Vegetarianism, carnivorism and morality.

[Tricky]

(spin-off of this thread over in politics)

What do you eat? Do you think about it much in terms of morality? The argument has been put forward that vegetarianism is more moral than omnivorism (or carnivorism) because it shows empathy with the animals who would otherwise be eaten.

As a dedicated omnivore, I can actually see the reasoning behind this argument, but I still disagree with it. In the presence of many food choices, I think much of our morality of eating derives from what David Brin calls "otherness". We like the things most like ourselves. We fight most closely for our family, then our community, then our country etc. Similarly, we feel empathy with animals that share traits with us or that look like us. Cute, big-eyed, big-brained animals we like. Some like them to the point that they cannot consider eating them.

I think our dedication should be to our own species. We want our own to be healthy and (importantly) happy. If a person would be unhappy without meat in their diet, then I believe that is an important consideration, as long as it is not detrimental to the species. That, of course, is a point for debate too.

So here's a kick-off point. I'll add more of my thoughts later, after the screaming has died down.

 

[AmateurScientist]

On a practical level, I tend not to allow moral considerations for traditional animal sources of food (traditional for my culture, but it will vary among cultures) invade my eating habits. Eating meat, egg, and dairy products was a habit imposed on me by my parents when I was a small child, and one I see no good reason to abandon. That doesn't mean I don't love animals in general, or that I wish them harm. It doesn't mean that I haven't considered some moral concerns that I've heard others raise. It's just that I recognize that, outside of humans and their concerns, nature is oblivious to morals. Morals--at least as philosophers tend to speak of them--of course, are a human invention, and we're the only ones who apply them. Cosmically, the universe simply doesn't care.

Nature is "cruel" in a sense that only we humans recognize. It's "cruel" in that prey animals must die to support predatory animals. Of course, I also recognize that that is precisely the order and balance in which nature has evolved. Predator and prey have a symbiotic relationship, and their relationships influence animal and plant lifeforms all around them, within their respective biological ecosystems. The choices I make on my dinner plate will never change that fundamental fact (in general at least, but maybe in specific cases, such as if we ate pheasants into extinction, it might).

I think defending vegetarianism--or perhaps more accurately attacking meat eating by humans--as a more principled or moral practice is dicey. Critics may claim that I'm commiting the naturalistic fallacy. My response? Nature doesn't care. Animals have been eating each other for hundreds of millions of years. They will continue to do so long after humans have become extinct. To me, it is the height of conceit to believe that humans have the sole obligation to go against the tide and to try to stop predation. Indeed, I submit that trying to stop predation in general as a means to reduce animal suffering is a misguided ideal and disregards the vital role predation plays in ecosystems. One animal's suffering is another's full stomach. It goes much further than that, of course, due to the vast interdependence found among the diverse plant and animal species in a large ecosystem.

We shouldn't make special efforts to screw with that balance. We do it already inadvertently, of course, as an unfortunate consequence of being civilized and industrialized. Why should we compound matters by adding to it deliberate efforts to upset the balance of nature? We cannot possibly accurately predict the effects of our efforts, so any goal we might have is a non-starter. There are just far too many variables involved and far too many permutations of them for us to make accurate predictions. The law of unintended consequences would invariably take over, and we could easily find the biological world in a bigger mess than when we started.

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

Here's something I've always wanted to ask vegetarians.

If the basic moral justification for choosing to be a vegan or a vegetarian is that a moral agent--a human--should seek to minimize animal suffering (some idealists apparently go further and state that ending animal suffering is their goal), then vegans and vegetarians should consider the opportunity cost of relying more heavily on crops for food and eliminating animal sources.

I submit that the opportunity cost of doing so is that much of the habitats that many animal species presently need in order to survive must be surrendered to human needs for arable land for additional crops that will act as a substitute for the missing meat in our diets. This will necessarily result in the suffering and deaths of untold numbers of animals.

Aren't you then merely trading one kind of animal suffering for another?

Where is the moral justification for that? Is it something other than because it feels less icky to kill animals indirectly by encroaching upon or flat out destroying their habitits than by killing them directly to eat them?

AS

 

[CplFerro]

Morality: What's good for man is good, what's bad for man is bad. In universal terms, this is it. Even God doesn't trump this, because man's self-interest is ultimately identical to God's, being made in God's image.

Everything in the universe, including all other life forms, are implicitly to be brought under man's dominion, at his disposal, as needed.

But remember that this dominion is in terms of man qua man, not man-as-a-beast. Man is best characterised by universal love and pure cognition. It is contradictory to our natures to treat other life forms with needless cruelty, including institutionalised forms of cruelty.

Meat eating is a good example. A hunter taking excess game off the land is reducing the cruelty of nature, usefully. A factory farm filled with tortured chickens and dumpsters full of starving day old chicks, is manufacturing cruelty, for the sake of luxury. The former is more humane, the latter less humane.

So, I do not eat meat, (1) in principle, in protest of this modern system of agriculture, and (2) romantically, in protest of any needless killing of animals.

 

[Dylab]

AS: In your first post are you simply arguing against human attempts at ending predation based purely on the practical reason that it would be very destructive? I was going to write out a post but I think I might have misinterpeted what you said.




It was going to be an excellent insightful post.


Edit:

It's just that I recognize that, outside of humans and their concerns, nature is oblivious to morals. Morals--at least as philosophers tend to speak of them--of course, are a human invention, and we're the only ones who apply them. Cosmically, the universe simply doesn't care.

Ok I have a hard time interpeting this as not being the naturalist fallacy.

 

[CplFerro]

I submit that the opportunity cost of doing so is that much of the habitats that many animal species presently need in order to survive must be surrendered to human needs for arable land for additional crops that will act as a substitute for the missing meat in our diets. This will necessarily result in the suffering and deaths of untold numbers of animals.

Aren't you then merely trading one kind of animal suffering for another?
AS

AS,

Not at all, in fact the reverse case. A pound of beef takes far more land and water to raise, in terms of all the grain fed to the steer, than a pound of apples.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Someone go ask all the cute furry bunnies what it's like to be chopped up by harvesting equipment.

 

[CplFerro]

Your point?

 

[AmateurScientist]

AS,

Not at all, in fact the reverse case. A pound of beef takes far more land and water to raise, in terms of all the grain fed to the steer, than a pound of apples.

Where are you going to put all those cows that we aren't going to eat?

AS

 

[CplFerro]

Where are you going to put all those cows that we aren't going to eat?

AS

We'll ship them to India, of course.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Your point?

Animals die. Get over it.

 

[CplFerro]

Animals die. Get over it.

That is essentially the oligarchal mindset, which views, for instance, all medical advances with derision. "Diseases have always culled the peasants. Get over it."

In other words your argument can be used by anyone anywhere to advocate for the status quo regarding any issue. It is not a rational argument, nor a humane one.

 

[AmateurScientist]

AS: In your first post are you simply arguing against human attempts at ending predation based purely on the practical reason that it would be very destructive? I was going to write out a post but I think I might have misinterpeted what you said.

It might be more accurate to state that we have no reason to believe that our efforts would suit our goals, given that our goals might be to reduce animal suffering. Indeed, I would first ask which animals? You cannot relieve the suffering of the prey without increasing the suffering of the predator. Removing the predator from that environment would increase the suffering of the prey by allowing unchecked population growth, which would eventually result in mass starvation. This is exactly what happens when it occurs. Furthermore, their interdependence with various and diverse other animal and plant lifeforms insures that you would be screwing with them too. Because of the intractable complexity of a large ecosystem, because of the unimaginably convoluted multivariate analysis required to model it and make predictions, and the fact that the permutations involved from those variables is beyond the calculating ability of all the world's supercomputers working in parallel, we cannot make accurate predictions of the outcomes. Because of the law of unintended consequences, we are likely to do more harm than good.

Short answer: Yes.

It was going to be an excellent insightful post.

I don't doubt it. Lots of my almost posts were absolutely brilliant.

Edit:

Ok I have a hard time interpeting this as not being the naturalist fallacy.

It is. I just don't believe it's a fallacy. An temporally infinite cosmos means it doesn't matter on a cosmic scale. It only matters to us. In that sense, declaring that we humans have moral obligations to other animals is conceited and selfish. We invent those "obligations" because they make us feel better about ourselves. It's feel-good do-gooding (that's redundant, but I like the sound of it).

I know some schools of philosophy do consider it a fallacy. Not all of them do. Mine doesn't. I'm not sure what label to give it, and I tend to eschew labels anyway.

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

AS,

Not at all, in fact the reverse case. A pound of beef takes far more land and water to raise, in terms of all the grain fed to the steer, than a pound of apples.

And don't forget that we're going to have to set aside (destroy animal habitats) a lot more land for soy and other crops that can take the place of animal proteins. We still need proteins, of course, even without their coming from animal sources. Indeed, despite what most vegetarians claim, there are essential amino acids that you can't get from most vegetarian sources, although soy might be the sole exception.

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

That is essentially the oligarchal mindset, which views, for instance, all medical advances with derision. "Diseases have always culled the peasants. Get over it."

In other words your argument can be used by anyone anywhere to advocate for the status quo regarding any issue. It is not a rational argument, nor a humane one.

It is a pragmatic position to hold, however. The Marquis perhaps recognizes the futility in trying to end animal suffering. It's a fool's errand.

The status quo isn't always something against which we should fight.

Taoism, for instance, teaches us not to fight the stream. Go with it and you will encouter less resistence and discord.

AS

 

[CplFerro]

And don't forget that we're going to have to set aside (destroy animal habitats) a lot more land for soy and other crops that can take the place of animal proteins. We still need proteins, of course, even without their coming from animal sources. Indeed, despite what most vegetarians claim, there are essential amino acids that you can't get from most vegetarian sources, although soy might be the sole exception.

Again, with respect, you should investigate the idea of the food pyramid. Plant protein takes many times less land and water to produce, per pound, than animal protein.

It is a pragmatic position to hold, however. The Marquis perhaps recognizes the futility in trying to end animal suffering. It's a fool's errand.

The status quo isn't always something against which we should fight.

Taoism, for instance, teaches us not to fight the stream. Go with it and you will encouter less resistence and discord.

AS

Taoism is a philosophy oligarchs would love. No purely Taoist culture would ever conceive of vaccines, reach the moon, develop modern agriculture, or conceive of democracy or egalitarian republicanism, to which you and I owe our lives and what liberty we have. Mankind exists to progress, and improve his lot. Taoism is a suitable religion of slaves.

The Marquis is disingenuous. The notion of "ending animal suffering" en toto is hardly to be seriously considered at this stage of planetary engineering. How can we? We know too little to even attempt it. But, for instance, hunters already reduce suffering by culling excess game - better a clean bullet to the neck than the fear and pain of being torn to pieces by predators. And beyond that, and more importantly, are the specific systemic, artificially created cruelties of industrial agriculture, which are certainly not necessary. The greatest abuses could be corrected with a few well-placed laws of the sort that certain places in Europe are working on. Marquis' position includes dissolving the humane societies and repealing laws against cruelty to animals. Saying that bear baiting and stabbing dogs' anuses with arrows are somehow part of some fixed law of nature doesn't merit arguing with.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Again, with respect, you should investigate the idea of the food pyramid. Plant protein takes many times less land and water to produce, per pound, than animal protein.

I don't doubt that. You're still stuck with the cattle, chicken, and pigs populations. They're got to have land to live on and food to feed them too.

Taoism is a philosophy oligarchs would love. No purely Taoist culture would ever conceive of vaccines, reach the moon, develop modern agriculture, or conceive of democracy or egalitarian republicanism, to which you and I owe our lives and what liberty we have. Mankind exists to progress, and improve his lot. Taoism is a suitable religion of slaves.

I'm not embracing its principles in toto. I cherry picked one that I found relevant.

The Marquis is disingenuous. The notion of "ending animal suffering" en toto is hardly to be seriously considered at this stage of planetary engineering. How can we? We know too little to even attempt it. But, for instance, hunters already reduce suffering by culling excess game - better a clean bullet to the neck than the fear and pain of being torn to pieces by predators. And beyond that, and more importantly, are the specific systemic, artificially created cruelties of industrial agriculture, which are certainly not necessary. The greatest abuses could be corrected with a few well-placed laws of the sort that certain places in Europe are working on. Marquis' position includes dissolving the humane societies and repealing laws against cruelty to animals. Saying that bear baiting and stabbing dogs' anuses with arrows are somehow part of some fixed law of nature doesn't merit arguing with.

He was more likely presenting his point somewhat facetiously.

In spite of your claim, one that I agree with, BTW, there are significant numbers of vegans and even vegetarians who do indeed seek as their ultimate goal the end of all animal suffering, whatever that is supposed to mean. Of course it's impracticable, and I would argue even impossible. It's unduly idealistic and naive and foolish. Many remain committed to it, however, and seriously believe that with enough education and effort and commitment, we can pull it off. Nonsense.

The nebulous goal is inconsistent and would require arbitrary choices about which animals are worthy of relieving from suffering, and which ones would be relegated to suffering because of the vegans and vegetarians efforts to "liberate" them. Yes, many of them speak in those terms. Nuts.

AS

 

[CplFerro]

I don't doubt that. You're still stuck with the cattle, chicken, and pigs populations. They're got to have land to live on and food to feed them too.

Why would they exist outside of zoos?

He was more likely presenting his point somewhat facetiously.

In spite of your claim, one that I agree with, BTW, there are significant numbers of vegans and even vegetarians who do indeed seek as their ultimate goal the end of all animal suffering, whatever that is supposed to mean. Of course it's impracticable, and I would argue even impossible. It's unduly idealistic and naive and foolish. Many remain committed to it, however, and seriously believe that with enough education and effort and commitment, we can pull it off. Nonsense.

The nebulous goal is inconsistent and would require arbitrary choices about which animals are worthy of relieving from suffering, and which ones would be relegated to suffering because of the vegans and vegetarians efforts to "liberate" them. Yes, many of them speak in those terms. Nuts.

AS

People who are overly dedicated to that type of single-issue cause are essentially romantics following a certain irrational dream. Not irrational because of being impossible in principle, but because their priorities are out of whack. Any vegetarian activist not also worried about the political economy of the nation, for instance, is asleep at the wheel. So I would agree that such people are effectively nuts.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Why would they exist outside of zoos?

We've got zoo space to house the millions of cattle and chickens and pigs alive today? You've still got to use the land to feed them. Either they are going to starve, and thus suffer, or they are going to have to be fed with all that land they're presently using. Stopping eating them solves nothing in this regard.

People who are overly dedicated to that type of single-issue cause are essentially romantics following a certain irrational dream. Not irrational because of being impossible in principle, but because their priorities are out of whack. Any vegetarian activist not also worried about the political economy of the nation, for instance, is asleep at the wheel. So I would agree that such people are effectively nuts.

Agreed. I don't suffer idealists well. I find them naive and romantic and flighty. Some of them also have some seriously f*cked up ideals. Just the other day, a vegetarian stated that she loved cats and dogs so much and hated the concept of ownership of them as pets, that her ideal was their extinction--that they would no longer exist as species. WTF? You love something so much you want it to die? Weird, to say the least.

AS

 

[CplFerro]

We've got zoo space to house the millions of cattle and chickens and pigs alive today? You've still got to use the land to feed them. Either they are going to starve, and thus suffer, or they are going to have to be fed with all that land they're presently using. Stopping eating them solves nothing in this regard.

Why would there be millions? Come on, don't be obtuse. If meat-eating were phased out livestocks would simply not be replenished. Their populations would diminish through human predation leaving ultimately only tiny zoo populations.

Extinguish housepets? Good grief.