Admit it, you believe in animal rights.

[Darat]

That's because us meat eaters are trying to lure you veggies and vegans into a false sense of security so we can slaughter you and feast upon your delicious flesh!

 

[volatile]

I for one am tired of this canard that vegetarians/vegans are somehow more moral when it comes to what is on their plate.

Let's not forget that any type of food production will come at a cost to animals (re: collateral deaths). One may not have flesh on their plates, but those veggies and non-animals products come at a cost to animal lives (maybe not a cow, chicken or pig - but animals die none-the-less). You want to reduce animal suffering? Buy not only produce locally grown but also locally produced beef, chicken and pork (farms that you can actually see). Or better still - hunt. I have a garden - the veggies from my garden do not involve animal deaths (maybe earthworms) - but no mice, goffers, snakes, etc. died for my garden. I do not use any mechanical devices in my garden - nor any *cides.

Before one starts casting stones on how moral one thinks their diet is - find out how it's produced first - how far it had to travel to get onto your plate. I live in farming area - those huge combines/harvesters kill loads field animals/birds - not to mention the *cides put on crops. I also see the cows in the fields. Cows grazing on land that is no good for crops. Hell - my neighbours cows routinely trot through my yard (much to my dismay - they put huge holes in my lawn).

I am for animal WELFARE.

Whilst I think the "collateral damage" argument is silly, I agree in principle that omnivorous self-sufficiency might be better on balance than store-bought veganism (though self-sufficient veganism would still be the best option, and I still find the idea that animal welfare ends at the moment one is hungry a slightly perplexing one). But how many of us can be self-sufficient?

I suggest that for most people in the industrialised Western world, the easiest and most ethically-attainable diet is a vegan one.

 

[tkingdoll]

Euthanasia for a pet would seem to be ruled out by this reasoning but I doubt you would want a loved pet to suffer?

I do not think there is such a clear dilemma (or as volatile puts it hypocrisy) in wanting an animal to die so you can eat its flesh and not wanting it to suffer (or rather having limitations of what you find acceptable suffering).

No, I didn't mean I don't think it should suffer and I don't think it should die. Euthanising a pet to end suffering makes sense if the animal is going to die anyway, and I have no problem with that. But I wouldn't say "I don't care if my pet dies but I do care if it suffers". I would care in both circumstances. That's my point. If I care if it suffers, I should also care if it dies. But if it's only going to die so I can have a nice meal that I don't actually need, I am not going to pretend to care. I don't care. I have no relationship with that living animal, unlike a pet. I only have a relationship with the dead flesh.

Maybe I should play devil's advocate and argue that's it's actually crueller to prematurely end the life of a happy lamb gamboling in a field than a miserable one stuck in a crate.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Whilst I think the "collateral damage" argument is silly, I agree in principle that omnivorous self-sufficiency might be better on balance than store-bought veganism (though self-sufficient veganism would still be the best option, and I still find the idea that animal welfare ends at the moment one is hungry a slightly perplexing one). But how many of us can be self-sufficient?

I suggest that for most people in the industrialised Western world, the easiest and most ethically-attainable diet is a vegan one.

Why do you think the collateral death argument is silly?

Where do you get your food?

 

[volatile]

Why do you think the collateral death argument is silly?

Because its basis is essentially because all harm cannot be reduced, no efforts should be made to reduce harm at all.

Where do you get your food?

Vegetables from a local organic co-op; other foodstuffs from the local supermarket. I live in a flat. There is no way I could raise my own meat, nor grow my own vegetables. As such, I shop at supermarkets. The tofu and the chicken are on adjacent aisles. Why should I pick the chicken, given that I have a general ethical disdain for harming animals unnecessarily?

If I wasn't clear enough, I concede that self-sufficient omnivorism is likely more sustainable / environmentally-friendly than my store-bought veganism, though for most people in the industrialised Western world, the easiest and most ethically-attainable diet is a vegan one. Would you disagree?

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Because its basis is essentially because all harm cannot be reduced, no efforts should be made to reduce harm at all.
more sustainable / environmentally-friendly than my store-bought veganism, though for most people in the industrialised Western world, the easiest and most ethically-attainable diet is a vegan one. Would you disagree?

Yes - I strongly disagree. Crops fail. It only takes a drought, hail...whatever and crops fail. This year (at least in my area) is seeing a BUMPER crop for farmers - but only a few years ago, those same farmers had to diversify (beef, pork, etc) to include not just grains because the weather was so bad. Their crops were miserable.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

and I still find the idea that animal welfare ends at the moment one is hungry a slightly perplexing one). .

And you are extending this to vegetarians/vegans should one suddenly find the crops wiped out from drought/hail/bugs?

 

[volatile]

Yes - I strongly disagree. Crops fail. It only takes a drought, hail...whatever and crops fail. This year (at least in my area) is seeing a BUMPER crop for farmers - but only a few years ago, those same farmers had to diversify (beef, pork, etc) to include not just grains because the weather was so bad. Their crops were miserable.

Sorry, you'll need to elaborate on that. If your argument is that people shouldn't base their diets on plants because crops might fail such that this is not possible on a widespread basis, might I suggest you think about what kind of catastrophe might be required such that we could not grow enough crops to feed people but could raise enough animals to cover the deficit under the same catastrophic conditions? What kind of hypothetical weather situation causes massive crop failure but leaves animal foodstuffs intact?

Enough with the outlandish hypotheticals. Let's talk about the here and now, and situations applicable to most consumers in the Western world. I am in the supermarket. The tofu and the chicken are adjacent on the shelf. Why should I eat the chicken?

 

[volatile]

And you are extending this to vegetarians/vegans should one suddenly find the crops wiped out from drought/hail/bugs?

No. In an emergency situation, I'd eat meat. Has the world suddenly suffered a massive drought when I wasn't paying attention? Or are the supermarket shelves still replete with vegetables? Why are you feeling the need to prop up your argument with outlandish doomsday scenarios? Are there no credible reasons to eat meat in conditions as they are today?

 

[Rolfe]

I just saw this thread and no way am I reading through five pages as 11.20 at night.

However, I have to say I'm of the sophisticate group that considers rights to be a social phenomenon, explicitly or implicitly conferred by society.

On actual people. (Which would include non-human "people" if we ever discovered such.)

I don't consider animals as possessing "rights" as such. I do consider human beings as having duties to animals, duties to care for them and minimise and eliminate suffering and to ensure animal welfare by all reasonable and practical means.

Dammit, I teach animal welfare, to actual students.

I took a solemn oath always to seek to do the best I can for animals under my care.

But I don't equate that with having "rights", and the first person who objects to me using the word "owner" in respect of an animal is likely to find themselves being terminally mocked.

Rolfe.

 

[jj]

I believe in the right of a beef steer to be humanely executed and turned into steaks.

Hmm, time to go turn on the grill in about an hour, then.

 

[volatile]

I just saw this thread and no way am I reading through five pages as 11.20 at night.

However, I have to say I'm of the sophisticate group that considers rights to be a social phenomenon, explicitly or implicitly conferred by society.

On actual people. (Which would include non-human "people" if we ever discovered such.)

I think that you wouldn't find much objection to that. Nevertheless, I do think our treatment (ethically and legally) of animals has enough in common functionally with our treatment of humans that the word "rights" is an appropriate term. That is not to suggest that humans and animals should have equal rights (not even Peter Singer or Tom Regan would argue that), just that we, as a society, have decided to confer some rights on animals. That may just be a semantic distinction, though.

I don't consider animals as possessing "rights" as such. I do consider human beings as having duties to animals, duties to care for them and minimise and eliminate suffering and to ensure animal welfare by all reasonable and practical means.

Dammit, I teach animal welfare, to actual students.

I took a solemn oath always to seek to do the best I can for animals under my care.

But I don't equate that with having "rights", and the first person who objects to me using the word "owner" in respect of an animal is likely to find themselves being terminally mocked.

Is there a non-semantic distinction between the rights society grants to humans and the applicability of a rights-argument (as Regan frames it) to animals? I don't see one, I'm afraid.

 

[RandFan]

I can well imagine that future generations will still eat flesh but will also consider our ways of obtaining that flesh quite barbaric. (For instance vat grown flesh is probably not that far from being practical.)

Yes, that is what I said earlier. Agreed.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

No. In an emergency situation, I'd eat meat. Has the world suddenly suffered a massive drought when I wasn't paying attention? Or are the supermarket shelves still replete with vegetables? Why are you feeling the need to prop up your argument with outlandish doomsday scenarios? Are there no credible reasons to eat meat in conditions as they are today?

I don't know what is considered recent - but the 1930's (great depression) comes to mind.

Yes the supermarket shelves are replete with vegetables *today*. You are suggesting that we can live in a world that relies only on crops to sustain us? I disagree. I do not think the possibility of massive crop failure is outlandish.

 

[tkingdoll]

I think meat vats are brilliant. If the meat has the same taste and texture, why the hell bother killing an animal for it?

 

[volatile]

I don't know what is considered recent - but the 1930's (great depression) comes to mind.

Yes the supermarket shelves are replete with vegetables *today*. You are suggesting that we can live in a world that relies only on crops to sustain us? I disagree. I do not think the possibility of massive crop failure is outlandish.

Debaroo - You or I can both posit any number of doomsday scenarios that bolster our respective cases, but these have no basis in contemporary reality, particularly when yours rely on a weather event that afflicts human food stocks but does not impact upon animal food stocks.

Let's keep this discussion sensible, shall we? It's been a great thread so far, and I'd rather not see it degenerate into a "what if" contest.

I'm asking you for reasons I should buy chicken over tofu when I go to the supermarket tomorrow. What are they, in your opinion?

 

[RandFan]

Great post, RandFan, and I totally understand where you're coming from. My problem, though, is that you're supporting meat-eating with two contradictory platforms.

The first is that animal husbandry is better for the animals than the "natural" alternative, wherein the animals would otherwise die in infancy or not live at all. The second is that animals are predatory by nature and we humans are just part of that wider system. Those two things are contradictory, aren't they?

I agree with him that the "argument from nature" doesn't really hold and isn't something we humans generally extend into our general ethical principles.

I'm not consciously trying to make post hoc rationalizations. I am trying to explain what I believe is the basis for my sense of ethics cognizant of the fact that my morals are to a degree a product of indoctrination. I admit that I have biases.

That said, no, I don't see two mutually exclusive positions. I quite agree that just because something is natural doesn't make it right. However we can't escape the fact that our morality is the result of natural processes (evolution). To understand how and why we have a sense of morality we must understand the underlying mechanisms that inform our morality. That said, I see no problem with understanding the practicality and benificial nature of animal husbandry.

I don't see a contradiction.

 

[RandFan]

That's my point really. I think that in general, we're hypocritical about food. Not everyone is. Ted Nugent sure isn't. Teek isn't. But I was. And, if you'll permit me to be blunt, I think it's legitimate to say that I think RandFan and PaxImperium are. Modern Western society in general is. Wouldn't you agree?

Could be. I don't see how but I'm willing to entertain the possibility. Please to clarify?

 

[volatile]

Could be. I don't see how but I'm willing to entertain the possibility. Please to clarify?

Well, you'll note I retracted "hypocritical". That was way too strong, and I apologise for that.

I haven't much to add to this discussion really, other than to repeat what I've said already: I still think Teek was right when she established that it's problematic to worry (deeply, as you so obviously do) about animal suffering, but to have few qualms about killing the animal for the gratification its flesh would provide you. That's all - that it seems weird to me to worry about treating an animal well right up to the moment you kill it for food.

Thanks for the input to this thread by the way; it's been really interesting.

 

[RandFan]

Hypocritical is not the word I would use "unthinking" is how I would put it.

I agree. That is much closer to the point I was trying to make. Thank you.


ETA: I don't think RandFan is "unthinking", actually. He's thought about his diet and come to a conclusion that I find has a little unresolved tension in it. It was probably still too strong to call that tension "hypocrisy", though, so I retract that wholeheartedly.

I can assure both of you that I'm not taking anything here personal. I don't mind the charge of hypocricy as I don't see either of you making such a charge in a flipant manner. No need for kid gloves I assure you.

But thanks anyway.