The moral argument of eating meat & dairy

[Mikinton]

I think that statement demonstrates complete and utter naivety bordering on stupidity. I'm sure you can think of a myriad of examples of the government failing to legislate against something that is harmful.

I probably could if I put my mind to it, but as I said, I've got more interesting things to do.

 

[henryscat]

As with so much you have written in this thread, once again you are dead wrong. In fact you have helped me identify exactly what it is about the way you come across in this thread that bugs me. It's your obvious belief that you hold the moral high-ground and can look down on the rest of us. The same attitude that comes across from fanatics of all persuasions.

No answer on ramming your opinions?

Yours is a typical reaction - having what might in the present day be a minority choice does not make that choice one of a "fanatic". You are seeking to validate your behaviour by hurling accusations of me being a loon to divert thinking away from your own choices. This thread has proved time and again that there are a significant number of individuals, you included, not prepared to even try to answer some very basic questions on what their behaviour derives from.

I spent about five years in my early 20s as a vegetarian. Not because of the animal welfare side of things, but because I thought it would be better for my health, combined with giving up smoking. On balance I think it was probably better for my health but I really missed the taste of some meat - beef and lamb in particular- so made my decision to go back to eating meat.

So I actually did make a conscious decision to eat meat. No doubt you will think I was wrong but it is my decision, I am breaking no laws and contrary to what you might think the world isn't going to end as a result. I like the taste of meat, simple as..

The fact that you changed your diet purely for "health" reasons demonstrates that actually you weren't making the conscious decision you think you were. Simple question for you, same as I've asked before: you like the taste of meat, so on what basis do you place the life of an animal as more important than your taste buds? Clearly you do, so I'm interested in your thinking behind that, according to you conscious decision.

 

[tek-monkey]

Me > animals, aged parent explained it perfectly. Food chain, top of, nom. Millions of years of evolution, where the meat eaters must have out-lived the natural vegans due to eating what was actually their natural diet. My teeth design show a much more valid story than some recent fad, what you are asking is that we ignore our entire genetic heritage because you feel bad for the cows.

I don't, despite what you say they are specifically bred for food and their numbers would be less than 1% of what they are now if we didn't eat them. Probably less than 0.01% in the case of cows, sheep and pigs are a bit more adaptable. Most animals wouldn't have such a large range anyway if we hadn't decided they were tasty enough to transport around the globe and rear in other territories.

But in essence this still returns to the same almost religious standoff, we both believe in our right to do what we do, the only difference is I believe in your rights too but you want to question mine.

 

[henryscat]

Henry, I've had a scan over the Carnism link you've posted and although I'll openly admit I haven't read every post word for word I've kept a keen eye on this thread. I am genuinely interested in your opinion on my situation.

Quite a few bits and pieces spring to mind - if I ask questions, I'm not "looking down" or judging... The Carnism / psychology aspect is genuinely very interesting and it is ashame others appear not to have been open to having a look at what it has to say.

I am an animal lover and have genuine concerns for the standards in which our food is raised and slaughtered.

Can I ask what in particular makes you love animals? I think I understand where people are going with thinking on eating meat dependent upon welfare standards, but I would say that is only part of the picture in terms of how we think about / perceive animals overall - hence the question.

My partner and daughter are both vegetarian for animal welfare reasons and I entirely support that. I have tried just about every vegetarian food both natural and synthetic (substitute bacon, chicken, beef etc) and find them entirely unpalatable. I have offered to my partner to switch to foods I can stomach such as breads, cheeses, fruit, a few vegetables (as sides not as the main substance for a meal), noodles etc and remove meat from my diet. She, as a vegetarian has said that seeing as I have a physical job there would not be enough substance to feed me adequately given the limited things I find palatable excluding meat.

Obviously I've no idea what you've given a go up until now, so difficult to say a lot! All I do know is that nutritionally, even with a job that perhaps demands a higher calorie intake, that a non-meat diet can unequivocally provide for that without any issues. For instance, there are some pretty amazing veggie / vegan athletes around the place.

Because of this I always attempt to source ethically raised meat and given that there is no clear standard or markings on packaging indicating how an animal is slaughtered I can only hope that if a farmer sees fit to ethically raise his animals he will have the care to ensure it is slaughtered as responsibly as possible. I know it is a massive assumption but until the government improves legislation on packaging information it is all I can do.

Would you still say I have given no thought for the meat that I eat, and the animal that it once was?

I'd say you've given it more thought than a lot of people, but perhaps that thought is limited to certain aspects of meating eating / animals maybe? Interesting that you mention no clear standard or markings on packaging - the whole industry around meat relies on keeping people in the dark as much as possible and they know this. However... my view is that ultimately the end result is the same and that my ethical objection is to raising animals for food in the first place, as I'm sure you've probably guessed. Could I extend beyond meat eating into dairy consumption and ask where your views are on this?

 

[proactive]

No answer on ramming your opinions?

Yours is a typical reaction - having what might in the present day be a minority choice does not make that choice one of a "fanatic". You are seeking to validate your behaviour by hurling accusations of me being a loon to divert thinking away from your own choices. This thread has proved time and again that there are a significant number of individuals, you included, not prepared to even try to answer some very basic questions on what their behaviour derives from.



The fact that you changed your diet purely for "health" reasons demonstrates that actually you weren't making the conscious decision you think you were. Simple question for you, same as I've asked before: you like the taste of meat, so on what basis do you place the life of an animal as more important than your taste buds? Clearly you do, so I'm interested in your thinking behind that, according to you conscious decision.

 

[henryscat]

Me > animals, aged parent explained it perfectly. Food chain, top of, nom.

Nope. Would you not expect a carnivore to inhabit the "top of the food chain"? If it is indeed possible for a food chain to have a top...

Millions of years of evolution, where the meat eaters must have out-lived the natural vegans due to eating what was actually their natural diet. My teeth design show a much more valid story than some recent fad, what you are asking is that we ignore our entire genetic heritage because you feel bad for the cows.

Ah, yes, the good old "natural" excuse. Does your digestive system design show a "valid story"? Erm, no it does not. If it did your intestines would be nowhere near as long as they are.

You are conflating "natural" with "justifiable". Can you explain how you got from one to the other?

For the majority of the time period you refer to our diet was primarily vegetarian.

Meat eating in the quantity that goes on today is a very recent phenomena.

Infanticide, murder and rape have been around as long as meat eating so the same logic as you are using is equally as natural - but history is not invoked as justification for these acts.

In history the notion of biological superiority amongst certain groups of humans has been used to justify violence. For instance, Africans were siad to be"naturally" suited to slavery, Jews were "naturally"evil, women were "naturally" designed to be the property of men.

I don't, despite what you say they are specifically bred for food and their numbers would be less than 1% of what they are now if we didn't eat them.

You've said this before and it is a complete nonsense that does not stand up to any scrutiny.

Explain what "specifically bred" means. Explain how that relates to justification.

Yes, if people did not eat meat the global population of certain animal species would be significantly less - so what? What is the significance of that statement?

Most animals wouldn't have such a large range anyway if we hadn't decided they were tasty enough to transport around the globe and rear in other territories.

Again, what is the significance?

But in essence this still returns to the same almost religious standoff, we both believe in our right to do what we do, the only difference is I believe in your rights too but you want to question mine.

My contention is that you are unable to explain your choices, which so far has proven to be true. As I have said before I am not seeking your agreement with my choices.

 

[henryscat]

Yet again I can't cope with being asked simple questions

 

[proactive]

No, I'm just bored with your self-righteous intolerance of opinions other than your own.

Feel free to carry on, I'm sure it makes you very happy.

 

[tek-monkey]

I'm eating pork in a cider and cream sauce, its taste makes me feel better than knowing the pig was happy. You expect justification from what I consider a base instinct, simply because in your own POV your opinion is of higher importance. Many animals eat lesser animals, why shouldn't we?

EDIT: I suspect you will tell me my use of the word lesser was very telling, it is. I consider them worth less than me, based on my own sense of importance in my own existence.

 

[Withnail]

Infanticide, murder and rape have been around as long as meat eating so the same logic as you are using is equally as natural - but history is not invoked as justification for these acts.

In most societies, at most times, the above have been taboo at the very least (with the possible exception, strangely enough, of Infanticide, in some societies), and serious crimes more often. They can hardly be invoked paradoxically as 'justified' then, to compare with what is allowed now.

In history the notion of biological superiority amongst certain groups of humans has been used to justify violence. For instance, Africans were siad to be"naturally" suited to slavery...

Interestingly, (or not etc...) during the Spanish conquest of Latin America it was ruled by the papacy that indigenous Americans could not be made slaves as they were 'human', whereas Africans were deemed to be 'animals' and thus able to be traded.

Not a lot of people know that. Or maybe they do?

 

[henryscat]

I'm eating pork in a cider and cream sauce, its taste makes me feel better than knowing the pig was happy. You expect justification from what I consider a base instinct, simply because in your own POV your opinion is of higher importance.

Your first statement doesn't really have any substance to it unless you had raised and killed the pigs yourself. Assuming it was practical for you to do, I doubt you would have the gumption to go through with it.

Perhaps you could expand on the basis on which you assume you act on "base instinct". I don't believe you are acting on instinct. Instinct isn't going to the shops and buying a dead animal in cling film. You are acting based on the tenets of a hidden ideology.

I do not seek to assert my opinion as higher importance, but what I will repeat is that I have explained in depth the basis of my choices - you continually run away from yours.

Many animals eat lesser animals, why shouldn't we?

EDIT: I suspect you will tell me my use of the word lesser was very telling, it is. I consider them worth less than me, based on my own sense of importance in my own existence.

Correct, it is very telling.

On what basis do you assert that you should behave the same as another species?

What characteristics do you possess that give you that sense of importance then? What characteristics do you have that makes an an animal "worth less than" you? At this point your logic falls to pieces because that depends on if you have them in the "pet" category or the "food" category.

You continue to come out with all sorts of statements, all of which when challenged you immediately run a mile from. Just to remind you of the challenges to a few from this page alone:

Would you not expect a carnivore to inhabit the "top of the food chain"? If it is indeed possible for a food chain to have a top...

You are conflating "natural" with "justifiable". Can you explain how you got from one to the other?

Does your digestive system design show a "valid story"? Erm, no it does not. If it did your intestines would be nowhere near as long as they are.

Explain what "specifically bred" means. Explain how that relates to justification.

Yes, if people did not eat meat the global population of certain animal species would be significantly less - so what? What is the significance of that statement?

I don't seek agreement in any answers to these, but if you can't even begin to consider what lies behind your statements then that demonstrates that your choices are made in complete ignorance.

 

[henryscat]

In most societies, at most times, the above have been taboo at the very least (with the possible exception, strangely enough, of Infanticide, in some societies), and serious crimes more often. They can hardly be invoked paradoxically as 'justified' then, to compare with what is allowed now.




Interestingly, (or not etc...) during the Spanish conquest of Latin America it was ruled by the papacy that indigenous Americans could not be made slaves as they were 'human', whereas Africans were deemed to be 'animals' and thus able to be traded.

Not a lot of people know that. Or maybe they do?

It is very common for animal imagery to be used in association with the killing and exploitation of other people - it forms part of the psychological justification.

 

[tek-monkey]

Your first statement doesn't really have any substance to it unless you had raised and killed the pigs yourself. Assuming it was practical for you to do, I doubt you would have the gumption to go through with it.

I have no issue with killing an animal, and would happily do it myself. Don't project your own insecurities onto others, I am comfortable with what I am.

Perhaps you could expand on the basis on which you assume you act on "base instinct". I don't believe you are acting on instinct. Instinct isn't going to the shops and buying a dead animal in cling film. You are acting based on the tenets of a hidden ideology.

Meals without meat don't taste right to me, they always seem lacking. I've had enough vegetarian meals in my time to know I prefer eating meat, I have based this on many years of my life spent eating. Maybe instinct is the wrong word, maybe preferential diet of the species?

I do not seek to assert my opinion as higher importance, but what I will repeat is that I have explained in depth the basis of my choices - you continually run away from yours.

And I have mine, you just don't see it as a valid answer. I like eating meat and I care more about that than animal welfare, I'm amazed you can't understand this concept. Maybe its your condescending attitude that gets people confused with higher importance?

Correct, it is very telling.

On what basis do you assert that you should behave the same as another species?

I don't, you do. What was the whole specism bullcrap if not saying we should treat animals as equal? I was trying to relate my choice to eat my preferred diet to something you may understand.

What characteristics do you possess that give you that sense of importance then? What characteristics do you have that makes an an animal "worth less than" you? At this point your logic falls to pieces because that depends on if you have them in the "pet" category or the "food" category.

I am me, I am the most important person in my sphere of existence. Others may come and go, a few may be close, but it's still me at the end of the day. I'd still kill a pet if it threatened my existence, isn't that obvious? I just place them higher than livestock.

You continue to come out with all sorts of statements, all of which when challenged you immediately run a mile from. Just to remind you of the challenges to a few from this page alone:

Would you not expect a carnivore to inhabit the "top of the food chain"? If it is indeed possible for a food chain to have a top...

Nope, always an omnivore. Carnivores can thrive in times of plenty, but long term I'd always bet on the omnivore as it has a more varied food source.

You are conflating "natural" with "justifiable". Can you explain how you got from one to the other?

I'm still at a loss as what I need to justify, its natural?

Does your digestive system design show a "valid story"? Erm, no it does not. If it did your intestines would be nowhere near as long as they are.

You confuse genetic evolution with custom design, who said we are at our evolutionary peak? Only a fool would take what we are now and say this is it, this is the best we can be.

Explain what "specifically bred" means. Explain how that relates to justification.

OK, call it selectively bred. Bred to get the most meat. And then captive bred in large numbers just for food. But you know this, you just think throwing questions at me will make yourself look superior.

Yes, if people did not eat meat the global population of certain animal species would be significantly less - so what? What is the significance of that statement?

So you think its better these animals never existed? You are not saving animals lives, you are prohibiting their births. We eat very little wild meat anymore, what we eat is bred to die.

I don't seek agreement in any answers to these, but if you can't even begin to consider what lies behind your statements then that demonstrates that your choices are made in complete ignorance.

I have considered, and I still feel I should eat meat. You can do what you like, for whatever reason you like, but I think we should be free to eat as nature intended. That is meat.

So, now you're at a real keyboard are you going to answer any of the questions posed to you? What about my vegan uncles meat eating dog, where do you stand on that? There are plenty of others, that was just to get you started. Or you could just judge everything said beneath you again and ignore it all.

 

[Withnail]

Others may come and go, a few may be close, but it's still me at the end of the day.

 

[AA Silencers]

Can I ask what in particular makes you love animals? I think I understand where people are going with thinking on eating meat dependent upon welfare standards, but I would say that is only part of the picture in terms of how we think about / perceive animals overall - hence the question.

To put it simply I love animals because they have a simpler hierarchy of needs than humans. If you meet those needs they are satisfied. To humanise this they would be 'loyal;, or 'faithful'. They are innocent, they have no subtext or subversive means. Certainly in a domestic context but far less so than humans even in the wild. To put it simply, and accepting that this is not true in all cases, it is rare for an animal to kill another animal for pleasure.

Obviously I've no idea what you've given a go up until now, so difficult to say a lot! All I do know is that nutritionally, even with a job that perhaps demands a higher calorie intake, that a non-meat diet can unequivocally provide for that without any issues. For instance, there are some pretty amazing veggie / vegan athletes around the place.

To be honest with you, I agree. I accept I would have to sacrifice just about all foods that I actually enjoy eating but as my very strong and healthy daughter shows there is plenty of nutrition in vegetarian food. My partner can cook wonderfully and has an excellent knowledge of how to provide the correct nutrition through vegetarian food. It's more of a practical issue given that I won't eat the synthetic vegetarian foods, don't like pasta and I'm not much into vegetable based dishes. I can't expect my partner to accommodate all of my dietary whims and we always try to eat together as a family. This is also an essential moral belief of ours and something has to give I'm afraid.

I'd say you've given it more thought than a lot of people, but perhaps that thought is limited to certain aspects of meating eating / animals maybe? Interesting that you mention no clear standard or markings on packaging - the whole industry around meat relies on keeping people in the dark as much as possible and they know this. However... my view is that ultimately the end result is the same and that my ethical objection is to raising animals for food in the first place, as I'm sure you've probably guessed. Could I extend beyond meat eating into dairy consumption and ask where your views are on this?

I'm afraid I have little knowledge of the dairy industry. I accept the need to sustain human consumption but not at the extent of suffering. There is always an element of suffering in life so the boundaries are grey, and open to debate. Everyone must make their own judgement on what suffering is acceptable on the part of the animal and the part of those who intend to consume it if we remove the option of consuming the animal. I accept, with a degree of dissatisfaction, my position on consuming meat. Without significant knowledge I couldn't even enter into a debate on dairy I'm afraid.

 

[Mikinton]

A vegetarian I knew also had a dog, she fed it a vegetarian diet as she believed that was the correct thing to do.

I hope the dog was offered a range of dog food to choose from, the usual stuff and the vegetarian stuff. It's all very well acknowledging the rights of ingredients, but the rights of the dog should have been acknowledged as well.

 

[tek-monkey]

No, she fed it veggie food because she didn't think it right an animal died to feed it. I just thought she shouldn't have had a dog, as its kinda obvious what they eat. Mind you I also knew a vegan who kept snakes, with no issue feeding them mice. The mice, just like cattle, are bred solely to die and be consumed.

 

[henryscat]

To put it simply I love animals because they have a simpler hierarchy of needs than humans. If you meet those needs they are satisfied. To humanise this they would be 'loyal;, or 'faithful'. They are innocent, they have no subtext or subversive means. Certainly in a domestic context but far less so than humans even in the wild. To put it simply, and accepting that this is not true in all cases, it is rare for an animal to kill another animal for pleasure.

Extending the bit on satisfying needs I would include leading a happy life, without any unnecessary suffering. Regardless of species, all animals human and non-human have a capacity to suffer. One of the issues I have is that many (most?) meat eaters are happy that an animal they eat has been subjected to treatment that they would deem abhorrent if it happened to a dog or a cat. Don't know if you managed to have a look at the Peter Singer links, but he does make a distinction between killing and suffering which is an interesting one - though not sure I personally agree with him on that bit, although most of what he writes on ethics makes a great deal of sense to me.

To be honest with you, I agree. I accept I would have to sacrifice just about all foods that I actually enjoy eating but as my very strong and healthy daughter shows there is plenty of nutrition in vegetarian food. My partner can cook wonderfully and has an excellent knowledge of how to provide the correct nutrition through vegetarian food. It's more of a practical issue given that I won't eat the synthetic vegetarian foods, don't like pasta and I'm not much into vegetable based dishes. I can't expect my partner to accommodate all of my dietary whims and we always try to eat together as a family. This is also an essential moral belief of ours and something has to give I'm afraid.

I don't eat huge amounts of pretend meat type stuff meself, probably with the exception of Linda McCartney sausages which I seem to get through a lot of. If you've eaten a particular diet (I've no idea how old you are!) for a long time then change isn't easy at all, so I do appreciate that. Whilst I'm of the view that I don't agree with consuming any animals, I do recognise that any steps to cut consumption are also positive ones.

I'm afraid I have little knowledge of the dairy industry. I accept the need to sustain human consumption but not at the extent of suffering. There is always an element of suffering in life so the boundaries are grey, and open to debate. Everyone must make their own judgement on what suffering is acceptable on the part of the animal and the part of those who intend to consume it if we remove the option of consuming the animal. I accept, with a degree of dissatisfaction, my position on consuming meat. Without significant knowledge I couldn't even enter into a debate on dairy I'm afraid.

Dairy in some ways can take a different line of discussion - as people generally think of it as more benign since it doesn't obviously involve killing or suffering, althouhgh actually it does. Your mention of little knowledge is interesting, as I think that is the position that a lot of people find themselves in. I would say that the food industry as a whole relies on this a great deal. I would like to see a lot more information and awareness out there so that people can make more informed decisions. Although in some quarters putting information out there is seen as "ramming opinions"....

 

[henryscat]

No, she fed it veggie food because she didn't think it right an animal died to feed it. I just thought she shouldn't have had a dog, as its kinda obvious what they eat.

Dogs are omnivorous in the wild so it isn't "kinda obvious". They can happily live on a veggie diet and get the nutrients they need. No pet food resembles anything an animal would actually eat in the wild anyway.

Mind you I also knew a vegan who kept snakes, with no issue feeding them mice.

It is not uncommon for veggies and vegans to have varying beliefs - I don't know much about snakes but suspect they subsist only on eating other creatures. The questions in my mind would be more around its captivity and if it was bred to keep as a pet, in which case it is arguably un-necessarily adding to the consumption of other animals.

The mice, just like cattle, are bred solely to die and be consumed.

You keep banding this statement about - can you actually explain it?

How does being "bred solely to die and be consumed" form a justification? Regardless of the purpose you decide to assign to an animal's existence it has the capacity to suffer and feel pain. Placing it in an artificial category for your psychological comfort makes no difference to that.

 

[henryscat]

I have no issue with killing an animal, and would happily do it myself. Don't project your own insecurities onto others, I am comfortable with what I am.

Unless you've actually done it - don't sound so certain.

Meals without meat don't taste right to me, they always seem lacking. I've had enough vegetarian meals in my time to know I prefer eating meat, I have based this on many years of my life spent eating. Maybe instinct is the wrong word, maybe preferential diet of the species?

If you're really eating meat with every meal, then the chances are your diet is unbalanced. As I said, historically (in the "millions of years" you referred to) human diet has actually been predominantly vegetarian. Even in relatively recent times. Meat and dairy consumption has increased significantly in the past few decades. In that time there has largely been a decline in human health, which that increased consumption has contributed to.

"Preferential" I would say is also wrong. It is learned behaviour. At what point in your life did you make a conscious decision to start eating meat or dairy? 99% chance that you didn't, that as with most people your parents brought you up to eat it, told you it was good for you and you have continued that behaviour. The act of meat or dairy consumption does not lie within the realms of free will that you think it does.

I like eating meat and I care more about that than animal welfare, I'm amazed you can't understand this concept.

You know full well that there are inconsistencies in that statement. You place pets in a different category, by your own admission, and you would not place the welfare of those species second to your dietary preferences. You still have not explained the basis on which you like to eat meat comes above that of animal welfare. I'm amazed you can't understand the concept behind the question.

I don't, you do. What was the whole specism bullcrap if not saying we should treat animals as equal? I was trying to relate my choice to eat my preferred diet to something you may understand.

Clearly you haven't bothered to even read anything on speciesism to form an opinion of it. Not being speciesist does not require animals to receive the same treatment as humans, it rests on a principle of equality that requires equal consideration of interests. If you are going to band "bullcrap" allegations around then at least have the courtesy to read and understand what it is you are forming an opinion.

You have the arrogance to assume that all the answers to an ethical issue exist within the confines of your brain without having to explore it any further. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I do bother to seek out information and try my best to reach an informed choice.

I am me, I am the most important person in my sphere of existence. Others may come and go, a few may be close, but it's still me at the end of the day. I'd still kill a pet if it threatened my existence, isn't that obvious? I just place them higher than livestock.

So on what basis do you decide that "pet" species receive a higher level of consideration than "livestock" species?

Nope, always an omnivore. Carnivores can thrive in times of plenty, but long term I'd always bet on the omnivore as it has a more varied food source.

You and a lion in a room - who is "top of the food chain"? If indeed a chain has a top?

I'm still at a loss as what I need to justify, its natural?

You use "natural" to mean "justified", why is "natural" a justification?

You confuse genetic evolution with custom design, who said we are at our evolutionary peak? Only a fool would take what we are now and say this is it, this is the best we can be.

You need to explain your terms... Custom design by whom and how? Didn't think you were a creationist?

Compare your biology to one of an animal that is a carnivore, it might be interesting.

OK, call it selectively bred. Bred to get the most meat. And then captive bred in large numbers just for food. But you know this, you just think throwing questions at me will make yourself look superior.

No, I ask questions to try and reveal the thinking behind your statements.

So you think its better these animals never existed? You are not saving animals lives, you are prohibiting their births. We eat very little wild meat anymore, what we eat is bred to die.

You've come out with this one before, so if you're going to try some wierd philosophical construct, you need to explain it. By the same logic, your failure to go and breed hedgehogs in large numbers is wrong and you are prohibiting their births. It is nonsensical. Can you explain why it is better for an animal to exist and suffer than not to be bred? Also on what basis is "bred to die" a justification for your diet?