Morality of killing animals for food

[Turing Complete]

There are obviously many arguments for vegetarianism. However, I want to discuss the issue that it's morally wrong to kill our fellow inhabitants of this planet for food. Now, generally the people who espouse this argument draw a hard line for the boundary -- but I like eating meat. I'm wondering if there's a way to figure out which things it's more morally wrong to eat. For example, if I decide to eat beef, well there's a lot of eating for the cost of a single life. However, I'd expect that taking the life of a cow to be more morally wrong than taking the life of a shrimp. However, is the life of a cow worth the lives of however many shrimp it takes to make the same amount food?

So I'm not sure how to work it out exactly. We can probably base it off the amount of meat on a carcass in part, but how do we measure the value of the life? Brain size? I'd appreciate some help here -- something I can calculate to determine which animals are most/least morally objectionable for eating.

[bufftabby]

Personally, I can't eat anything with a face. I think (in theory anyway, haven't tried yet) that I could eat, say, a scallop, or anything else without a face. I don't really think there's any definitive moral line though, that's just where I draw the line personally.

[blank]

There is no morality- We are apex predators and omnivorous. Plus we need the proteins.

[Chacoguy]

I can see mitigating the animals' suffering, both in how they're raised and how they're put down. But, I really don't think that say, cows, really think about their mortality like you or I might.

[Victor Frankenstein]

But, I really don't think that say, cows, really think about their mortality like you or I might.

I don't think many animals understand the concept of death. Some of the higher primates perhaps.

[WednesdayAddams]

There is no morality- We are apex predators and omnivorous. Plus we need the proteins.
This. I don't believe any other carnivore on Earth suffers guilt and angst over whether it's moral or not to eat its primary food source. I may be off in this. I have no way of proving it as we can't communicate with other species well enough. However, I feel fairly confident in saying that cheetahs do not as a rule turn to each other and say 'Y'know, Bob, is it really right for us to terrify, chase down and brutally kill the gazelle, then feast on their raw innards, sometimes while they're still alive?' All things considered, being fed really well for a couple years then being humanely killed? Not as bad. Everything is in the food chain, us included. We're at the top and eventually are fed on by those at the bottom. ~shrug~ Nature ain't always pretty.

[The Cid]

The first chapter of the Bible, Genesis, says we should use fruit and nut for our meat. That we are the keeper of the Garden. I interpret this to mean "if you need to take an animal for your protein, so be it, but don't do it out of convenience."

[Islander]

Morality has nothing to do with it. If God didn't want us to eat his little animal friends, he wouldn't have made them out of Meat.

Also, what Marissa said. Something has to die in order for something else to live. Why complicate it? That apple you plucked off the tree, or the carrot you pulled out of the ground, was alive until you exercised control over it. Doesn't matter that it wasn't sentient; as 7 said, even higher order mammals can't anticipate their own demise.

[Khampelf]

Morality has nothing to do with it. If God didn't want us to eat his little animal friends, he wouldn't have made them out of Meat.




This. Plus the words of the discordian saint who asked "If animals are our brothers, why can't we eat them?"

[Muskrat Love]

I believe that all instinct expresses itself in emotions, and we share nearly all our emotions with other mammals. The urge to do violence and sadism are just the expression of the killing instinct, and shared with other predators. I don't think a lion sees a gazelle and feels nothing but "I am hungry and if I kill that animal I can have it's meat". I think it's more like "I hate that fucking gazelle, look at it, hopping around with it's stupid gazelle face while I'm laying here hungry. I'm going to catch that gazelle and fuck it up!" and after it's done, it enjoys the side-effect of the expression of it's anger. Humans share those feelings, but not as strongly so most of us don't feel the need to kill animals on a regular basis (but some of us enjoy it enough that we'll spend thousands of dollars to do so). We feel guilty about violence because we are social animals and if we didn't we'd be self-destructive in our interactions with other members of our species, and because we are overly self-aware and have overly complex and buggy brains, we extend that feeling towards other species.

A lot of our problems are because our meat is delivered to us pre-killed and we internalize our urge to hurt our food.

[Turing Complete]

Alrighty then. It doesn't look like anyone wants to discuss whether it's more moral to eat 10,000 shrimp or one cow.

Personally I don't have a problem eating meat. It doesn't really matter to me what your actual stance is. I was just hoping to come up with a ranking of how wrong it is to eat which animal. Maybe I should start a new thread and try to be more clear.

[Dirx]

I don't think you can quantify it, if that's what you're getting at. Morality is just too abstract, in most cases.

As for 10,000 shrimp vs. one cow (assuming those are equal edible quantities, of course): I think it's about equal (which, for me, is quite low on the guilt-o-meter). I know a lot of people who would be heartbroken if they have to witness any vertebrate animal kick the bucket, however humanely, but don't think twice to stomp flat a spider just because it was skittering across the sidewalk. I disagree with that sort of double-standard--invertebrates are animals too. Just because they ain't as cute as the fuzzy ones doesn't make 'em less alive.

[Islander]

I'd like to serve your desire for a debate, but I just don't see any moral relativism to eating animals.

Having said that, I eat only wild or free-range organic meat. I think CAFOs are wrong from every perspective, but mainly I have health concerns around growth hormones, antibiotics, corn-fed beef and the like.

[Radical Edward]

I'm about to go to bed soon, so I'm just going to throw this out here. I think that morality is too fluid to really make a judgement here. What's ok in one culture is not ok in another. Personally, it's against my morals to kill or eat any creature that has observable feelings toward another creature. For example, most kinds of fish don't seem to care for each other. Fine. Dogs? My dog loves me. One of the cats loves him. It would be terribly immoral to eat a dog, or in fact most pack animals.

I do think that we, as a civilized society that is knowledgeable and capable of sustaining itself without killing, should move away from eating meat. Leave the animals alone and let nature be nature. We are a higher functioning species that is capable of taking itself off the food chain, and I sort of think we should. Unfortunately, since I just ate beef, that makes me a hypocrite.

[Dirx]

To be fair, we can't "take ourselves off the food chain," being that the food chain involves basically all life on the planet. But I understand what you mean.

I do agree that killing and eating a dog or cat would be immoral to me, but I think that's more because of the fondness I and others have for those animals. I love beef, but if I had a pet cow that I loved just as much as a dog, I don't think I'd be able to entertain the idea of eating it. It sure isn't any measure of intelligence or affection on the cow's part.

[SmartAleq]

10,000 shrimp are probably less morally defensible than a grass raised cow by a longshot. Shrimping results in the death of a lot of other species that get caught up in the bottom scraper nets they use and the Sea of Cortes is nearly barren due to overfishing and that's an ethical nightmare. Grass fed beef, or better yet, lamb & goat, are better for us to eat than commercially grown corn fed critters, giving us the Omega-3 fatty acids most of us eat fish to replace in our diets and are easier on the environment as a whole. The ethicality of eating meat has little to do with the animals and much more to do with the unsustainable, environmentally destructive methods we use to raise them. Corn is a more morally reprehensible crop than grass fed meat, to my mind.

[Radical Edward]

To be fair, we can't "take ourselves off the food chain," being that the food chain involves basically all life on the planet. But I understand what you mean.



Well, but can we really say a field full of carrots count as being on the food chain, since it's been cultivated by humans and didn't grow there naturally? It's protected by fences and pesticides and isn't fair game for any creature to take, only the ones who put it there. I guess the same goes for cows, but cows can have cow friends and feel pain, where carrots can't. At the very least we could be far more removed from the food chain than we are currently.

[Uthrecht]

So, if we can simply grow cow embryos in vitro and birth them without higher brain functions, they're not really on the food chain, right?

Oh, science, is there anything you can't do?

[Radical Edward]

So, if we can simply grow cow embryos in vitro and birth them without higher brain functions, they're not really on the food chain, right?

Oh, science, is there anything you can't do?

Well.... yeah. As much as that creeps me out, the brainless cow in that scenario would be the same as a vegetable, and not part of the larger world food chain, since it wouldn't be available for other species to fight over. But. It creeps me out.

[mlerose]

I think I've mentioned a few times that I don't eat mammal, but don't hesitate to eat fish, seafood, or poultry.

The main reason is because it takes a lot more energy to grow a cow or a pig or a sheep or whatever to the point where it gets killed for human consumption than it does to raise a chicken or a salmon or whatever. You gotta pick your battles, and while I understand it may be better/more humane/etc. to eat a hand=grown/fed cow than to eat a non-organic chicken, it still takes a lot more of the world's resources to grow that cow.

I've never been much of a fan of red meat, so it was easy for me to stop eating it once I moved out of my parents' house and was no longer required to eat what they bought/prepared. I have some issues with the sentience of certain animals, in that I think sea bugs and fish are much more stupid than, say, a cow, and I would feel the most guilty about eating pig, just because they're really smart.

If we had the ability to grow meat (chicken, turkey, cow, pig, or otherwise) in a vat, I'd be more than thrilled to eat it.

[Victor Frankenstein]

The first chapter of the Bible, Genesis, says we should use fruit and nut for our meat. That we are the keeper of the Garden. I interpret this to mean "if you need to take an animal for your protein, so be it, but don't do it out of convenience."

The bible also says a dude lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days. :smack:

[Victor Frankenstein]

Alrighty then. It doesn't look like anyone wants to discuss whether it's more moral to eat 10,000 shrimp or one cow.

Personally I don't have a problem eating meat. It doesn't really matter to me what your actual stance is. I was just hoping to come up with a ranking of how wrong it is to eat which animal. Maybe I should start a new thread and try to be more clear.

I think most people would lean in the cows favour just because a cow has a face, big eyes and long eyelashes.

Shrimp are just swimmy little mud bugs.

[mlerose]

Cows are also ridiculously stupid. I know this because I grew up on a cattle ranch and interacted with them on a daily basis for many years.

(Chickens are even more stupid. Also, mean. We kept them until they all finally got eaten by coyotes, bobcats, and possums.)

[bashere]

The bible also says a dude lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days. :smack:

Was this divine intervention or just a really slow digestive process?

[Dirx]

Well, but can we really say a field full of carrots count as being on the food chain, since it's been cultivated by humans and didn't grow there naturally? It's protected by fences and pesticides and isn't fair game for any creature to take, only the ones who put it there. I guess the same goes for cows, but cows can have cow friends and feel pain, where carrots can't. At the very least we could be far more removed from the food chain than we are currently.

The food chain is more complex than "this eats that." Even if you manage to make sure nothing else eats that field of carrots, waste products from the carrots (and us, after eating the carrots) go back into the system to be recycled by other critters. Bees help pollinate crops (okay, probably not carrots), and go live elsewhere and pollinate and become food for whole other sections of the ecosystem. The only way to remove all this from the food chain is to put it all in a biodome, in which case all you really did was just make a separate, smaller-scale food chain.


SmartAleq: I definitely agree that it's the method of farming/harvesting/whatevering that has the stronger moral impact. When I put shrimp and cows on equal footing, it was based only on species--all other things (environmental impact, e.g.) being equal.

[Dirx]

Well.... yeah. As much as that creeps me out, the brainless cow in that scenario would be the same as a vegetable, and not part of the larger world food chain, since it wouldn't be available for other species to fight over. But. It creeps me out.

Here's an interesting question. Is it more morally "wrong" to kill and eat sentient cows, or to grow mutant brainless cows? I've already got no problem with the former. As for the latter... even though I'm pretty gung-ho about science and all that, this scenario bothers me. It just seems wrong.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Here's an interesting question. Is it more morally "wrong" to kill and eat sentient cows, or to grow mutant brainless cows? I've already got no problem with the former. As for the latter... even though I'm pretty gung-ho about science and all that, this scenario bothers me. It just seems wrong.

Why bother with the whole animal? Cut to the chase with Test tube meat (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/invitro_meat).

Industry, science, and technology! Big men putting screwdrivers into things, turning them, and adjusting them! Meat grown in vats. Bringing you state-of-the-art in soft serve technology! Pulls off caps of any size jug, bottle, or jar. And it really, really works.

[Dirx]

Okay, I object to that on the grounds that it makes my stomach turn.

But that aside, it prompted a new question: Let's say we successfully switch over to synthmeat. No more need for livestock of any kind (well, ok, maybe dairy cows unless we've started synthesizing milk too*). What happens to all the domesticated cows/chickens/whatevers? Do we release them at that point, or continue eating them until they're used up? What happens to the farms and pastures they were raised on? What happens to the farmers and ranchers that raised them? Does everything go to growing crops, at that point?

*There are no words for how nasty soy milk is. It is not a valid global replacement of actual milk.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I think if there was some global change to synthmeat, chickens will still be used. They produce eggs and feathers as well.

I suspect the beef industry will become much like the emu/ostrich industry is today. There will still be a demand for proper steaks, but in a much reduced capacity. The industry just fizzles out - much like the pneumatic mail tube manufacturers or "ice men" of yore.

[severe delays]

If we make some kind of attempt to remove ourselves from what we traditionally think of as the food chain, how is that going to be affected by our deaths? At this point we are (usually) going to be eaten by bacteria, insect larva and worms. So if we accept the proposal that it is morally wrong for us to eat a dead animal (whether it understands that or not) then surely it is equally morally wrong for billions of animals to eat us (whether they understand that or not)?

[SoylentPopTart]

But that aside, it prompted a new question: Let's say we successfully switch over to synthmeat. No more need for livestock of any kind (well, ok, maybe dairy cows unless we've started synthesizing milk too*). What happens to all the domesticated cows/chickens/whatevers? Do we release them at that point, or continue eating them until they're used up? What happens to the farms and pastures they were raised on? What happens to the farmers and ranchers that raised them? Does everything go to growing crops, at that point?


At this point, I'd say we have a moral obligation to continue eating them. Now that they are domesticated, they would never survive the wild on their own in the numbers we have produced. If we were to turn them loose because we had switched over to synth meat millions of cows would die an inhumane death.

[WednesdayAddams]

I would agree with SPT, and add that in addition to dying an inhumane death they would add to the disease factor (http://www.gcci.org/ipan/update0304.html) of humans (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/149919/crowded_india_cities_face_conflict_on_cows/) and other animals.

I will say that I do feel a moral obligation to NOT buy meat which comes from megaplex meat packing factories, so I choose organic locally grown meat.

There are no moral absolutes. There are only guidelines by which we agree to live in order to make society work as a whole.

[WednesdayAddams]

I think if there was some global change to synthmeat, chickens will still be used. They produce eggs and feathers as well.

I suspect the beef industry will become much like the emu/ostrich industry is today. There will still be a demand for proper steaks, but in a much reduced capacity. The industry just fizzles out - much like the pneumatic mail tube manufacturers or "ice men" of yore.
Wasn't there some huge kerfuffle about that recently? People were outraged at the idea of genetically engineered meat. Which is stupid when you think about it; we've been eating genetically engineered meat for the better part of a century. The only difference is there's no animal attached to the new stuff.

[Uthrecht]

I find it very interesting that growing muscle mass in vats or growing neurologically-inactive (insert better term here) food animals can provoke a deeper response than the idea of slaughtering animals for meat. Which is not to mock or belittle people for either opinion.

In any event, I agree with Dirx. We have organic compounds, we eat organic compounds; that makes us part of the/a food chain. Anything with organic compounds (and hey, some things without) are part of the/a food chain. If a specially-grown carrot gets hit by a must/mold/fungus, it's been reclaimed.

I also have some faith that if we were to halt using domesticated food animals for meat, any that were released into the wild would find some way to survive. You'd have some rockiness in the populations, I'm sure, but as long as enough were released they'd adapt. They also have a leg up with the fact that predatory animal populations have been suppressed in large portions of the world. My bigger worry would be their impact on their habitats; deer in the eastern US can be a problem when left to their own devices (again because of the lack of predation).

[SoylentPopTart]

The deer I hit last spring put a hurting on my Mini Coop. I'd hate to see what would have happened if a Holstein had ran into the side of me.



and if I hit it, I can keep it, right, even if it's not in season?

[Islander]

The deer I hit last spring put a hurting on my Mini Coop. I'd hate to see what would have happened if a Holstein had ran into the side of me.



and if I hit it, I can keep it, right, even if it's not in season?


Yup. One of them put a hurting on my Neon, one put a hurting on my Subaru, one slid right over my WV bug, but I kept them all. Tasty little suckers.

[Solfy]

Wasn't there some huge kerfuffle about that recently? People were outraged at the idea of genetically engineered meat. Which is stupid when you think about it; we've been eating genetically engineered meat for the better part of a century. The only difference is there's no animal attached to the new stuff.

I wouldn't have a problem eating vat meat, assuming it was indistinguishable from conventional meat. I'm not surprised people have a problem with the concept, though, considering there's still a push for people to shun mass produced "synthetic" chemicals that are not infrequently chemically engineered versions of naturally occurring compounds. If people have a problem with synthetically produced small molecules, they'd have a field day with synthetic proteins.

[Who_me?]

My morals are quite silent on the matter of eating meat.

[The Cid]

The bible also says a dude lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days. :smack:Heck I've done that. Got better though.

Seriously, I'm gonna call argumentum ad absurdum. Just because there are some wacky claims in the good book doesn't mean there isn't historical significance. If we take for granted the age of the Old Testament we know its authors were kicking around the idea of voluntary vegetarianism back when we were BCE.

Two thousand years is a pretty solid foundation for a moral obligation.*


* Of course this is only one set of Judeo-Christian beliefs; across the world there are similar admonishments from the ancient Rig Veda to the cultural secular ideals found among the extinct peoples of Cahokia.

[Rock]

I don't think it's morally wrong to kill animals for food; by far the great majority of living things on this planet stay alive by killing and eating other living things. Killing more than is necessary or killing for sport is morally wrong, in my opinion.

I don't think killing one cow is less objectionable than killing 10,000 shrimp. One cow isn't going to feed me for the rest of my life, I'm going to kill a lot of cows before I die. I'll kill as many animals as it takes to keep me alive.

I won't eat my pet dog or cat because I don't have to; there's plenty of meat at the grocery store. However, if I'm starving, I will not hesitate to kill and eat a pet. We live in an affluent society where we have the luxury of choice- we can keep some animals as pets and raise others for food. But if I'm hungry enough, I'll kill and eat just about anything that moves, and it'll taste damned good.

Going completely vegetarian doesn't really solve the problem of killing animals. Plowing a field to grow crops kills lots and lots of animals, from bugs and worms to mice and rabbits and even deer sometimes. Unless we only eat plants that grow wild, we are still going to end up killing animals to get our food.

[Anacanapuna]

There is no morality- We are apex predators and omnivorous. Plus we need the proteins.The thread should have ended here. We're at the top of the food chain. We eat whatever we want, we don't eat what we don't want. Except each other. We don't eat other humans. That's barbaric. Unless you're stranded in the Andes and the other humans are already dead, then, well, morality becomes a relative thing.

But we are at the top of the food chain. Cows aren't. Nor are chimpanzees or orangutans or silver-backed gorillas, no matter how much they resemble your Uncle Sid.

[Danja]

I wouldn't have a problem eating vat meat, assuming it was indistinguishable from conventional meat. I'm not surprised people have a problem with the concept, though, considering there's still a push for people to shun mass produced "synthetic" chemicals that are not infrequently chemically engineered versions of naturally occurring compounds. If people have a problem with synthetically produced small molecules, they'd have a field day with synthetic proteins.

I don't think that most people would know the difference between small molecules and proteins. If you can't see it, it's small. In any case, even if they knew the difference, I don't think it would matter. "Synthetic" anything causes cancer, doncha know?

I would probably eat synthetic meat, and I find it very interesting that most people are more creeped out by the idea of vat meat than by slaughtering animals. Honestly, I think it's because of experience people have had with high school chemistry and bio; growing bacteria in petri dishes or mixing chemicals in test tubes. I think that if every class was made to tour a slaughterhouse, the majority reaction would be quite different.

[Anacanapuna]

Never mind -- brain dead.

Welcome to the conversation, Danja -- where ya' been for the past month?!

[Falcon]

I would probably eat synthetic meat, and I find it very interesting that most people are more creeped out by the idea of vat meat than by slaughtering animals. Honestly, I think it's because of experience people have had with high school chemistry and bio; growing bacteria in petri dishes or mixing chemicals in test tubes. I think that if every class was made to tour a slaughterhouse, the majority reaction would be quite different.

As you say, synthetic meat sounds like it would have chemicals in it. I'm not overly fond of most processed foods. I don't even buy lunch meat very often anymore, preferring instead to cook an entire turkey once in a while and freeze soup/cassarole batch sized portions. Then I use those to cook what I'll eat for lunch in the coming week.

I think most large-scale food processing, including slaughter, would squick a lot of people out if we saw it. When I learned how they make marascino (sp?) cherries, for example, I stopped eating them. If I had the time and energy, I'd grow my own food and raise my own meat. But I don't. I'm a modern human with a job in a cubicle farm, and any time you mass produce something, there are going to be squicky things about it that you wouldn't do if you were doing it yourself.

Which is why ultra-processed stuff like synthetic meat rates really high for me on the squick factor. And would it even taste as good? Part of the tastiness of meat comes from blood and fat. It's not just muscle protein.

[Uthrecht]

Okay, so what about fully organic vat-grown meat? Grown by local co-op lab techs. No artificial preservatives or hormones. Let it grow some fat to hang off it, a nice shank bone down the middle to supply marrow and grow new blood cells, and bathe it in blood. Sounds yummy!

[Falcon]

Okay, so what about fully organic vat-grown meat? Grown by local co-op lab techs. No artificial preservatives or hormones. Let it grow some fat to hang off it, a nice shank bone down the middle to supply marrow and grow new blood cells, and bathe it in blood. Sounds yummy!

I might be willing to taste it once, but it still sounds squicky. I prefer my meat to have been alive and kicking at some point. I guess I'm like a snake that won't eat frozen rabbits. Mine have to wiggle before I'll strike.

And if you post back that they'd make the vat-raised leg twitch, I think I'd throw up. :barf:

The thought of eating Quorn (http://www.quorn.us//cmpage.aspx?section=WhatIsQuorn) equally disgusts me, by the way, even though I love mushrooms and nutritional yeast. "The principle ingredient in Quorn is mycoprotein." Gah! My stomach turns just reading that phrase, and I get this fuzzy/earthy sensation in my mouth and the idea that I'd be eating something gross like a decaying mummy coated in dirt.

[Uthrecht]

I love mushrooms and nutritional yeast.
...
I get this fuzzy/earthy sensation in my mouth and the idea that I'd be eating something gross like a decaying mummy coated in dirt.

Yeah, that sounds accurate. Enjoy your mushrooms.


Seriously, though, if someone were to use basically the same biotechnology (when it arrives) that will allow people to grow entire spare organs to grow meat, bone and blood (and then just spike the blood with glucose and other compounds to keep the cells going), there's little difference between that and a big hunk excised out of an animal. And no, they wouldn't have to do anything to it to make it twitch. I bet it'd do that occasionally all on its own. Living muscle fiber, and all that.

Should I pass you a bucket?

[Falcon]

Should I pass you a bucket?

Nope--a bow and arrow. I'm gonna start hunting rabbits in my backyard for meat if everything in the grocery store becomes vat-grown. ;)

[Pencil]

Grass fed beef, or better yet, lamb & goat, are better for us to eat than commercially grown corn fed critters,

The main reason is because it takes a lot more energy to grow a cow or a pig or a sheep or whatever to the point where it gets killed for human consumption than it does to raise a chicken or a salmon or whatever.

See, here are two examples of people trying to do the right thing, but ending up still doing wrong - not to pick on you, it's just examples and I'll get back to the morality in a while.

We should stay away from ruminating animals* all together. That includes sheep, cows and since they produce an awful lot of methane, regardless what diet they're on. It might be morally better to eat meat from free ranging animals (I think it is, btw) but the gigantic global meat industry is a polluter of ginormous proportions. Poultry and pork is much better, at least when we considered environmental effects.

As for salmon, apart from all other horror stories you've heard about fish farms, do you realize that it takes a pound of fish to get a pound of farmed salmon? We're catching fish in the sea to feed the salmon. Rhetorical question: Is that moral?


The problem is that's it's almost impossible to live without causing some kind of "damage" to nature. I say almost and damage, because maybe there is a way and "damage" because, well I don't think there is an objective way to judge damage. Can a vegetarian/vegan claim to do no "damage" to the planet? They get upset when I point out the reason there are so many birds behind a tractor plowing a field. And if they grow their own vegetables, where did the shovel come from, the bucket? How were those things transported? Did a rabbit get run over by the truck? What CO2 emissions does the truck have?

The deeper one tries to dig, trying to find a way to do good, the more one realizes that there is no way to live without things coming to harm. As I said before, for me, it's morally better to eat meat from free range animals, and hopefully, the farmed salmon I BBQd back in August were fed fish that was sorted out from the tuna catchers and would have been thrown away otherwise or some such.

I enjoy meat, but I also realize that with the pressure this planet is under, and with the growing middle classes in China and India, I'll probably have to cut back on meat in the coming years, at least if I want to choose what feels moral to me. Free ranging animals are going to be more and more expensive, and I like veggies, so no problem there. I don't need a 1/2 pound steak to be happy, a couple of ounces of bacon can make a pasta dish a heavenly treat.









*Giraffes are ruminating, just sayin'

[Wolf Larsen]

We should stay away from ruminating animals* all together. That includes sheep, cows and since they produce an awful lot of methane, regardless what diet they're on. It might be morally better to eat meat from free ranging animals (I think it is, btw) but the gigantic global meat industry is a polluter of ginormous proportions. Poultry and pork is much better, at least when we considered environmental effects.

How are you on seal meat? It's mighty tasty!

[Anacanapuna]

The main reason is because it takes a lot more energy to grow a cow or a pig or a sheep or whatever to the point where it gets killed for human consumption than it does to raise a chicken or a salmon or whatever. I live in the heart of production farming and ranching, and believe me, it costs as much to grow a pound of pork or poultry as it does to grow a pound of beef. Yes, one chicken is cheap to grow, but a family consumes one entire chicken at a sitting. The same family will take months to consume one entire steer, assuming the normal rotation of poultry, pork, fish, and meatless meals.

[mlerose]

Like I said earlier in the thread, I grew up on a cattle ranch and we also had chickens, so I'm pretty familiar with the sorts of things it takes to raise animals for consumption. While I understand your point of the size of the animal, that's kind of my point as well - smaller animals take less work to get to the point where they can be eaten by people. So over the course of a year, sure, a lot more chickens die to feed me and The Superhero than might cows if we ate those (he does, but only when we're out in a restaurant), but when you think about food chain issues: the amount of feed it took, the amount of water, the labor costs associated, etc., I think it at least breaks even.

Like I said before, you gotta pick your battles. Even were I to be a strict vegan, I would still be partially responsible for the deaths of field creatures that were plowed over in the course of harvesting corn, wheat, etc. I've never liked red meat and feel better about eating birds and fish and sea bugs than I do about mammals. I don't fault other people for making different choices.

[ephekt]

There is no morality- We are apex predators and omnivorous. Plus we need the proteins.
This is a good example of the naturalistic fallacy; that is, attempting to determine an ethical ought from a natural is. Not to mention that complete proteins are available in soy and several grains, and any marginally intelligent veggie will point out that man is the only being which posses moral agency, which further destroys this argument.

That said, I eat meat. I don't know that my actions are ethically defensible, but I do know that there is no defensible determination that shows eating meat to be unethical. Subjective, baseless morality comes a dime a dozen, so I basically just default to the cultural omnivorism I was born into.

Honestly, this questions is more of an ideological than logical one.

[john ingram]

that man is the only being which posses moral agency

And being that we're apex predators, we have the luxury of being able to devote copious amounts of time to our moral dilemmas.

[Anacanapuna]

While I understand your point of the size of the animal, that's kind of my point as well - smaller animals take less work to get to the point where they can be eaten by people. So over the course of a year, sure, a lot more chickens die to feed me and The Superhero than might cows if we ate those (he does, but only when we're out in a restaurant), but when you think about food chain issues: the amount of feed it took, the amount of water, the labor costs associated, etc., I think it at least breaks even.I'm glad we agree. We farm folk have to stick together.

[Vox Imperatoris]

The question of animal suffering in general (not just limited to food) is simply unrelated to morality. It's not that morality does not exist at all, but it simply does not apply to animals because they have no natural rights. The reason animals do not have natural rights is inherent in the term natural rights: it is not in their nature to be the rational, social beings that humans are. Humans have these rights because we can inquire into our own existence and make conscious choices, develop moral systems and cooperate with others in building societies to maximize our individual benefits. Rights provide us with a way to retaliate against aggressors who would take away what we have earned for ourselves, and we can contract that retaliation out to other people who are specialized in the business—the police.

It is ridiculous, though, to suppose that animals, who incapable of ownership, have the right to retaliate against aggressors who would "steal" what they do not own, let alone that they can contract it out to us to do it for them. Basically, when animals start asking for their rights, then we can start thinking about granting them (but even then, we would have to consider whether their rights conflicted with our own; e.g. a deadly pathogen could never have rights because granting them would mean allowing ourselves to die).

But at least I can understand where strict vegan/animal rights types are coming from. What I don't understand are the "halfway" people who believe some kinds of violence against animals are wrong but not other kinds.

[john ingram]

*head explodes*

[Xploder]

I just wanted to say the following:

Dog meat is good. So is cat meat. So is camel, snake, bear, and every other type of creature that I've ever eaten.

That said, I also like veggies.

Do we have a moral obligation to eat certain kinds of meat but not others? No, not really. Some people like to feel that they are superior to the rest by claiming that some animals have 'feelings' that equate to what humans have and this is false. Sure a dog or cat has a personality, but then again, so does every other type of creature. I'd venture to guess that 99.99999% of them are dumber than dirt personalities but there ya go.

Morals shouldn't even enter into the question of whether or not to eat meat, fowl or fish. It isn't as though animals are intelligent like we are, it's just that some are cuter than others. I can get behind wanting to be more ecologically sound and all, but, as has been said before, if we were to give up meat eating, there would be literally billions of animals condemned to a horrible death for no reason whatsoever.

On the other foot, if you wanna be a vegan or whatever, it's no skin off my ass as long as you don't try and push it down my throat (like my sister-in-law does and my ex-sister-in-law did) as I will kindly take a giant bite of my bacon cheeseburger with ham on top and chew it right in your sanctimonious face.

[Darmund]

My take on why we have cultural taboos about eating certain animals is that those animals have uses of their own beyond just food. Dogs are good for guarding, herding and hunting, so they are exempt from the cookpot. Cats are useful for vermin control. Horses are good for transportation and farmwork. Hence we don't eat dogs, cats or horses. Things like cows and chickens which are not good for anything else are food.

[WednesdayAddams]

The question of animal suffering in general (not just limited to food) is simply unrelated to morality. It's not that morality does not exist at all, but it simply does not apply to animals because they have no natural rights. The reason animals do not have natural rights is inherent in the term natural rights: it is not in their nature to be the rational, social beings that humans are. Humans have these rights because we can inquire into our own existence and make conscious choices, develop moral systems and cooperate with others in building societies to maximize our individual benefits. Rights provide us with a way to retaliate against aggressors who would take away what we have earned for ourselves, and we can contract that retaliation out to other people who are specialized in the business—the police.

It is ridiculous, though, to suppose that animals, who incapable of ownership, have the right to retaliate against aggressors who would "steal" what they do not own, let alone that they can contract it out to us to do it for them. Basically, when animals start asking for their rights, then we can start thinking about granting them (but even then, we would have to consider whether their rights conflicted with our own; e.g. a deadly pathogen could never have rights because granting them would mean allowing ourselves to die).

But at least I can understand where strict vegan/animal rights types are coming from. What I don't understand are the "halfway" people who believe some kinds of violence against animals are wrong but not other kinds.
Um. No. We don't have 'inherent' rights, either. Rights are what are given you legally. Aside from a few very basic instincts, there is nothing inherent about our existence; certainly not something as philosophically advanced as individual rights. To imply that we are advanced because we are able to understand each other but not other animals is to forget that a) other animals do the exact same thing and b) we are animals.

Other animals absolutely have concepts of ownership, to say otherwise is ignoring the available evidence. Marking territory is nothing more than a basic way of saying 'mine.' They also have complex morality codes.

[Radical Edward]

My take on why we have cultural taboos about eating certain animals is that those animals have uses of their own beyond just food. Dogs are good for guarding, herding and hunting, so they are exempt from the cookpot. Cats are useful for vermin control. Horses are good for transportation and farmwork. Hence we don't eat dogs, cats or horses. Things like cows and chickens which are not good for anything else are food.

But Milky White is my friend!

[Ichigodaisuki]

Um. No. We don't have 'inherent' rights, either. Rights are what are given you legally. Aside from a few very basic instincts, there is nothing inherent about our existence; certainly not something as philosophically advanced as individual rights. To imply that we are advanced because we are able to understand each other but not other animals is to forget that a) other animals do the exact same thing and b) we are animals.

Other animals absolutely have concepts of ownership, to say otherwise is ignoring the available evidence. Marking territory is nothing more than a basic way of saying 'mine.' They also have complex morality codes.

I would greatly appreciate learning more about the complex morality codes of animals. Would you possibly have handy any further reading upon this?
Seriously, I would like to know about which animals in specific or general that you are referencing.
Thank you, Wednesday.

[WednesdayAddams]

Ichi; there's a book called Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Justice-Moral-Lives-Animals/dp/0226041611) that is very good. In it, the authors provide studies and behavioral patterns which show regulated social structure within several different animal species. The authors do a good job of acknowledging the controversy in ascribing morals to animals while still arguing their case.

There's also this recent article in The Times (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html) which details the moral codes of several social animals.

[WednesdayAddams]

Sorry, my bad. That's the Telegraph, not the Times.

[Ichigodaisuki]

Wednesday, thank you for the links.
I found the Amazon review links helpful. I usually find their analyses to be interesting, and Herbert Gintis (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2U0XHQB7MMH0E/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp)gives an interesting review.
I think the criticism of the book Wild Jungle seems valid in place, but I haven't read the book, Wild Jungle.
From what I can gather from the book reviews and the Telegraph links, animal morality is not been proven, so much as been proposed ( or supposed).

I can't say that I don't believe that animals have morals, or display moral-like actions of empathy or sympathy.
But, I don't know if this is evidence enough that animals have "complex morality codes". I am not trying to argue with you, I just want to learn more. I think this is rather interesting.

Your words had me imagining a courtroom with chimpanzees arguing over a case, or some kangaroos studying in a library discussing legal theory like in the "Paper Chase". :)

[WednesdayAddams]

That's a rather worrisome mental image. :)

I think that the main barrier is communication. We are not able to understand the way other animals communicate, nor communicate with them, so it's more difficult to prove 'this is a moral.' But having a social structure like, say, that of baboons (http://www.princeton.edu/~baboon/social_life.html) shows that there are definitely implied if not explicit moral codes. When it comes right down to it, a moral code is nothing more than societal rules of behavior.