The moral argument of eating meat & dairy

[andy w]

Tell you what Henrys Cat, why not ask admin for a dedicated 'intelligent comments forum' which only forumites with a higher level of intellegence(or people that agree with you) are allowed to post on.

 

[Glam]

Tell you what Henrys Cat, why not ask admin for a dedicated 'intelligent comments forum' which only forumites with a higher level of intellegence(or people that agree with you) are allowed to post on.

I'm buggered then.......

 

[Withnail]

I'm buggered then.......

That will not do anything for the breeding stock, though i am informed it has its pleasures.

 

[Mikinton]

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

But if it could, I'm sure you would still never eat meat from an animal killed for the purpose of providing us with meat.

Anyway, I hope you're sitting down, because I'm going to agree with you and say that in my view, the eating of meat is immoral. In fact, I'll take it further and say that it is immoral to harm any living thing. And I include slug pellets, mousetraps, and even pulling up garden shrubs which were 'past their best' to be replaced by other younger shrubs, as well as the more obvious stuff that we've been talking about. I also include things like horseracing, greyhound racing* and the use of pack animals, pit ponies etc; the list is endless.

The problem I now have is to understand how I can tolerate and, worse than that, propogate (?) it, which I do and will continue to do. Whilst I'm sure I can go some way to justifying my continued eating of meat and killing of slugs, I'm sure it'll never totally negate the inherant immorality.

* - not so much the racing as such, but the way they're treated after they've served their purpose.

 

[Withnail]

I'll take it further and say that it is immoral to harm any living thing. And I include slug pellets, mousetraps, and even pulling up garden shrubs which were 'past their best' to be replaced by other younger shrubs, as well as the more obvious stuff that we've been talking about.

Although it is tempting to take a reductio ad absurdum approach, it is useful to apply criteria, which you may or may not agree upon, to the debate.

If anybody else has taken the time to read any of the links that henryscat has posted, they may have noticed that there is a boundary. Life forms that can be adjudged to feel pain are included, those that are adjudged not to, don't.

If we are to adopt a reductio ad absurdum approach i think gone2seed has a point with his fruitarianism. Who are we to impose such a boundary? Who says a carrot feels no pain?

A fruit tree gives of its bounty because it has genetically perfected its bounty. A potato wishes to store its plenty to bestow on its children tubers. Where does it all end?

You see, it is altogether too tempting to reduce something to an absurd conclusion. However.

Henryscat has a point, you wouldn't contemplate eating a dog, would you?

Why not?

You wouldn't think of eating a horse either - Channel hop and it's in your basket.

Questioning the where?s the why?s and the wherefore?s is never a waste of anyones wonderfulness.

That's what i reckon anyways.

- no animals, as far as i can gather, were harmed in the processing of the above post.

 

[Withnail]

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

Before i go, another quote from my Attorney - this time attributable -

"we're just monkeys with car keys"

From the wonderful 'Northern Exposure'.

 

[henryscat]

Questioning the where?s the why?s and the wherefore?s is never a waste of anyones wonderfulness.

Indeed. Unfortunately there are some unable to grasp the simple premise that questioning something in depth is not an expectation of gaining agreement.

 

[henryscat]

Tell you what Henrys Cat, why not ask admin for a dedicated 'intelligent comments forum' which only forumites with a higher level of intellegence(or people that agree with you) are allowed to post on.

At risk of repeating myself... I see nothing wrong with asking questions and nowhere have I said that anyone "must agree" with me - I am under no illusions that a lot of people on here do not. However, as far as this thread goes there are those who are unable or unwilling to answer / explore the full extent of why it is they consume meat/dairy. I would say that if you cannot/will not answer those questions, should you continue to make that choice? And before anyone says it, that is not an expectation of receiving agreement either.... I think if you take the lives of others there is an obligation to at least justify it with something less superficial than "bacon tastes nice". Unfortunately the accusation of "you're trying to tell me what to do" often boils down to consciously or sub-consciously being a diversion tactic.

 

[Mikinton]

I think if you take the lives of others there is an obligation to at least justify it with something less superficial than "bacon tastes nice".

I'm really struggling to come up with something less superficial. That's not to say that there isn't a reason other than "it tastes nice"; it's just that I'm struggling to come up with anything.

No doubt you'll have had similar discussions in the past with other meat eaters. Were they able to offer anything that I might consider signing up to, or were they similarly stumped?

 

[andy w]

At risk of repeating myself... I see nothing wrong with asking questions and nowhere have I said that anyone "must agree" with me - I am under no illusions that a lot of people on here do not. However, as far as this thread goes there are those who are unable or unwilling to answer / explore the full extent of why it is they consume meat/dairy. I would say that if you cannot/will not answer those questions, should you continue to make that choice? And before anyone says it, that is not an expectation of receiving agreement either.... I think if you take the lives of others there is an obligation to at least justify it with something less superficial than "bacon tastes nice". Unfortunately the accusation of "you're trying to tell me what to do" often boils down to consciously or sub-consciously being a diversion tactic.

This post is better put than the ones last night which I found a little condesending and questioned the intellegence of some forumites. We are entitled to our opinions and it is not everybodys style to post long articles. Sometimes 5 lines can be more effective than 50.
As for 'you're trying to tell me what to do',this stems from you not accepting other peoples legitimate life choices and I suspect that if you were in the position of power you would take away my choice to eat meat.

 

[Mikinton]

Although it is tempting to take a reductio ad absurdum approach, it is useful to apply criteria, which you may or may not agree upon, to the debate.

It's a suitable starting point. It's got me thinking whether it's worse to kill a fly that's strayed into your living room just as you favourite TV programme is starting and is just flying around, minding its own business, as opposed to killing a pig who's been brought into this world to be killed and then turned into rashers, chops and trotters. In the same way, are the North Sea trawlermen by catching of fish who are just there swimming around as fish do, any worse than the fish farmers?

If you check out the "What book are we reading" thread, you'll see I've just finished a book which spends much of its time pointing out inconsistencies and then goes on to explain the rationale behind them. In a sense, there's no such thing as an inconsistency; just a lack of understanding why an apparently irrational decision may be perfectly rational. I suspect I could come up with a few irrational decisions in this discussion (like why I can agonise over the pulling up of a garden shrub that was 'past its best' and yet tuck into a bacon sandwich without any thought for what the pig had gone through).

 

[Alan B'Stard]

I think if you take the lives of others there is an obligation to at least justify it with something less superficial than "bacon tastes nice".

Consumers of meat consume. They do not take the lives of others.It is separate act.

Whilst that separation exists and continues (and it will) and is not thought about to any great extent, bacon and all other meaty food stuffs will still "taste nice".

I have long held the view that that meat as a wasteful product of consumption whilst others starve is a more convincing argument as it avoids the cloudy definitions of pain, senses and animal rights.

Feed fewer animals, eat less meat, feed more people.

 

[Trumpet]

You wouldn't think of eating a horse either

Nowt wrong with horsemeat.

 

[Withnail]

Nowt wrong with horsemeat.

I've only eaten it once, in minced form, in a spag bol affair sort of thing. It came about due to a cock-up on the catering/shopping/not-knowing-much-french front.

I'm rather ashamed to say that we did not inform all the diners of the provenance until after they had eaten it. They had no problem eating it before being told what it was, but there was quite a lot of anger after. I rather shamelessly absolved myself of any of the blame, for indeed it had not been me that purchased it, though i was complicit in the subsequent economy with the truth. Seemed a shame for it to go to waste on a technicality, my practically minded self had concluded.

It was ok, bit on the bland side i thought.

 

[Trumpet]

I've only eaten it once, in minced form, in a spag bol affair sort of thing. It came about due to a cock-up on the catering/shopping/not-knowing-much-french front.

I'm rather ashamed to say that we did not inform all the diners of the provenance until after they had eaten it. They had no problem eating it before being told what it was, but there was quite a lot of anger after. I rather shamelessly absolved myself of any of the blame, for indeed it had not been me that purchased it, though i was complicit in the subsequent economy with the truth. Seemed a shame for it to go to waste on a technicality, my practically minded self had concluded.

It was ok, bit on the bland side i thought.

I once substituted goat for lamb on some kebabs at a family barbeque, no-one noticed, I never divulged.
No harm done.
Wonder how goat mince would work in a shepherds pie? Mutton mince is bostin', loads of flavour.

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

I've only eaten it once, in minced form, in a spag bol affair sort of thing. It came about due to a cock-up on the catering/shopping/not-knowing-much-french front.

I'm rather ashamed to say that we did not inform all the diners of the provenance until after they had eaten it. They had no problem eating it before being told what it was, but there was quite a lot of anger after.

I honestly don't understand why there was so much anger - if they were that bothered about what exactly they were eating then they should have asked beforehand (like I have to, over and over again - and double check to make sure that they know what 'vegan' means...)!

 

[db]

I honestly don't understand why there was so much anger - if they were that bothered about what exactly they were eating then they should have asked beforehand (like I have to, over and over again - and double check to make sure that they know what 'vegan' means...)!

either you're lying when you say you "honestly don't understand why there was so much anger," or you're stupider than i give you credit for..

if you sat down to eat something that you were given to understand was vegan, and it turned out that it wasn't due to a cock-up on the catering front, i dare say you would be livid..

being a vegan, i'm sure you are very aware of the prevalence of evil, non-vegan food, and how it is considered "the norm".. people who eat this "normal" food don't feel the need to ask what they are consuming every time a meal is put in front of them, because it is so common and everyday, so they assume it conforms to "the norm".. as in, if someone puts spaghetti bolognese in front of you, you assume it is spaghetti bolognese..

this isn't a criticism of vegan food or vegan lifestyle, incidentally - you are free to eat whatever crap you like - i'm just pointing out that you are patently lying when you say you honestly don't understand.. i know that you are cleverer than that, and i am confident that you honestly do understand (although not agree with - they are two different things)..

it also isn't a criticism of/comment on horsemeat.. i haven't eaten it, but would have no problem doing so..

 

[Gramaisc]

We do have a specific horse meat thread for those who may be interested - http://www.staffordforum.com/xf/index.php?threads/horse-meat.4504/

 

[proactive]

Don't like the taste of goat meat much, but horse meat is rather nice I think. Can be a bit tough though if not prepared correctly.

 

[Withnail]

I honestly don't understand why there was so much anger -

Indeed it seemed a bit out of proportion, and not a little logically inconsistent, but man they really were pretty pissed orf.

Strange chaps, people.