The moral argument of eating meat & dairy

henryscat · Oct 7, 2012

tek-monkey said:
I'm lost here. Sure I've been drinking, but why should pigs be given equal consideration but not the vote? Are they not human, in your bizarre way of looking at animals? Surely if we are not allowed to differentiate then a pig has as much valid input as you do?

The principle of equal consideration of interests really isn't hugely difficult. Try reading up on it when you're sober...

henryscat · Oct 7, 2012

John said:
I note you still haven't addressed the points raise yet are continuing to ask others to explain themselves. Or are you still 'unable to type on a proper keyboard'

I note no sensible contribution to the debate from you. Perhaps you could provide one?

proactive · Oct 7, 2012

henryscat said:
I note no sensible contribution to the debate from you. Perhaps you could provide one?

Perhaps you could break the habit of a lifetime and answer the points?

henryscat · Oct 7, 2012

Mikinton said:
If you'd have stuck to the "killing animals for food is morally wrong" argument, I'd have accepted it and moved on, but it's when you stray into the "consuming meat and dairy products is bad for you" point of view, I think "So what. Not my problem. I'll take the risk, thankyou." That's what I mean by 'irrelevant'; it is of no relevance to my situation.

It is relevant whether you think it is or not. If you consume meat or dairy, then any discussion of it is relevant to what you do - whatever your point of view is.

I mentioned this way back, I think, but if every obstacle you've thrown up was removed - animals had a great life until they were painlessly killed before their time, meat and dairy products were 'healthy' to eat, land use in rearing them was as efficient as if it had been devoted to growing crops - I still don't think you'd eat meat etc. (Which is fine, but don't try kidding us that all these other arguments, valid as they are in themselves, have any bearing on your decision on whether to eat meat.)

There is no way in which meat or dairy consumption can ever be benign.

henryscat · Oct 7, 2012

John said:
Perhaps you could break the habit of a lifetime and answer the points?

Which ones? Or maybe you could answer them?

proactive · Oct 7, 2012

henryscat said:
Which ones? Or maybe you could answer them?

The points raised by DB and techmonkey. I can't answer them because they are your opinions, not mine.

henryscat · Oct 7, 2012

tek-monkey said:
If an animal is bred for food then it wouldn't exist without us using it for food, I have mentioned this before. If it is solely bred for food, why not eat it? It serves no other purpose other than using up valuable crop land, would pigs still exist if we didn't use them? Cows? Of course they wouldn't outside of zoos.

Utter nonsense. There are small number of species that humans single out to breed in order to eat, strange how all the other animal species we, as a rule, don't eat manage to survive isn't it? It is laughable to suggest that pigs would be extinct if we didn't eat them. This statement demonstrates a great deal of ignorance. As for crop land... People starve because crops are fed to farmed animals instead of humans.

You accuse me of evading the questions but you seem to be ignoring my answers.

Your answers are superficial, and you are struggling with taking any thinking on the subject beyond the superficial.

You can't expect me to judge myself on your moral stance, I don't follow your moral compass so your thoughts are irrelevant. I like meat, it tastes nice, I don't care that animals die to feed me.

You apparently don't care that an animal dies to feed you, yet cannot explain why an animal you place in the pet category cannot be killed. Why not? It's a non-human animal, its life doesn't matter does it?

You may as well ask me to moralise swatting a fly, I just don't give a **** in the grand scheme of things. The problem on this planet is not what we farm, its how much we over-breed.

Your meat and dairy consumption causes gross over-breeding of certain animal populations which damage the environment and deprive billions of people of food.

You talk of gaping inconsistencies, is every vegetable and fruit you eat grown organically and sourced locally? If not chances are you are promoting bad working conditions, the transport of the items causes ecological damage, if you buy from supermarkets you promote companies that avoid taxes. Yet if you do none of these you are richer by far than the average earner as food costs are prohibitive for someone on the average wage doing this, and as such can't take the moral high ground with someone that does not have your resources at their disposal. If you drive a car you are ruining the environment, hell even if you stick to the bus it uses more resources than a car merely shared between whatever passengers are on there. Is all your electricity renewable, and do you not have gas in your home? If you do, you are raping the worlds resources which are far less replenishable than a few million cows. Do you own a smart phone, or pretty much any electronic device made in the far east? Just existing can be proven in some way to cause harm to someone else.

Nice try and deflecting attention. Repeating points made previously, your dietary choices are more damaging in every respect than a dietary choice to consume a plant based diet. If you disagree - prove it.

henryscat · Oct 7, 2012

tek-monkey said:
I thought we were talking morals, not rationality?

Oh, and worth pointing out I didn't name this thread - in my view it encompasses all aspects of meat and dairy consumption, a great deal of which is to do with morals and ethics. If you are going to restrict your post to "morals", then you need to define the term...

henryscat · Oct 7, 2012

John said:
The points raised by DB and techmonkey.

Which ones? You think I haven't answered some points, so which are they?

andy w · Oct 7, 2012

henryscat said:
For a large part of the twenty or so pages, I have not seen a great deal of evidence of people with carnivorous or dairy eating tendencies to intelligently explain or justify it. What I have seen is a great deal of flippancy and denial, so I make no apology for my response.

What precisely is fascist about a lifestyle choice that doesn't kill, rape and steal children from animals?

I always think a fascist/stalinist trait is to impose a strict doctorine that doesn't allow any other opinion/action other than the one that is prescribed.
I know I'm going to regret asking you this but where does rape come into all this and correct me if I'm wrong but it's only humans who have children and animals have young

henryscat · Oct 7, 2012

andy w said:
I always think a fascist/stalinist trait is to impose a strict doctorine that doesn't allow any other opinion/action other than the one that is prescribed.

Asking others to explain/justify/confront their actions is not the same as trying to "impose a strict doctrine"

I know I'm going to regret asking you this but where does rape come into all this and correct me if I'm wrong but it's only humans who have children and animals have young

Animals are forcibly made pregnant through artificial insemination, which I am sure is not of their choosing.

Whatever term you want to use for off-spring, dairy farming involves stealing children (calves) from cows.

andy w · Oct 7, 2012

henryscat said:
Asking others to explain/justify/confront their actions is not the same as trying to "impose a strict doctrine"

But haven't a number of people stated the reasons why they enjoy eating meat and can justify the fact that we are at the top of the food chain. I for one can say my consience is clear when we can exploit our position to farm animals for our consumption, What more do you want me to say? In your eyes I am wrong and no doubt you will counter that I don't offer valid reasons for my view point.

Withnail · Oct 7, 2012

henryscat said:
Equal consideration of interests, which is the principle under discussion is... the same as equal rights. I do not require pigs to be given the vote. They should, however, receive equal consideration of their interests.

For me this is exactly where Mr. Singer and i part company; it seems to me that there is something of a disconnect in his thinking. His writing takes on an hypothetical character that he fails to acknowledge. Like the structure of Wuthering Heights he enters the story in the middle of proceedings, but unlike Emily he denies the observer a chance to get the 'back story' that will bring them to the present.

The back story is long and informative. It is an extension, and a relative, of the 'technological' breakthrough of cultivating plant varieties. At some stage in our collective pasts we managed to coerce animals to live alongside us, even though this coexistence would ultimately lead to their death. When we 'equally consider' the interests of the pig, for example, we might want to wonder why the untethered pig in a remote village in the Andes doesn't do a runner and live free from the possibility of harm in the harsh surrounds that surrounds him/her. We may conclude that the pig actually gets a good deal out of the Faustian pact it has historically entered into.

Or we may choose to ignore this relationship altogether and take our viewpoint from what occurs 'now' and shudder at the inhumanity of it. I have searched long for a phrase that i first heard from my Attorney -

"The beastliness of Nature is as nothing in comparison to the inhumanity of man"

- but never found a 'who' who said it. Regardless, it is a great quote. I am one who can't equate racism with 'speciesism', because i can't see them being cut from the same cloth. The denial of someone of African origin having the same rights and considerations as someone of European origin is just not the same as denying that an entirely different being, of guinea pig origin say, has the same rights and considerations as someone of Polynesian origin, except as the extension of a forced game of logic that has left some of its preconditions behind. I can't hold with a statement such as -

There is also a sense in which [the use of animals for food] is the most basic form of animal use, the foundation stone on which rests the belief that animals exist for our pleasure and convenience.

- because there is a flaw in the flow of the 'foundation stone' - do we really believe that animals exist for our 'pleasure and convenience'? - that is not really warranted.

henryscat said:
For a large part of the twenty or so pages, I have not seen a great deal of evidence of people with carnivorous or dairy eating tendencies to intelligently explain or justify it. What I have seen is a great deal of flippancy and denial, so I make no apology for my response.

Having had a few days 'sabbatical', i have been thinking about this - and of course what most people are saying is that they don't believe they have a case to answer. For them there is no 'argument' - no justification is necessary. But that is very different from laying out a 'justification', or any kind of argument/explanation whatsoever.

But then you know that.

tek-monkey · Oct 8, 2012

I'm sure what Andy W meant about rape was that all animals do it, so in what way do we differentiate when it happens to humans and why? I am positive Henry's cat knew this, just refused to answer as it wasn't a question he was comfortable with.

Regardless, I still have no moral issue with eating meat. My morals don't include eating meat as being bad, so there is no argument. Other people are welcome to not eat meat, that is their choice. It is not their choice to stop me however, trying to force your point of view on others is something I do see as morally wrong.

tek-monkey · Oct 8, 2012

henryscat said:
Only because I can't type on a proper keyboard at the moment. In the meanwhile, you haven't answered what are some really simple questions. The only reason you haven't is because it may challenge your thinking.

henryscat said:
There isn't any thinking in db's posts on this subject- it is by and large absent.

henryscat said:
I note no sensible contribution to the debate from you. Perhaps you could provide one?

henryscat said:
For a large part of the twenty or so pages, I have not seen a great deal of evidence of people with carnivorous or dairy eating tendencies to intelligently explain or justify it. What I have seen is a great deal of flippancy and denial, so I make no apology for my response.

Just thought I'd point out these posts, as they may be why people aren't that interested in what you have to say when you do decide to say things. You can't expect answers to your own questions yet decide points other people have made have no merit and therefore require no answers from yourself. You are trying to apply your own moral stance to other people and get annoyed when they can't see your point, yet you spectacularily missunderstand how tasty bacon is to us.

age'd parent · Oct 8, 2012

henryscat said:
Not sure why you pose that as a question. But if you don't count people as animals, then you are wrong. Humans are but one species in the animal kingdom.

And so it's ok to eat what they eat, lions eat deer, we eat deer, all predators eat lesser animals, we eat lesser animals, we are at the top of the predator tree, so all are legitimate prey.

Yes, its simple statement, but life is simple to every predator, "Eat or be eaten", morals be dammed, if I'm hungry, look out anything eatable.

Edit.. even sprouts

henryscat · Oct 8, 2012

tek-monkey said:
Just thought I'd point out these posts, as they may be why people aren't that interested in what you have to say when you do decide to say things. You can't expect answers to your own questions yet decide points other people have made have no merit and therefore require no answers from yourself. You are trying to apply your own moral stance to other people and get annoyed when they can't see your point, yet you spectacularily missunderstand how tasty bacon is to us.

Again, you deflect attention from your own tenuous position. Over the course of this thread, I have explained my choices in enormous detail. You and most other contributors, with the exception of Withnail, Lunar and possibly one or two others, have yet to go beyond the superficial. If you believe that to be wrong, perhaps you could provide some direct quotes.

henryscat · Oct 8, 2012

tek-monkey said:
I'm sure what Andy W meant about rape was that all animals do it, so in what way do we differentiate when it happens to humans and why? I am positive Henry's cat knew this, just refused to answer as it wasn't a question he was comfortable with.

Cows do not go round artificially inseminating other species do they?

Regardless, I still have no moral issue with eating meat. My morals don't include eating meat as being bad, so there is no argument. Other people are welcome to not eat meat, that is their choice. It is not their choice to stop me

I choose to not eat meat or dairy. When did you make a decision that you would eat meat and dairy? Or is it that you were brought up, like the vast majority are, to eat it unquestioningly? So you have never actually made a conscious decision about what you eat?

however, trying to force your point of view on others is something I do see as morally wrong.

I'm not, I'm asking you to explain the basis on which you decide consciously or subsconsciouly (more likely the latter) that consuming meat and dairy can be justified. You have consistently proved that you are unable to explain why you eat what you eat.

henryscat · Oct 8, 2012

age'd parent said:
And so it's ok to eat what they eat, lions eat deer, we eat deer, all predators eat lesser animals, we eat lesser animals, we are at the top of the predator tree, so all are legitimate prey.

Lions act on instinct, you do not. Lions do not forcibly breed other species for their consumption....

If you are going to refer to "lesser animals" - what characteristics makes an animal "lesser"? And why?

In terms of the "top of the predator tree", would you not expect that to be a carnivore?

henryscat · Oct 8, 2012

Withnail said:
For me this is exactly where Mr. Singer and i part company; it seems to me that there is something of a disconnect in his thinking. His writing takes on an hypothetical character that he fails to acknowledge. Like the structure of Wuthering Heights he enters the story in the middle of proceedings, but unlike Emily he denies the observer a chance to get the 'back story' that will bring them to the present.

The back story is long and informative. It is an extension, and a relative, of the 'technological' breakthrough of cultivating plant varieties. At some stage in our collective pasts we managed to coerce animals to live alongside us, even though this coexistence would ultimately lead to their death. When we 'equally consider' the interests of the pig, for example, we might want to wonder why the untethered pig in a remote village in the Andes doesn't do a runner and live free from the possibility of harm in the harsh surrounds that surrounds him/her. We may conclude that the pig actually gets a good deal out of the Faustian pact it has historically entered into.

Or we may choose to ignore this relationship altogether and take our viewpoint from what occurs 'now' and shudder at the inhumanity of it. I have searched long for a phrase that i first heard from my Attorney -

"The beastliness of Nature is as nothing in comparison to the inhumanity of man"

- but never found a 'who' who said it. Regardless, it is a great quote. I am one who can't equate racism with 'speciesism', because i can't see them being cut from the same cloth. The denial of someone of African origin having the same rights and considerations as someone of European origin is just not the same as denying that an entirely different being, of guinea pig origin say, has the same rights and considerations as someone of Polynesian origin, except as the extension of a forced game of logic that has left some of its preconditions behind. I can't hold with a statement such as -

- because there is a flaw in the flow of the 'foundation stone' - do we really believe that animals exist for our 'pleasure and convenience'? - that is not really warranted.

Having had a few days 'sabbatical', i have been thinking about this - and of course what most people are saying is that they don't believe they have a case to answer. For them there is no 'argument' - no justification is necessary. But that is very different from laying out a 'justification', or any kind of argument/explanation whatsoever.

But then you know that.

Thank you for posting something intelligible, something that has been decidedly lacking on this thread.

A few thoughts in response:

I think the comparison of speciesism with other "isms" is indeed justified. Singer is not arguing for other species to have the same rights as we would deem necessary for humans. He argues for equal consideration of their interests (e.g. it might be in a human's interest to reside in some form of heated dwelling, the same would not be said of a polar bear).

The reference to people believing that animals existing for their pleasure and convenience is, I think, correct. That belief may not be a conscious one, however. Many contributors to this thread have repeatedly said that they consume meat because they enjoy the taste of it (or variations on that theme). I would include taste within "pleasure". It has been made obvious by several contributors that they regard their taste buds as more important than the life of an animal - if this statement was untrue, they would not consume meat.

The untethered pig is an interesting one, but humans have typically "co-erced" animals by quite often violent means (and going back quite a few posts, this then goes on to the discussion we had about treatment of other people flowing from our treatment of animals) and humans selectively breeding animals in such a way that their genetic characteristics are influenced for human interest, not that of the species in question.

The moral argument of eating meat & dairy

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

Enjoying a drop of red.

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

Enjoying a drop of red.

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

wanna see my snake?

wanna see my snake?

50,000th poster!

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite

Well-Known Forumite