What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Marcus]

This is true, but we cannot be sure, when we buy our meat from others that they haven't suffered. And, of course.if we hunt our own meat, we necessarily must cause suffering. As I said earlier, that is why many years ago my wife and I decided to forgo meat. We also think this is healthier in the long run, although this is not a sufficient basis for moral decisions.

Do veggies suffer? I think a rational person will recognize that one must be sentient to suffer, and there is no credible evidence that plants are sentient. Their responses to the environment are reflexive, they show no sign of transmitting signals that could correspond to pain or fear or nausea or grief. One need but observe mammals for awhile to draw clear conclusions that this group does indeed exhibit an ability to experience all of these (other forms of animal life are problematic here).

It's quite possible that the meat you buy from others has suffered at some point, who doesn't? In fact, I'm sure you've suffered at some point in your life.Doesn't this mean that it would be better if you had never lived? After all, this is what you want for the animals.

I'm with you on the bit about veggies not suffering, that is more an argument for people who think it's wrong to kill living things.

 

[timf1234]

(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

No Excuse, but I am guilty of that too.
We shouldn't do it. We need to teach the next generation and most importantly make them used to eating vegetable from very early age. My weakness, I crave for meat after fews days. Dispite of the fact that vegetable is better for health and that it is wrong to kill anything that feels pain, I eat meat.
But we can, and we should raise the next generation to be vegeterian.
It can be done but needs government help to shape our behavior, and taste.
Yes, government.

 

[timf1234]

As long as the animal doesn't understand its situation — it's about to die or is being kept alive to be eaten — I don't think it matters. It's also important that other animals aren't affected by its death.

This would even apply to humans. For example, imagine you're having a nice day, walking down the street and then... nothing. A car coming from behind hits you, instantly killing you, you have absolutely no concept of your impending death and therefore it's meaningless to you — not your family and loved ones. And therefore no harm is done to the person.

So as long as I just attack you and kill you from the back, suddenly hitting on your head is OK?
Animal do go through pain during the process of dying.

 

[timf1234]

There is something special about the human race from my perspective.

I'm a part of it.

That's where the "golden rule" and most morality comes from, they are tools to construct a society that we all participate in. Animals don't interact with out society in that way.

Now if I were to kill someone's pet, that would be messing with a human, someone part of this whole crazy fabric I have to interact with.

There is something special

A lion kills deer without the human intellectual moral judgment.
The human special thing were supposed to be to understand that animal feels pain too and wants to live too and therefore, do not kill them.

 

[Frank Merton]

It's quite possible that the meat you buy from others has suffered at some point, who doesn't? In fact, I'm sure you've suffered at some point in your life.Doesn't this mean that it would be better if you had never lived? After all, this is what you want for the animals.

I'm with you on the bit about veggies not suffering, that is more an argument for people who think it's wrong to kill living things.

You can't eliminate suffering from the world, but you don't have to increase it. I think that for the most part the meat industry in most countries develops a defensive wall about the suffering they cause, or they would not be so blind to it. That being human nature, I cannot trust meat bought in a store.

It is not all that hard to avoid meat, and probably healthier in a few ways (the B-12 issue is a red herring). It is also far less destructive to the environment and saves a lot of money. Over time one forgets about meat and even gets to the point where the idea is off-putting.

 

[BenBurch]

Maybe we should just stop feeding all those cows, goats, pigs, and sheep, huh?

How long before they would all be extinct do you reckon?

That's right; let them join the Aurochs on the midden of history, we're done with them!

 

[Marcus]

You can't eliminate suffering from the world, but you don't have to increase it.

No, you can't. Of course, you certainly wouldn't want to have kids, using this logic you would be increasing suffering. I don't really think that you are saying that any amount of suffering at all makes life not worth living, you are saying that you think that the lives of meat animals cross the line, that they are experiencing so much suffering that their lives are not worth living. I can't speak for all meat, but as far as beef cattle, I have personally seen countless times how they are raised here in Texas, and I can tell you that they have healthy, happy lives for the most part. So your decision not to eat them is actually a bit morally reprehensible. If, for example, you and your family were to see the light and start eating beef at the rate of, say, 1 cow every 3 years, that's an extra life every 3 years that would be brought into the world.

I think that for the most part the meat industry in most countries develops a defensive wall about the suffering they cause, or they would not be so blind to it. That being human nature, I cannot trust meat bought in a store.

It is not all that hard to avoid meat, and probably healthier in a few ways (the B-12 issue is a red herring).

Partially agreed, it's not hard to avoid, but I think it is healthier to eat a moderate amount of meat.

It is also far less destructive to the environment and saves a lot of money. Over time one forgets about meat and even gets to the point where the idea is off-putting.

Agreed on all 3 points, but I have no desire to forget about meat, even though I was vegetarian for 2 years in college.

 

[John Albert]

Weren't you aware that this evangelical vegan line is the classic all or nothing fallacy, for dinner?

DR

Oh is that where we're going with this? I was unaware. Sorry about that.

 

[Meed]

I think both interpretations of "demands" are acceptable (with the minor alteration I made), but you are correct in that the first interpretation leads to those other implications.

The problem with "human standards of acceptable behavior do not necessarily need to include consideration of non-human animals." is that it seems trivially true. Human morality doesn't necessarily need to include consideration of any given factor or set of entities.

 

[Meed]

Maybe we should just stop feeding all those cows, goats, pigs, and sheep, huh?

How long before they would all be extinct do you reckon?

That's right; let them join the Aurochs on the midden of history, we're done with them!

Why is extinction such a bad thing? I don't see any moral obligation to try to prevent it.

 

[cyborg]

The claim is that veganism is in the animal's interest. It is hard to argue allowing extinction on that basis.

 

[Mark6]

I am a semi vegetarian. I only eat animals who are vegetarians.

I am not. All my favorite meat comes from carnivores. Just not mammalian carnivores.

 

[Mark6]

I did get a kick out of my vegan ex when she'd tell me with proper supplements she could completely eliminate meat from her diet and in the next breath tell me about the natural alternatives to medicine that "big pharma" was suppressing. I guess only pills are OK as long as there's a picture of a plant on the bottle.

Hahaha, that's beautiful irony right there.

I am afraid the irony would go right over her head.

 

[Drudgewire]

I am afraid the irony would go right over her head.

She'd consciously ignore it. Two minutes later she'd be saying the same thing like it was the first time I'd heard it.

We're still really good friends, but during our break-up fight she said she felt like she was "sleeping with the enemy" because I ate meat. My uproarious laughter as a response probably didn't help matters.

 

[timf1234]

The problem with "human standards of acceptable behavior do not necessarily need to include consideration of non-human animals." is that it seems trivially true. Human morality doesn't necessarily need to include consideration of any given factor or set of entities.

then, we do not need laws against animal cruelty
Obviously, you are wrong here.

 

[Prometheus]

The problem with "human standards of acceptable behavior do not necessarily need to include consideration of non-human animals." is that it seems trivially true. Human morality doesn't necessarily need to include consideration of any given factor or set of entities.

Exactly. But why do you consider that to be a problem?

 

[bruto]

The claim is that veganism is in the animal's interest. It is hard to argue allowing extinction on that basis.

I was under the impression that at least some vegans are arguing here and elsewhere for a global interest, and against the continued existence of domestic lifestock, citing cattle farts as a contributor to global warming among other things. I had a meatless hummus wrap for lunch today, so I'm a bit too weak and lazy to go back over this thread to find the instance, but I think you'll find something here.

 

[Mark6]

I was under the impression that at least some vegans are arguing here and elsewhere for a global interest, and against the continued existence of domestic lifestock, citing cattle farts as a contributor to global warming among other things.

A lot of vegans -- for that matter, a lot of environmentalists who are not even vegetarian, -- argue for significant reduction of domestic lifestock numbers worldwide. I doubt any of them want cattle to become extinct.

 

[Bill Thompson]

By killing animals you bring them closer to God.

Also, they might come back as a phophet or jazz artist.

 

[BenBurch]

A lot of vegans -- for that matter, a lot of environmentalists who are not even vegetarian, -- argue for significant reduction of domestic lifestock numbers worldwide. I doubt any of them want cattle to become extinct.

Do they plan to feed them?