Thread: Moral discussion: Why do you eat animals?

Originally Posted by Somii

So, some people choose not to eat dead animals, because of the prior conditions in which those animals were treated while alive i.g., physical pain inducing situations. However, living plants are deemed OK to eat, to said people, as plants do not have any neurological structures, and are thus presumed to not feel any pain. So, it's safe assume that some people choose not to eat, that, which has to endure pain for the purpose of eating, whether it's a live plant or dead animal. If this is solely the reason for why some people choose not to eat dead animals, I ask then, why is it unethical to eat, that, which had to endure pain, for the purpose of being eaten?

Are you talking about roadkill or are you trying to make a point about plants? What is an example of something that had to endure pain and when is this the case for food production?

I'm a vegitarian for a number of reasons. I became a vegitarian because I thought about the fact that I was eating the insides of a creature which is exrtemely similar to my dog and even myself(being that it is a mammal). This is both disgusting and ethically inconsistant in my opinion. Why is one animal treated practically like a member of the family while another is treated as food? Now if I lived in much more extreme conditions, say if I was an American Indian from the 1600s, I would have no problem with taking the life of an animal in order to sustain my own life. But it is in no way necessary to kill in order to live in modern society. Personally I find killing to be very unpleasant and something that should only be resorted to when necessary for survival.

Originally Posted by stonedape

This is both disgusting and ethically inconsistant in my opinion. Why is one animal treated practically like a member of the family while another is treated as food?

Why would this be ethically inconsistent?

Originally Posted by Somii

Why would this be ethically inconsistent?

It's a double standard. Much like giving all the white monkeys food and starving the rest, it's inconsistent.

because you are treating two things which are basically the same differently based on the way they look and taste.

It comes down to a question of whether or not one empathizes with animals. If you do and you still eat them I would consider this to be ethically incosistent behavior.

stonedape - In what way, are they the same, to which there would be inconsistency in treating animals different from another?

no-Name - Treating monkeys with food, and starving the rest, is how, ethically inconsistent?

do we have the same definition of consistent? waking up every day at 7 is consistent. waking up at different times each day is inconsistent.
we could say that we are consistently inconsistent, but we are surely inconsistent in this way.

right?

They are the same in that they are both sentient beings. They have a consciouness, they do experience pain. What in your opinion makes it ok, fron an ethical standpoint, to eat a cow and not to eat a dog? Or do you see nothing wrong about eating a dog aside from the way it tastes?

Do you personally see anything wrong with inflicting pain on animals?

right, depending on what it is that is inconsistent.

Originally Posted by stonedape

They are the same in that they are both sentient beings. They have a consciouness, they do experience pain. What in your opinion makes it ok, fron an ethical standpoint, to eat a cow and not to eat a dog? Or do you see nothing wrong about eating a dog aside from the way it tastes?

Do you personally see anything wrong with inflicting pain on animals?

I have a feeling that it's wrong, however, that does not make it so.

From an ethical standpoint, would you treat your mother the same as some person you just met? In similarity, they're both sentient beings, but they both may give you different emotional responses, to which you may treat each subject differently, in accordance to how these emotions affect you. Could you then say, that it would be unethical to treat that stranger less so than moms?

I may have a pet chicken (Steve) and love it, but killing its brothers for lunch doesn't make me ethically inconsistent, unless I saw it as a wrong to kill those chickens. However, this brings us to the question as to what the definition of wrong mean, and what its judgment upon objects signify.

Originally Posted by stonedape

They are the same in that they are both sentient beings. They have a consciouness, they do experience pain. What in your opinion makes it ok, fron an ethical standpoint, to eat a cow and not to eat a dog? Or do you see nothing wrong about eating a dog aside from the way it tastes?

Do you personally see anything wrong with inflicting pain on animals?

I see nothing wrong with killing animals for food. You argue that they are conscious beings, and to some extent I agree. Where we differ from animals is in higher mental processes, which animals lack. Most animals operate on instinct, not rational thought. Since you are not killing a rational being, I don't see such a large problem with it. This is a being that can't think on a higher level, can't speak or express emotion, and isn't genetically human. Plus, it is quite delicious. Salad is not delicious. It is not juicy nor tender nor succulent. Most greenery and "alternative" sources of protein repulse me.

So, much in the same way you became a vegetarian to live and let live, why can't you do the same for your carnivorous human counterparts?

To some extent, animals are rational. Even so, I don't even need to justify any moral reason for eating them, even if they were fully rational. The only reasons I have for eating animals are; easy to obtain, helps me survive, and they're delicious. Does this make me wrong in the eyes of others? Maybe so, but I don't care : )

With regards to the use of force(killing, eating or harming in any way) I would treat them them same, so long that this stranger is not pointing a gun in my face. Personally I feel that it is wrong to inflict pain on others in all circumstances other than in the case of preventing pain to oneself or others. I extend this to animals because I am an animal and I empathize with them.

@mario
So in your opinion what makes killing something wrong has not to do with pain, but rather to do with the the what the thing you are killing is capable of? What is it that makes it wrong to kill a human and not wrong to kill an animal?

And if it is only a matter of taste, consider what creates your tastes. You have become comfortable living an omnivorous diet and it would disrupt that comfort to find a new way to sustain yourself. Salad has so many more flavors to it than meat does. People generally form a predisposition against vegies when they're young because of the other kinds of foods offered in american culture. Most food we eat in america is saturated in either salt or sugar. Veggies are not. As a kid you eat things that have so much salt or sugar in tham that it practically gets you high and you get hooked on eating these types of food. I'll admit that meat does have a certain flavor, and it isn't found in meat alternatives. But there are so many other flavors. IN my opinion meat is a rather simple flavor. It's salty and filling and that's why people like it so much, but I suppose it's really useless to argue over matters of taste, to each his own. I make a point not to tell other people what to do, but this is a discussion on the morality of meat, if you don't want to consider the alternative why get into the discussion? Morality based on thou shalt is outdated and in my opinion immoral. People should do what they find to be the right thing to do.

As a side note I don't see it as largely wrong either. If I hit a rabbit with my car I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I don't see people who eat meat as bad people, I just think that being a vegitarian is a better(more efficiant, less damaging) way of living. If a person can live without killing I don't see how the can justify killing just for the sake of what tastes good to them(and after spending much time thinking about the topic I don't find meat appatizing because of the texture) at least not if being highly ethical is a value to them.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I see nothing wrong with killing animals for food. You argue that they are conscious beings, and to some extent I agree. Where we differ from animals is in higher mental processes, which animals lack. Most animals operate on instinct, not rational thought. Since you are not killing a rational being, I don't see such a large problem with it. This is a being that can't think on a higher level, can't speak or express emotion, and isn't genetically human. Plus, it is quite delicious. Salad is not delicious. It is not juicy nor tender nor succulent. Most greenery and "alternative" sources of protein repulse me.

So, much in the same way you became a vegetarian to live and let live, why can't you do the same for your carnivorous human counterparts?

Following that line of reasoning, do you think it would be okay to kill a really retarded kid? Let's say a deaf, blind, mute kid with an IQ below an intelligent animal.

Originally Posted by XeL

Following that line of reasoning, do you think it would be okay to kill a really retarded kid? Let's say a deaf, blind, mute kid with an IQ below an intelligent animal.

The kid is neither tasty nor not human. Killing it would serve no real purpose. If the kid were completely braindead, requiring machines to stay alive, then I see no moral qualms with pulling the plug.

And if it is only a matter of taste, consider what creates your tastes. You have become comfortable living an omnivorous diet and it would disrupt that comfort to find a new way to sustain yourself. Salad has so many more flavors to it than meat does. People generally form a predisposition against vegies when they're young because of the other kinds of foods offered in american culture. Most food we eat in america is saturated in either salt or sugar. Veggies are not. As a kid you eat things that have so much salt or sugar in tham that it practically gets you high and you get hooked on eating these types of food. I'll admit that meat does have a certain flavor, and it isn't found in meat alternatives. But there are so many other flavors. IN my opinion meat is a rather simple flavor. It's salty and filling and that's why people like it so much, but I suppose it's really useless to argue over matters of taste, to each his own. I make a point not to tell other people what to do, but this is a discussion on the morality of meat, if you don't want to consider the alternative why get into the discussion? Morality based on thou shalt is outdated and in my opinion immoral. People should do what they find to be the right thing to do.

Y'know, I keep coming back to salad. And I still don't like it. Some veggies are fine when prepared right. But the dull, flavorless crunch of raw lettuce just doesn't do anything for me, and I can't subsist on the few vegetables I do like. I don't know how vegetarians and vegans do it, but I salute them. Meat alone, without any preparation, has few flavors. It is what you do with the meat that gives it a near limitless variety. Rubs, marinades, sauces, spices, herbs and seasonings...the combinations are endless. Sure, you can argue that croutons and dressing spice up a salad, but the core of it is not very tasty. I've made it clear I have no moral qualms with eating meat, so why upset my happy equilibrium and try to acquire tastes for things I don't particularly care to eat? Diet is much more than efficiency, and I have a strong appreciation for flavor.

Sorry to be a dick, but you skipped over the whole moral part of my argument so I'm gonna repost it since it was directed at you.

So in your opinion what makes killing something wrong has not to do with pain, but rather to do with the the what the thing you are killing is capable of? What is it that makes it wrong to kill a human and not wrong to kill an animal?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Y'know, I keep coming back to salad. And I still don't like it. Some veggies are fine when prepared right. But the dull, flavorless crunch of raw lettuce just doesn't do anything for me, and I can't subsist on the few vegetables I do like. I don't know how vegetarians and vegans do it, but I salute them. Meat alone, without any preparation, has few flavors. It is what you do with the meat that gives it a near limitless variety. Rubs, marinades, sauces, spices, herbs and seasonings...the combinations are endless. Sure, you can argue that croutons and dressing spice up a salad, but the core of it is not very tasty. I've made it clear I have no moral qualms with eating meat, so why upset my happy equilibrium and try to acquire tastes for things I don't particularly care to eat? Diet is much more than efficiency, and I have a strong appreciation for flavor.

Yes, the entire universe of food consists of steak and lettuce, and seasonings only work on meat.

More failure of imagination please!

Originally Posted by stonedape

Sorry to be a dick, but you skipped over the whole moral part of my argument so I'm gonna repost it since it was directed at you.

So in your opinion what makes killing something wrong has not to do with pain, but rather to do with the the what the thing you are killing is capable of? What is it that makes it wrong to kill a human and not wrong to kill an animal?

Simply put, I don't care about animals. I've long ago realized I operate on a heavily skewed and at times frightening moral code, but quite frankly, I don't care. I simply don't care. I'm not saying it is morally right to kill animals, but my apathy toward them means I just...don't care. It doesn't bother me. They are animals. Until they begin to think like humans and display higher level cognitive powers, I won't care. Hypocritical? Perhaps. Morally "correct?" Probably not. But tell that to my apathy.

plants have feelings too...

Originally Posted by Mario92

They are animals.

As are you. As we all are. What particular body they happen to inhabit isn't a mark against them for moral consideration.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

As are you. As we all are. What particular body they happen to inhabit isn't a mark against them for moral consideration.

But what mind they possess is. They have extraordinarily simple minds. I'm not going to go out of my way to inflict undue pain or suffering on them, but I don't really care that I'm supplying demand for their flesh. Suffering and death is a regrettable byproduct, but morally, I don't care. Their death has a point...a purpose. Their unwilling sacrifice isn't going to waste.

Do you really think intelligence is connected to an animal's will to live? Their will to live is just as strong as ours (if not stronger, seeing as people commit suicide all the time).

Originally Posted by Mario92

I'm not going to go out of my way to inflict undue pain or suffering on them, but I don't really care that I'm supplying demand for their flesh. Suffering and death is a regrettable byproduct, but morally, I don't care.

This.

I also believe that the human (as an animal) throughout evolution is an omnivore, and that this is one of the reasons we managed to survive as a species. But what really, really matters to me most, and what is a firm and good reason for me to eat meat, is that it just tastes good. I've never particularly liked vegetables, and eat (some of) them for the sake of a balanced diet. A meal without vegetables to me is still a meal. A meal without meat however, in most cases, is a waste.

I'll never understand vegetarians (and vegans even less), and I do have friends who refrain from eating meat, but they leave me alone on the subject, and I them To each his/her own choices I guess.

Originally Posted by XeL

Do you really think intelligence is connected to an animal's will to live? Their will to live is just as strong as ours (if not stronger, seeing as people commit suicide all the time).

So? I'm sure the bug you stepped on a week ago wasn't thrilled to die, either. What do you think those bacteria tried to do once you brought them into a hostile environment? How about the rats you set traps out for? Things die. You help cause things to die. It is the order of nature. You do more senseless killing by stepping on a spider than I do by eating a steak. At least what I killed went to good use. At some point, you have to decide what lives and what dies. You have to draw a clear cutoff. Do you not kill something because it has a will to live? Or do you come up with a more realistic set of criteria? And how far out of your way do you go to stop things from dying? Are you going to ride your bike made out of 100% recycled materials everywhere you go for the rest of your life to prevent polluting the environment so other organisms don't die? All I'm doing is supplying demand for a product: flesh of cow. Where it comes from or how it gets to my plate, I don't particularly care. Raise cattle humanely if you insist. Grow steaks in vitro if you prefer. This is not my battle. Just keep up a healthy supply of cow flesh.

Originally Posted by Mario92

So? I'm sure the bug you stepped on a week ago wasn't thrilled to die, either. What do you think those bacteria tried to do once you brought them into a hostile environment? How about the rats you set traps out for?

I can only speak for myself, but I find such things cruel and unnecessary.

Things die. You help cause things to die. It is the order of nature. You do more senseless killing by stepping on a spider than I do by eating a steak. At least what I killed went to good use. At some point, you have to decide what lives and what dies.

How so? Once again, I don't cause harm to any entities with a will to live.

You have to draw a clear cutoff. Do you not kill something because it has a will to live? Or do you come up with a more realistic set of criteria?

Sounds highly realistic to me.

And how far out of your way do you go to stop things from dying? Are you going to ride your bike made out of 100% recycled materials everywhere you go for the rest of your life to prevent polluting the environment so other organisms don't die?

I do my best, believe me. When I don't walk, I always use public transportation. I never throw away any food. I always turn off lights and electronic devices when I'm not using them, even if it's just for a couple of minutes. I only eat food grown close to me. I recycle everything. I go by train rather than airplane. I encourage people to do the same. I do what I can while still maintaining a life in this modern era.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Simply put, I don't care about animals. I've long ago realized I operate on a heavily skewed and at times frightening moral code, but quite frankly, I don't care. I simply don't care. I'm not saying it is morally right to kill animals, but my apathy toward them means I just...don't care. It doesn't bother me. They are animals. Until they begin to think like humans and display higher level cognitive powers, I won't care. Hypocritical? Perhaps. Morally "correct?" Probably not. But tell that to my apathy.

I suspect that, despite the counter-arguments we've witnessed in this thread, most of which come off largely as post-hoc rationalization, most people's views on the matter are ultimately founded in exactly the indifference that you've expressed here. So kudos for at least being honest enough to admit it. But I really think that the moral argument deserves to be taken more seriously than this. I'll try to explain why I think so.

Until this point in the thread I've discussed the issues of nutrition and economics, which I view as being the easy, "slam dunk" arguments, but I've avoided engaging with the moral argument--perhaps conspicuously. The reason is that I find it personally very troubling. Although I do not eat meat, I don't consider myself exempt from the moral argument because, in truth, moral considerations played little or no role in my decision. It was partly a health thing but mainly just a personal experiment in self control. So I'm as guilty as the next person in neglecting to take seriously the moral issues surrounding the modern consumption of meat.

I have to admit now, to myself and to others, that I find the moral argument to be disarming. Knowing all that I know about where meat comes from and the likely experiences of animals that will ultimately end up on a dinner plate, I can't easily see how, as a man supposedly of principles and reason, I can justify my personal participation in such a system. Yet I have participated in it with little reflection for much of my life, and it is only through sheer unrelated coincidence that I find myself not presently participating in it. To me, neglecting to seriously engage with the moral issues all this time has been nothing more than a cop out. On some level, I knew that I didn't (and still don't) have a rational and consistent answer to why I participated in the cultural ritual of eating meat, so I just ignored the issue, much as I've done here. But this neglect threatens to undermine my credibility as an intelligent human being who acts and believes according to reasoned principles.

I don't think that any of us who would claim to be moderately intelligent, basically rational human beings should accept "I just don't care" as any kind of solution to the meat-eater's dilemma. To do so is no better than, e.g., to uncritically believe the teachings of whatever religion in which you happen to have been raised, to uncritically endorse social norms like racism and sexism simply because they happen to be norms, or any number of other cases of intellectual irresponsibility. As someone who considers himself above such cases, I cannot simply accept "I just don't care" as a solution to the meat-eater's dilemma--and I would further charge that anyone who is prepared to accept such a non-answer must also be prepared to forfeit their claims to being a reasonable and semi-rational human being.