What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Belz...]

So it boils down to a matter of extent. Maybe we shouldn't quit consuming meat altogether, but it would almost certainly be healthier and better for humanity as a whole to greatly reduce our overall meat consumption.

No, no, no, no and no. That would be reasonable, which is certainly not what some vegans want.

 

[tsig]

I'm not repeating it, I'm just responding to posts addressing mine. You really think I'm trolling?

Given the reasonableness of your answer, no.

 

[Drudgewire]

From the OP:

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?


Poisoning the well from the beginning.

Yeah it's a bit douchey, but it really doesn't come off as any more or less inflammatory than almost every single OP in the CT or Politics forums...












...OK, I see your point.

And for the record cornsail. I was simply answering your question. I absolutely don't lump you in with the holier than thou types I was mocking.

 

[Meed]

Hunting and killing one's own food is certainly far preferable to purchasing it shrink-wrapped at the local supermarket. But it's just not possible for everyone to do so all the time, so it's a Red Herring.

You are missing the point or reading things into my post that weren't there. I didn't say I find factory farms "disrespectful" because there is an alternative way of obtaining meat that is viable. I find them disrespectful period. Hunting was an example brought up for the sake of distinction.

I agree that factory farms are more or less disrespectful, but it's anything but a black and white issue. Have you read any of Temple Grandin's work? Or anything about the way animals are actually treated on "organic" farms?

Good, so we agree that "eating animals is respecting them" isn't a sufficient answer to ethical questions regarding the treatment of other animals by human society.

I haven't read Temple Grandin. Should I? I've read some of Peter Singer's work.

It's just that, the way I see it, the needs of my own species trump those of other species whenever they are in conflict. We don't have a way to treat all animals with full respect and provide meat to everyone who wants it, so the animals lose.

Why do you think meat is a "need"? I thought the statistics showed that vegetarians are healthier than omnivores on average. And I don't know of any nutrients in meat that can't be easily obtained through other means.

 

[Meed]

And for the record cornsail. I was simply answering your question. I absolutely don't lump you in with the holier than thou types I was mocking.

I didn't think you were -- I wasn't lumping you in with anyone either, I really can't remember which posters were doing what.

 

[Frank Merton]

For what it's worth, most Buddhist monks tend to avoid eating meat and other food that involves killing a "sentient" being (loosely defined as having eyes). The Jainists go much further and would like to achieve existence without killing any living thing (so that the really strong believers end up starving to death, and being naked while they do so, since even cotton is alive).

My wife and I generally refrain from eating meat, based on the moral principle that commercial meat production is cruel to the animals involved--or at least it is not possible for us to be sure they are not.

However, so long as the animal lives a better existence than it would in nature and it is proactively protected form any suffering, then we suppose we could eat meat in good conscience. It is interesting--we have been away from meat for so long we have lost the desire for it, and in fact find the idea a bit repulsive.

 

[Prometheus]

You are missing the point or reading things into my post that weren't there. I didn't say I find factory farms "disrespectful" because there is an alternative way of obtaining meat that is viable. I find them disrespectful period. Hunting was an example brought up for the sake of distinction.

I did not suggest that you did so. But merely finding them "disrespectful period" does not address the issue at hand.

Good, so we agree that "eating animals is respecting them" isn't a sufficient answer to ethical questions regarding the treatment of other animals by human society.

Sure, but so what? That's not the issue at hand either. Besides, I never presented my opinion as a sufficient answer to anything. It's my "excuse".

I haven't read Temple Grandin. Should I? I've read some of Peter Singer's work.

I think she's worth reading. I think she displays more genuine respect for animals raised as livestock than just about anyone I've read on either side of the issue.

Why do you think meat is a "need"? I thought the statistics showed that vegetarians are healthier than omnivores on average. And I don't know of any nutrients in meat that can't be easily obtained through other means.

Carelessness on my part. Please repace the word "needs" with "demands". Otherwise, my point remains the same.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

OK, I wanna know who told. ****. Now we have to go to Plan B.



Historically, in a state of nature, children have been lucky to make it into adulthood. People struggled to find enough to eat, so I don't think there's anything wrong since this passes the-wild-as-a-baseline test.

ETA: That Vegan/Carnivore picture is funny.

Morally, given a choice, one should allow a child to reach their full potential and not just see if they will be lucky enough to barely squeak through to adulthood with deficiencies that lead to lower IQ, etc.

 

[Dragoonster]

It's a legitimate question, though. If killing animals is inherently wrong, then killing plants shouldn't be much better, unless in order to deserve respect a beign must be a quadruped.

And asking proud meat-eaters if they have any problem with cannibalism is also a legitimate question that's meant to get to the real reasons they/we need no "excuse" to eat cows or pigs. The moral "excuse" generally isn't just because they taste good; I imagine some human meat recipes are tasty.

If killing humans is inherently wrong...

(which it isn't, but works as well with "if one's personal philosophy is that killing humans is wrong...")

Once an animal is considered a pet, it enjoys a special status; it's now a 'quasi-person' of sorts. I don't see any reason to convey this same status to either wild animals or those raised for food. The distinction is clearer in Korea, where dogs are popular both as pets and as food (They are, in fact, delicious!). Most people there would never eat a pet dog unless it were a matter of survival. The dogs that are eaten are bred and raised specifically for that purpose, and treated similarly to other livestock.

Incidentally, I'd be nearly as enraged if someone killed one of my bonsai trees as I would if they killed my pet budgie.

Would you be as enraged if someone killed your bonsai trees as you would if they killed your family?

Well, that's a rhetorical question. The thread has explored this stuff ad nauseum by this point.

 

[Meed]

Sure, but so what? That's not the issue at hand either. Besides, I never presented my opinion as a sufficient answer to anything. It's my "excuse".

The "excuse" is based on the respect you feel is involved in the act of eating the animal's meat, correct? But if respect is the metric, you would presumably have to weigh that against the "disrespect" of the farming process, which purchasing the meat supports. That is, if you actually purchase meat raised in factory farms.

What is the issue at hand?

I think she's worth reading. I think she displays more genuine respect for animals raised as livestock than just about anyone I've read on either side of the issue.

Thanks, I'll look into her.

Carelessness on my part. Please repace the word "needs" with "demands". Otherwise, my point remains the same.

Gotcha. So that would be "It's just that, the way I see it, the demands of my own species trump those of other species whenever they are in conflict."

An issue with that is the demands of our species sometimes involve animal welfare. That's why animal torture for the mere sake of sadistic pleasure is generally vilified. And it's why pet abuse and/or neglect is often illegal. Look at dog and cock fighting, restrictions (albeit not very stringent) on animal experimentation, and so on. The demands of our species are also not static. Standards of what is deemed "acceptable" change over time.

Of course I might be interpreting "demands" too liberally and coming off as pedantic. You may simply mean that human standards for what is deemed acceptable behavior, in your view, should not include consideration of non-human animals. Can you clarify?

 

[Belz...]

My wife and I generally refrain from eating meat, based on the moral principle that commercial meat production is cruel to the animals involved--or at least it is not possible for us to be sure they are not.

This is something that confuses me. How is one (eating meat) related to the other (unethical farms) ?

 

[Belz...]

And asking proud meat-eaters if they have any problem with cannibalism is also a legitimate question that's meant to get to the real reasons they/we need no "excuse" to eat cows or pigs.

We don't. Killing our own kind for food and killing not-our-own-kind for food is not the same issue.

It's all a matter of where you draw the line, and my point is that drawing the line at plants is no less arbitrary than drawing line at non-humans.

 

[Marcus]

For what it's worth, most Buddhist monks tend to avoid eating meat and other food that involves killing a "sentient" being (loosely defined as having eyes). The Jainists go much further and would like to achieve existence without killing any living thing (so that the really strong believers end up starving to death, and being naked while they do so, since even cotton is alive).

My wife and I generally refrain from eating meat, based on the moral principle that commercial meat production is cruel to the animals involved--or at least it is not possible for us to be sure they are not.

However, so long as the animal lives a better existence than it would in nature and it is proactively protected form any suffering, then we suppose we could eat meat in good conscience. It is interesting--we have been away from meat for so long we have lost the desire for it, and in fact find the idea a bit repulsive.

Cotton harvesting doesn't harm the plant, it just removes the boll. Likewise, there are plenty of foods to be had without harming any plants, fruit ,nuts, beans, tomatoes and cucumbers, olive oil, ect. There is a large group of people who practice this, they are called frutarians. Not that I am one, I'm an omnivore myself, I just find the moral arguments for vegetarainism no more compelling.

 

[Prometheus]

The "excuse" is based on the respect you feel is involved in the act of eating the animal's meat, correct? But if respect is the metric, you would presumably have to weigh that against the "disrespect" of the farming process, which purchasing the meat supports. That is, if you actually purchase meat raised in factory farms.

Of course, which is why I'd prefer to hunt and kill my own meat. Other aspects of my life make that generally impossible except on special occasions, so I take what I can get.

What is the issue at hand?

I was describing why I don't feel guilty eating animals. The larger social issue of course involves some degree of consensus between people of different opinions.

...So that would be "It's just that, the way I see it, the demands of my own species trump those of other species whenever they are in conflict."

An issue with that is the demands of our species sometimes involve animal welfare. That's why animal torture for the mere sake of sadistic pleasure is generally vilified. And it's why pet abuse and/or neglect is often illegal. Look at dog and cock fighting, restrictions (albeit not very stringent) on animal experimentation, and so on. The demands of our species are also not static. Standards of what is deemed "acceptable" change over time.

Of course I might be interpreting "demands" too liberally and coming off as pedantic. You may simply mean that human standards for what is deemed acceptable behavior, in your view, should not do not necessarily need to include consideration of non-human animals. Can you clarify?

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.

 

[Prometheus]

Would you be as enraged if someone killed your bonsai trees as you would if they killed your family?

Of course not, but to be truly honest, that's more because they're my family than because they're not trees. I have no trouble picking up a newspaper and reading about someone else's family being killed without becoming as emotional as I would be at losing my trees.

 

[Paulhoff]

Let's play mind games......

If you where a bug, a chicken would eat you in a heartbeat and not think anything about it. If you where a bug on a blade of grass, a cow would eat you in a heartbeat.

SO, eat it before it eats you.

Paul

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I kill animals to do my part to ensure that 24 page pissing contests like this will still be around for my children and my children's children to enjoy.

 

[tsig]

Cotton harvesting doesn't harm the plant, it just removes the boll. Likewise, there are plenty of foods to be had without harming any plants, fruit ,nuts, beans, tomatoes and cucumbers, olive oil, ect. There is a large group of people who practice this, they are called frutarians. Not that I am one, I'm an omnivore myself, I just find the moral arguments for vegetarainism no more compelling.

You'd be committing abortion when you remove the seeds and fruits.

 

[Morrigan]

Why do you think meat is a "need"? I thought the statistics showed that vegetarians are healthier than omnivores on average. And I don't know of any nutrients in meat that can't be easily obtained through other means.

Vitamin B12, vitamin D, iron, proteins, calcium, are all obtainable without animal products, but not easily so. Special planning must be taken into account, and in the vegan cases supplements must even be taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Specific_nutrients

 

[tsig]

I kill animals to do my part to ensure that 24 page pissing contests like this will still be around for my children and my children's children to enjoy.

Rest easy, we know you're still the champion, you can take the piss with the best.