Traditional meat agriculture requires land, some water, and the meat on the hoof. You drive the meat to the land and give them water. They eat native plant life, and do compete with local wildlife, but the impact is significantly less than clearance for plant based agriculture.
Modern feed lots etc. are an entirely different situation, the argument is not about the ethics of feed lots, but of killing animals for consumption.
Of course crops involve the planned slaughter of sentient life forms. Based on a number of studies rodents are considered of higher sentience than say decapod crustaceans, which many states have laws protecting against pain and suffering. If this is "wrong" then crop based agriculture is equally "wrong". Of course there is planned slaughter of other life forms, because its understood that pests (plant, animal, fungi, bacteria) need to be controlled (we just don't use the term extermination), the most evident being rats and mice, although squirrels, crows (which are from a highly intelligent family of avians), deer are also eliminated among others. That also of course says nothing at all about the hive intelligences of ants and termites who as colonies display significant sentience, though as individuals little intelligence, ants farm aphids, and also fungi, termites too farm fungi and create mounds that are specifically designed to provide optimal growing conditions for the fungi.
So with all of that we're just discussing the scale of "wrongness" in agriculture, is it more wrong to raise and kill an animal specifically to eat, or incidentally kill animals who are competing for your non-animal food sources?
You bring up many interesting points.
The argument involves the interdependence of using arable land for crops related to meat production as opposed to the use of that land for crops designed for direct human consumption; in connection with the use of sentient animals as a food source. It isn't two separate arguments, it is one. So assessment of the relative moral and ethical choices regarding land use, needs to be considered in conjunction with the breeding-for-slaughter of animals.
Your references to the deliberate killing of some organisms brings up a common argument within biocentrism: specifically, where is the line between ethically acceptable killing and ethically unacceptable killing?
My personal position would be that it acceptable to kill for survival. If an animal attacked me I would do what was necessary to survive. That may even require killing the animal. If my life depended upon consuming another animal's flesh, I'd do it. In the same vein, it could be argued that exterminating a pest in order to protect a food supply may well be justified in the context of personal survival.
Modern meat production is a highly-industrialized process. One which uses significantly more resources than does the production of plant-based foods. It also has a far more deleterious effect on the environment.
As to the intentional elimination of vermin and other pests, the question once again is that of making an ethical determination as to the necessity of killing for survival; as opposed to killing for pleasure, profit, convenience, or simple lack of thought.
Hive insects certainly show a level of collective cognisense. However, I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest them to be sentient beings. With that said, I see no justification for killing them capriciously.
The "scale of wrongness" is exactly what I hope people begin to consider.
I am in search for logical arguments in regards to the ethics of eating meat. Specifically, I am looking for ethical justification in support of meat consumption. For the purpose of this thread, let's define meat as the flesh of a sentient animal, so let's keep the argument focused around birds and mammals mainly as sentience is quite clear. Please do not use any of the following arguments outlined here:Eight Arguments In Favor Of Eating Meat And Objections Thereto
Thanks!
They taste darn good and it is natural for our species to eat meat occasionally.
So who decided that all of humanity should only consider the rights of sentient beings? I refuse to grant you or anybody else that right.
I didn't ask you to grant me any right to determine your personal moral or ethical philosophies. Thus, your commitment to refrain from doing so is entirely irrelevant and quite unnecessary.
So eating meat is a moral issue to you then? I don't think you know the difference between morals and ethics, care to explain what you think they mean?
No, murder is a moral issue. Eating meat is not murder, nor is it a moral or ethical dilemma. It's simply genetic wired into our dna.
The philosophy of ethics is rooted in morality. While independent, the differences are subtle. The need for mores and laws arose out of a desire of control. The history is well documented. For centuries, if I was bigger than you, and I wanted your stuff, I just clubbed you and took your stuff.
I am in search for logical arguments in regards to the ethics of eating meat. Specifically, I am looking for ethical justification in support of meat consumption. For the purpose of this thread, let's define meat as the flesh of a sentient animal, so let's keep the argument focused around birds and mammals mainly as sentience is quite clear. Please do not use any of the following arguments outlined here:Eight Arguments In Favor Of Eating Meat And Objections Thereto
Thanks!
To keep my grill & smoker busy.
Why let the hogs lie for the buzzards, when the hams and backstraps are awesome!!
The argument involves the interdependence of using arable land for crops related to meat production as opposed to the use of that land for crops designed for direct human consumption; in connection with the use of sentient animals as a food source. It isn't two separate arguments, it is one. So assessment of the relative moral and ethical choices regarding land use, needs to be considered in conjunction with the breeding-for-slaughter of animals.
No actually the argument is in regards to the ethics of eating meat. You are conflating production with consumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
Your references to the deliberate killing of some organisms brings up a common argument within biocentrism: specifically, where is the line between ethically acceptable killing and ethically unacceptable killing?
That indeed is the heart of the matter, regardless of the method sentient beings (as defined by neuroscience) are dying to produce food for humans, either directly in the form of their flesh, or indirectly to prevent loss to opportunistic animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
My personal position would be that it acceptable to kill for survival. If an animal attacked me I would do what was necessary to survive. That may even require killing the animal. If my life depended upon consuming another animal's flesh, I'd do it. In the same vein, it could be argued that exterminating a pest in order to protect a food supply may well be justified in the context of personal survival.
But again there is an issue, what determines killing for survival, for instance if like me you live in bear country, is it acceptable to eliminate a bear that has not yet attacked me, because it has been threatening? Reactive survival is only one aspect, there is also a proactive aspect too, if I've seen the bear, know enough about it's behavior and know that it is only a matter of time before I'll be in a reactive survival situation, then it would be sensible to act first, where I have the advantage (it's one of the reasons we have big ol' brains) over the physical dominance of the bear. Who gets to determine whether killing is indeed for survival, or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
Modern meat production is a highly-industrialized process. One which uses significantly more resources than does the production of plant-based foods. It also has a far more deleterious effect on the environment.
Agreed, but the discussion is not about production methods, but the ethics of eating animal carcasses. If an animal magically sprouted from a bean full grown and ready for slaughter, the ethics of eating it should not change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
As to the intentional elimination of vermin and other pests, the question once again is that of making an ethical determination as to the necessity of killing for survival; as opposed to killing for pleasure, profit, convenience, or simple lack of thought.
However isn't vermin also protein? Would eating that vermin be ethically unsound? I happen to like squirrel, if there were squirrels running off with my crops, and I shot them to protect my produce, would it be ethically acceptable to eat those squirrels? How about moose, they like cabbages, if they're eating my cabbages, can I eat the moose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
Hive insects certainly show a level of collective cognisense. However, I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest them to be sentient beings. With that said, I see no justification for killing them capriciously.
Nor I, however as a colony ants and termites display forms of problem solving and decision making that can only be described as a collective intelligence. Personally I don't think the whole sentience concept is fully fleshed out and is overloaded towards individual intelligences (speaking as a former developer of neural networks and genetic algorithms) instead of looking at the intelligence of the collective processes that make up a functional unit (which is kind of strange since neurologically we have multiple processes that constitute what we consider consciousness, from instinct, through emotion, to logic and abstract thought).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
The "scale of wrongness" is exactly what I hope people begin to consider.
Indeed, but the line is blurry, and is dependent on personal choices and beliefs. This makes any ethical determinations entirely illogical, since by definition an ethic is not dependent on logic, any correlation between logic and ethics is purely coincidental.
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.
