Thread: Moral discussion: Why do you eat animals?

Hmmm... never seen that before, is it new? It says its only availiable in select locations in the US so probably not toledo. I really should just move to ann arbor, I could actually go to resteraunts and have more than 2 choices on the menu.

Speak to a manager at your local supermarket about getting it shipped in from a nearby state that does sell/produce it. It's more business for them, especially if they put any kind of point-of-sale on it.

Originally Posted by bradysdreaming

Because it tastes good slapped between a bun with ketchup and a coke.

I endorse slavery because it feels good to kick back and let the niggers pick the cotton.

Originally Posted by DuB

I endorse slavery because it feels good to kick back and let the niggers pick the cotton.

Wat?

I endorse massages because it feels good to kick back and let someone rub you.

Wat?

Over the past few days, in this thread and in certain other threads that I don't need to name, you have demonstrated your complete and utter lack of grasp on basic logic. I will spell the logic of the present scenario out for you in detail:

Brady asserted that attaining a degree of pleasure from eating meat morally justifies his eating meat.
I countered that this reasoning must be invalid because a slave owner certainly attains a degree of pleasure from forcing his work onto his slaves rather than taking it on himself; an act which we presumably all agree is morally unjustified.

You countered that...
...that what? That massages are morally acceptable because they feel good? Is your failure to grasp argument so severe that you sincerely believe that this is some sort of response to my argument? Do you really not see that my statements invalidate your "argument" in exactly the same way that they invalidate brady's arguments?

Originally Posted by DuB

Wat?

Over the past few days, in this thread and in certain other threads that I don't need to name, you have demonstrated your complete and utter lack of grasp on basic logic. I will spell the logic of the present scenario out for you in detail:

Brady asserted that attaining a degree of pleasure from eating meat morally justifies his eating meat.
I countered that this reasoning must be invalid because a slave owner certainly attains a degree of pleasure from forcing his work onto his slaves rather than taking it on himself; an act which we presumably all agree is morally unjustified.

You countered that...
...that what? That massages are morally acceptable because they feel good? Is your failure to grasp argument so severe that you sincerely believe that this is some sort of response to my argument? Do you really not see that my statements invalidate your "argument" in exactly the same way that they invalidate brady's arguments?

You treat pleasure as the one and only criterion Brady has for making any sort of moral decision. When you countered with your slavery example, you implied that animals are equal to humans. The point of my post was to state that pleasure is far from the sole determining factor. I'm sure it could be reasonably assumed that Brady doesn't care to dine on human hamburgers anytime soon.

In other words, you turned Brady's lighthearted and joking post into a serious argument, using false assumptions of his character to come up with a counter argument. It is exactly that sort of thing that drives me batshit insane. Master of logic or not, you seem to lack common sense.

Since "I don't care" isn't good enough a reason for you, allow me to take another shot at this. 1. I do not view animals as equal to humans. 2. While I do not encourage animal suffering, I do not find it a significant deterrent to eating meat. 3. In all honesty, the way animals are raised in this day and age is immoral. 4. However, these practices are not my direct fault. I supply demand for animal flesh. Exactly how it ends up on my plate doesn't much matter. I could care less if it is free range or cooped-up or in vitro. Whatever works. 5. eating animals, in and of itself, is not immoral. Only the potential suffering inflicted upon them during their upbringing is. 6. I'm a moral hypocrite, as are we all, and I'm okay with that. 7. I do not think that eating animals makes me significantly more morally hypocritical. 8. Nor does indirectly supplying demand for their suffering.

Happy? No? Fat fucking surprise.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You treat pleasure as the one and only criterion Brady has for making any sort of moral decision.

It's the only criterion that he brought up in his "argument." He may or may not acknowledge other criteria, but to guess at what these criteria may be would be presumptuous of me. As you probably do not know, putting words in an opponent's mouth is generally not a good argumentative strategy.

Originally Posted by Mario92

When you countered with your slavery example, you implied that animals are equal to humans.

Wrong, I showed that his argument leads to a contradiction if we make the reasonable assumption that slavery is morally unjustifiable. I made no implications whatsoever about my own views.

Originally Posted by Mario92

In other words, you turned Brady's lighthearted and joking post into a serious argument

I found his "lighthearted argument" to be genuinely offensive, as I sincerely hope that everyone finds my counter-argument.

Originally Posted by Mario92

using false assumptions of his character to come up with a counter argument.

No explicit assumptions about his character are necessary to make my counter-argument. An obviously flawed "argument" can be exposed as such quite easily, as I have shown.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Happy? No? Fat fucking surprise.

You have made clear multiple times by this point in the thread that you are not interested in forming a rational and coherent argument, so I will not trouble myself to respond to your points again.

Originally Posted by DuB

It's the only criterion that he brought up in his "argument." He may or may not acknowledge other criteria, but to guess at what these criteria may be would be presumptuous of me. As you probably do not know, putting words in an opponent's mouth is generally not a good argumentative strategy.

Why assume it to be a serious argument? If you can't assume common sense, then why assume valid argument?

Wrong, I showed that his argument leads to a contradiction if we make the reasonable assumption that slavery is morally unjustifiable. I made no implications whatsoever about my own views.

See point one. It also helps that I thought you were trying to draw a parallel.

I found his "lighthearted argument" to be genuinely offensive, as I sincerely hope that everyone finds my counter-argument.

Instead of treating it like a serious argument, why not just outright state your distaste?

No explicit assumptions about his character are necessary to make my counter-argument. An obviously flawed "argument" can be exposed as such quite easily, as I have shown.

>still assuming it was ever intended to be a serious argument.
Seriously, I run across a dozen of these sorts of statements every day. There is no reason to treat them like serious arguments. If I find something to be in poor taste, I will outright state it, not try to make a point by attacking their statement as if it were an argument.

You have made clear multiple times by this point in the thread that you are not interested in forming a rational and coherent argument, so I will not trouble myself to respond to your points again.

Yup, saw that one coming. Tell me, if I'm so absolutely, dead-certain wrong, then why beat me down instead of pointing out exactly where I flawed? I'm listening. I'm ready to learn. So, oh great swami of rational debate, please instruct the quivering pile of brain-dead ignorance you see before you.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Why assume it to be a serious argument? If you can't assume common sense, then why assume valid argument?

I think it is you who is assuming that I assumed it a serious argument. (If your head is beginning to swim at that statement, don't worry .) Obviously I don't think that brady would be prepared to submit his post to his philosophy professor. That's hardly the point of my response.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Instead of treating it like a serious argument, why not just outright state your distaste?

I did. I think that most sufficiently mature readers will recognize from my response that I found brady's comments to be distasteful.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Seriously, I run across a dozen of these sorts of statements every day. There is no reason to treat them like serious arguments. If I find something to be in poor taste, I will outright state it, not try to make a point by attacking their statement as if it were an argument.

Clearly you are a diplomatic and tactful fellow. I'm sure that you handle those statements much more gracefully than you are handling this.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Yup, saw that one coming. Tell me, if I'm so absolutely, dead-certain wrong, then why beat me down instead of pointing out exactly where I flawed? I'm listening. I'm ready to learn. So, oh great swami of rational debate, please instruct the quivering pile of brain-dead ignorance you see before you.

I didn't say that you were wrong. I said that you have made clear that you are not interested in forming a rational and coherent argument. So why should I be interested? The moral argument ended when you admitted that you could not be persuaded by argument.

Originally Posted by Mario92

1. I do not view animals as equal to humans. .... 5. eating animals, in and of itself, is not immoral. Only the potential suffering inflicted upon them during their upbringing is.

I would argue that you can only get your point 5 is a direct result of point 1, which I've already outlined why I disagree with. For if you believed that animals (other conscious creatures in different skin) deserve the same level of physical integrity and autonomy we give to our fellow humans (as I do), then raising them for the purpose of ending their lives before they would naturally expire for the purpose of eating them does become immoral. Viewed in this light it's almost like 'The Island' where clones are raised as 'organ farms' for their policy holders, just not on the same scale.

The course on morality I took last year covered an extension of this topic entitled "Why don't we eat our dead?". In a nutshell, if we follow utilitarianism to the letter then there ought to be no barrier to using the bodies of the dead like any other tool or natural resource such as organ harvesting, human food, dog food or just ground up for fertiliser. The only objection that can be raised is that it's immoral because it upsets the family of the deceased. But why does it upset them? Their family member is dead, they can't feel these things being done to them, they have no interests that are being violated so clearly it's not morally wrong from their standpoint - they're dead! The only point of view (or interests) remaining is that of their loved ones, which essentially boils down the argument to 'it's immoral because the family is upset, and they are upset because they are upset', which is tautological and philosophically useless as an explanation. Now if we say that the grieving family is mistaken and that they shouldn't be upset at the thought of grandma being turned into dog food or lawn fertiliser, we're espousing a morality that no other human being would recognise as being moral.

I think the basic problem here stems from our tendency to make our decisions and base our actions on our emotions rather than our logic, and our emotional states are under no obligation to reflect rational thought on the same subject.

And just a quick note for funsies: The organ donor rate in (I think) Switzerland is about 97%. Whereas in Germany next door, it's only about 13%. The difference is made up by the check box on the motor license form in Switzerland is an opt-OUT system for organ donation compared to Germany which is opt-IN. Essentially, people are mentally lazy. This is just one example which shows how our minds work and that we aren't as logical and rational as we'd like to think we are.

It really doesn't matter if brady was serious or not when he made his statement. He proposed an idea and then Dub proposed an isomorphic idea that points out the crux of the moral issue. Many(if not most) people value their own personal pleasure over the lives and experience of animals. Ideas still hold the same information regardless of the intentions of thier creators.

This does not make you immoral in the same way a murderer is, but in my opinion it does make you immoral in the same way someone who just doesn't care is. It's similar to when someone doesn't take initiative and raise their children in the best possible way, preffering to let the TV do it for them. Or littering, though littering is worse in my opinion, not that the heirarchical structure in my mind really matters. What matters is the experience of living things. Morality is a way of using logic to find most humane way for society to run. The only arguments I've heard for why eating meat is better are that it is more aesthectically pleasing and that it is cheaper(though I don't really think it's cheaper, but I'm not sure).

I'm not posing this arguement to criticize you or to make you out to be a bad person, but rather to force you to think about things you claim not to care about. In my experience, if a person who has compassion really thinkgs about this topic they generally end up not eating meat, or at least attempting to stop eating meat. It doesn't bother me that much that people eat meat, but this is a moral discussion in a philosophy forum, no holds barred.

Originally Posted by Mario92

2. While I do not encourage animal suffering, I do not find it a significant deterrent to eating meat. 3. In all honesty, the way animals are raised in this day and age is immoral. 4. However, these practices are not my direct fault. I supply demand for animal flesh. Exactly how it ends up on my plate doesn't much matter. I could care less if it is free range or cooped-up or in vitro. Whatever works....indirectly supplying demand for their suffering.

It is your fault since you are paying them to do it for you. You can hunt, you can raise your own animals, but that is probably too much trouble for you. You can buy from farms that treat their animals as humanely as possible, but since you don't care, then you don't care.

It is the same way that by buying cheap stuff made in China and India or Indonesia that we are supporting child slavery and economic slavery. But we want our stuff cheap and easy so we just don't care. I agree that not caring is immoral. But there is a limit to how much one can adjust their lifestyle to benefit the world. It would be impossible to live a lifestyle that causes no suffering or destruction. But that doesn't mean that it is morally ok to give up and not give a shit. We can at least try and do what we can. And vegetarianism is one of the easiest ways to make the hugest difference. To think of the amount of suffering one ends and environmental destruction one ends when one switches to a vegetarian diet makes it worth it. And there are plenty of good things to eat that taste great besides meat.

Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences his self, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separate from the rest-- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion, to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in it’s beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself part of the liberation and foundation for inner security."

--Albert Einstein

It was just a Troll post guys. I didn't think anyone would take me seriously. LOL

Originally Posted by bradysdreaming

It was just a Troll post guys. I didn't think anyone would take me seriously. LOL

Don't worry, I thought it was funny And DuBs response as well

We're immoral meat eaters, because we're eating meat that originated from animals that suffered from immoral practices, caused by other humans? Could the same be said if we were to find animals that suffered, and then died by natural causes e.g., by a winter storm? One could say that another human's inevitable actions are out of their personal control as that of a winter storm that will continue anyway, and that they're just picking up the results. Another option. If another animal that happened to be omnivorous saw these immoral practices, and freely chose to eat the dead animal that suffered during it, also neglecting the accessible tasty fruit nearby, would that animal be committing an immoral act also? One may say that the animal cannot conceive a reason to care, but even if rational, does it need to care? Let's say: the (rational) animal recognizes self pain (of course). However so, that doesn't mean it ought to empathize with the already dead animal, that can no longer feel pain. Even if it was empathetic towards the suffered animal, where must it follow that, because of so, it need not allow itself to eat it, dead or alive?


Morality is a joke. Laugh it up.

Originally Posted by Somii

We're immoral meat eaters, because we're eating meat that originated from animals that suffered from immoral practices, caused by other humans? Could the same be said if we were to find animals that suffered, and then died by natural causes e.g., by a winter storm? One could say that another human's inevitable actions are out of their personal control as that of a winter storm that will continue anyway, and that they're just picking up the results. Another option. If another animal that happened to be omnivorous saw these immoral practices, and freely chose to eat the dead animal that suffered during it, also neglecting the accessible tasty fruit nearby, would that animal be committing an immoral act also? One may say that the animal cannot conceive a reason to care, but even if rational, does it need to care? Let's say: the (rational) animal recognizes self pain (of course). However so, that doesn't mean it ought to empathize with the already dead animal, that can no longer feel pain. Even if it was empathetic towards the suffered animal, where must it follow that, because of so, it need not allow itself to eat it, dead or alive?


Morality is a joke. Laugh it up.

The meat eaters indirectly contribute to the amount of immorality occurring. As the demand for meat drops, the amount of meat produced drops. Only while the demand is kept high is the production kept high. Therefore the amount of immorality occurring is entirely in our control.

Your reasoning is a joke. Should we laugh at you? (Just kidding. Laugh it up.)

Originally Posted by Somii

We're immoral meat eaters, because we're eating meat that originated from animals that suffered from immoral practices, caused by other humans? Could the same be said if we were to find animals that suffered, and then died by natural causes e.g., by a winter storm? One could say that another human's inevitable actions are out of their personal control as that of a winter storm that will continue anyway, and that they're just picking up the results. Another option. If another animal that happened to be omnivorous saw these immoral practices, and freely chose to eat the dead animal that suffered during it, also neglecting the accessible tasty fruit nearby, would that animal be committing an immoral act also? One may say that the animal cannot conceive a reason to care, but even if rational, does it need to care? Let's say: the (rational) animal recognizes self pain (of course). However so, that doesn't mean it ought to empathize with the already dead animal, that can no longer feel pain. Even if it was empathetic towards the suffered animal, where must it follow that, because of so, it need not allow itself to eat it, dead or alive?


Morality is a joke. Laugh it up.

Who wants to eat nasty dead shit that they found laying on the ground? It's not that difficult to find food. On top of this, at least in my opinion, it is not so immoral to kill a wild animal for food, and if you have no other option then obviously this is not a bad thing. But in modern society it is quite easy to find other sources of sustenance. The issue of immorality is mainly with the conditions which the animals are kept, as clearly this causes a tremendous amount of suffering vs a few moments of it(as in hunting). I have friends who hunt and I do not consider them immoral, nor the rest of my family who eats meat from the store.

Morality is not black and white, that you are not making the best possible decision in every single instance does not necessarily make you personally immoral. I have done immoral things in the past and I would not consider myself immoral.

No it isn't immoral because you didn't cause the animal to suffer which is what makes it immoral. Would you agree that causing unecessary suffering is immoral, even if you believe that eating animals is necessary for your own survival?

You are, in marios words, supplying the demand for meat. Without the demand there would be no need to produce it, there would be less suffering.

Morality does not really apply to animals, it applies to members of society(see post #130). You can apply your own moral structure to animals, but since they have no way of knowing what that is it is unlikely that they will follow it. You really ought to not care about anyone and just live ruthlessly. Just stab your mother and steal her money, then move to india and start a sweatshop, you'll live like a king.

I really am amazed that you would say that morality is a joke in the philosophy section. That's like if I walked into a jazz club and said Miles Davis is a punk bitch.

Originally Posted by MindGames

The meat eaters indirectly contribute to the amount of immorality occurring. As the demand for meat drops, the amount of meat produced drops. Only while the demand is kept high is the production kept high. Therefore the amount of immorality occurring is entirely in our control.

Your reasoning is a joke. Should we laugh at you? (Just kidding. Laugh it up.)

What reasoning would that be exactly?

Originally Posted by Somii

What reasoning would that be exactly?

Exactly

Originally Posted by Somii

What reasoning would that be exactly?

Your reasoning that animal slaughtering is inevitable. Of course there will always be animal slaughtering in nature (and in society for as long as there is a demand for meat), but it is within the consumers' power to lower the amount of needless animal slaughtering that does occur.

Also, what stonedape said. (Concerning your idea that morality is a joke. By extension, you are also condoning rape and manslaughter. If I threw your parents in a meat grinder, would you think of it as a joke? If your answer is yes, then please admit yourself into the nearest mental hospital.)


Edit: To make myself clear, there's no chance in hell you're finding 3 million cows dead on the side of the road every day.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Who wants to eat nasty dead shit that they found laying on the ground? It's not that difficult to find food. On top of this, at least in my opinion, it is not so immoral to kill a wild animal for food, and if you have no other option then obviously this is not a bad thing. But in modern society it is quite easy to find other sources of sustenance. The issue of immorality is mainly with the conditions which the animals are kept, as clearly this causes a tremendous amount of suffering vs a few moments of it(as in hunting). I have friends who hunt and I do not consider them immoral, nor the rest of my family who eats meat from the store.

Morality is not black and white, that you are not making the best possible decision in every single instance does not necessarily make you personally immoral. I have done immoral things in the past and I would not consider myself immoral.

No it isn't immoral because you didn't cause the animal to suffer which is what makes it immoral. Would you agree that causing unecessary suffering is immoral, even if you believe that eating animals is necessary for your own survival?

You are, in marios words, supplying the demand for meat. Without the demand there would be no need to produce it, there would be less suffering.

Morality does not really apply to animals, it applies to members of society(see post #130). You can apply your own moral structure to animals, but since they have no way of knowing what that is it is unlikely that they will follow it. You really ought to not care about anyone and just live ruthlessly. Just stab your mother and steal her money, then move to india and start a sweatshop, you'll live like a king.

I really am amazed that you would say that morality is a joke in the philosophy section. That's like if I walked into a jazz club and said Miles Davis is a punk bitch.

The majority of this post is irrelevant to what I wanted answered in my post. Also, not everyone undertaking philosophy is interested in moral philosophy.

Originally Posted by MindGames

Your reasoning that animal slaughtering is inevitable. Of course there will always be animal slaughtering in nature (and in society for as long as there is a demand for meat), but it is within the consumers' power to lower the amount of needless animal slaughtering that does occur.

I didn't assert that animal slaughtering is inevitable. Look again. Also, I know that if I were to stop buying meat, it would be very unlikely for the production of meat to drop. If, however, a substantial amount of people were to stop buying meat, then your supply-demand argument may be used to effect, and thus, relevant in response.

Also, what stonedape said. (Concerning your idea that morality is a joke. By extension, you are also condoning rape and manslaughter. If I threw your parents in a meat grinder, would you think of it as a joke? If your answer is yes, then please admit yourself into the nearest mental hospital.)

No, I'm not. Check your reasoning.

Edit: To make myself clear, there's no chance in hell you're finding 3 million cows dead on the side of the road every day.

In relevance to animals getting slaughtered by humans, if not by our farms, then simply by ourselves.


It's OK. I forgive you because your sig made me laugh. We all have our limits.

What did you want answered? I love talking about this topic. I'd also really like to hear what your answer to my question was, thus the boldness

Originally Posted by Somii

Also, I know that if I were to stop buying meat, it would be very unlikely for the production of meat to drop. If, however, a substantial amount of people were to stop buying meat, then your supply-demand argument may be used to effect, and thus, relevant in response.

This has been said a few times in this thread so far and it still amuses me now as it did the first time. Is not a crowd of people or a substantial amount of people made up of single individuals? How else are we expected to raise the bar to this nebulous 'substantial amount' if not one at a time through honest discussion and inquiry? Short of a large scale prion disease or salmonella outbreak across an entire country for a sustained period of time (and ignoring imported meat), millions of people aren't going to switch to vegetarian diets overnight without having their reasoning poked and prodded, one at a time, by the reasoning of other vegetarians (through books, youtube, TV and discussion).

In all honesty I think Week-Day Vego has the potential for the greatest impact on society (and the animals), as it allows people to stay how they are essentially, and just take more responsibility for their own diet Monday to Friday.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

This has been said a few times in this thread so far and it still amuses me now as it did the first time.

So?

Is not a crowd of people or a substantial amount of people made up of single individuals?

Of course they are.