Thread: Moral discussion: Why do you eat animals?

Originally Posted by DuB

...You think that the average medical costs attributable to the use of product have little to do with the health risks associated with using that product?? Surely you can't be serious.

So much that you can compare something like eating meat with smoking cigarettes, in strict terms of health risk? No, I don't.

I don't even really know what to say. I am floored. Please explain your reasoning.

Because I would think that there is so much more that goes into the cost of medical expenses. Things such as the actual expense that the treatment costs, to administer to the patient; whether the effects are long or short term; exactly which ailments the people contracted from the products (each one has multiple possibilities for sickness. Does throat cancer cost as much as lung cancer? Is Type II Diabetes more deadly than lung cancer? Etc.); the number of people that are affected by the ailments in question, within the region. Do you honestly know every factor that goes into determining the annual cost of certain product?

If one person in the U.S. got lung cancer every year (amounting to X amount of dollars in expense), and 50 people got a much less severe illness (which amounted to the same amount, in total), you're telling me that it's safe to say that those lesser-severe illnesses are just as damaging as lung cancer?

Originally Posted by Alextanium

The hidden premise of your natural argument is that it is not immoral to (humanely) raise and kill another sentient animal for the sake of your taste-buds.

Actually, you're wrong. I have problems with raising animals for food. I addressed this, with the issue of manipulating a sovereign life form who does not exist to be our slave. There are other issues I have but they don't really concern this thread.

What I was initially trying to explain with my first points of the natural argument, is that it is perfectly natural to desire meat. This has nothing to do with raising an animal for food. Two different subjects. I brought this up because some spiritual people would have you believe you are sinful for desiring meat. When I don't consider any bodily desire sinful, and I think the denial of what our bodies desire only leads to a huge psychological headache. If you desire meat, eat it. If you don't, don't eat it.

In other words, listen to your body. Not someone else's body.

Also, I don't think you understood why I brought up agriculture.

Now compare this to eating animal flesh. In our prehistoric history this was necessary, before we domesticated plants and learned agriculture. But today we have the technology to feed every person on the planet on a plant based diet, we only lack the political and economic will to do so. This view that eating flesh is evolutionary baggage has been put forth long before I was born, and it has merit. I said this earlier in the thread but it bears repeating: old reasons for doing things are not adequate reasons for doing things today. This is an argument from tradition, a logical fallacy. And I'm afraid that what your natural argument boils down to. In order for it to hold water you need to show that eating both meat and plants (a balanced diet) is the ONLY way to live a healthy life, and I'm afraid all the statistics are against you.

Again, you misunderstood me. I said earlier that some spiritual vegans would like individuals to feel morally wrong for even desiring meat. Regardless of whether or not they even ate meat, they already committed a sin for even desiring it. I wanted to bring back some humility and understanding into this view point. It's perfectly natural for an individual at any point in his or her life to desire meat. And no one has the right to judge them for it.

My sister was a strict vegetarian dappling with vegan cook books. She became pregnant and suddenly craved meat. Why? I don't know. It's chemistry. It happens. People, sometimes, once in a while, crave it. Many vegetarians admit to it. And then they have to feel ASHAMED for cheating. It's a human body. Love it. Embrace it. Accept it. Life goes on.

I am not arguing what is the most healthiest or what is the most moral diet. Morality will always be subjective. If you want a wider audience to listen to the vegan plight, you need the natural argument. And that also means, cease the plant argument. For too long vegans and vegetarians have used the plant argument, that plants feel no pain, that plants have no more worth than a rock. That argument is very naive and a giant insult to botany and biology.

This is a subjective, sentimental value that you place upon the plant. There is no inner dimension to that plant, no consciousness, no internal awareness that can be detected in any shape or form. You can be no more moral towards a plant than you can a rock.

(OFF TOPIC RANT!)
I think its horribly tragic that so many people relate plants to having no more meaning than a lifeless rock. Take some botany classes and learn how beautiful and LIVING plants are. It has been scientifically proven that plants are self aware. As for having no internal awareness? How did you think plants are even capable of doing all that they do? Magic? Scientists have always suspected that there must be more to plants to explain their amazing capacities. And they've discovered a piece of the puzzle. We have found clumps of cells that function as ganglia in the roots.

We also know that the tips of the branches can control the behavior of the entire branch. In other words, the plant most likely has tiny ganglia that act as a system.

I disagree, it is entirely about the suffering of the animal.

I am full aware of their suffering. Please re-read what I said, and I put it in bold. I said the ROOT of the problem. What is the problem? Their suffering. What is the root of their suffering? Our belief that have the right to manipulate other life forms for us. And that started with agriculture, which currently is creating devastating ecological effects. Did you know the Great Dust Ball was directly related to agriculture? China is due for a huge one.

Pain is used by sentient creatures to retreat from danger or to warn an organism of damage so it may flee from the cause of said damage. A plant can do neither of these things.

Actually a plant knows when its injured. Chemical reactions take place. Depending on the type of injury, the plant can decide to be rid of the diseased or injured body part, such as dropping a leaf. Plants have a cell layer between the leaf and the rest of the body that is in charge of cleanly dropping the leaf when it needs to and quickly sealing the open wound. Open wounds lead to an infection if plant sits there and does nothing. Some species are more evolved to deal with open wounds than others. Certain trees have a sticky residue that quickly covers an open wound. Not unlike our wounds clotting up.

The entire argument that plants can't feel pain because they can't run is the silliest evolutionary argument I've heard, that has no basis in science. The function of pain is to know when one is injured. Pain isn't going to help an animal run any faster. On the contrary, pain can slow you down because it hurts too damn much to run!

This argument was created to back up the vegetarian diet. How about we not base the world of biology based on diet? Lets study life forms openly and honestly.

Do you need plants to be lifeless rocks for your argument to be valid? I don't think so. But some vegans get very hostile if you even mention that plants are living. (They shouldn't have said they don't eat living things!)

Therefore there is likely nothing 'in there' to care about itself, much less for us to care about it.

In all honestly I actually can't understand people who honestly believe that individual living thing, isn't even alive. What makes life life is that life has awareness. And life cares that it is alive. It may not be an awareness that we can understand because of how simple and basic it is. But I think its much wiser to assume that all life has some sort of awareness.

Plants have self-awareness. They are able to distinguish their own roots from the roots of another plant. Plants have also gone into "root wars" with species that compete for nutrients, using their own roots to suffocate their competitor. Plants also seem to recognize the roots of their own species, carefully growing around each others roots in some instances rather then suffocating one or the other.

Studying and understanding plants is very hard, because they seem to live in a different scale of time. Time lapse photography has revealed much about plants. That they have basic behaviors. Basic yes. But they still "do" things, that rocks don't do.

You also seem to think that I am bringing up the life of plants as an argument against the vegan diet, I'm not.

But I brought up agriculture because it is in agriculture that we fooled ourselves into thinking that we have the right to manipulate life forms. And we have carried this mentality to animals. This is a belief, and an activity that we have been doing since the age of civilization.

[quote]But this is a fun argument so I'd like to take it one step further: [quote]

I'm not going to answer, because I don't see the point. I wasn't pinning plants up against animals.

Please re-read my post.

I didn't finish my natural argument, there is so much that can be said. There is also the issue of nutrition. Even if you are vegan, eating large quantities of fruits and vegetables daily, you can still be nutrient deficient, because the food is nutrient deficient.

The natural food argument isn't about animals versus plants. No, the premise is simple, and the consequences large. The natural argument says we are natural beings. What benefits us, benefits nature. Virtually all food in the supermarket, from the meats to the vegetables, is nutrient deficient. And it all goes back to our insane farming practices.

Because what benefits us, benefits the rest of nature, it turns out food that is the most nutritious for us comes from the happiest of plants, and or, the happiest of animals. Pampered chickens produce eggs with double/triple the nutrition. Happy cows basking in the sun produce richer milk. And "happy" plants also produce the most nutritional vegetables and fruits.

And I know you are here to argue, why eat meat at all? But the world will never be one extreme or the other. If you want to end the mistreatment of animals, then use the natural argument to meet people half way. Mistreating animals makes for a poor quality meat, milk, or eggs. Even toxic.

That said, I also support a native-indigenous diet. That is a diet of consuming what mother nature has provided for you, and or growing native fruits and vegetables. It's a beautiful thing to step outside your door and enjoy a wild fruit.
Which leads me to another problem I have with the moral argument versus the natural argument. The moral argument leaves no room, none, for any other diet, then the diet its promoting. It's an extremist argument. "Either you eat as us or you are always morally wrong"

The problem with promoting a vegan world is, soy has become the staple of the vegan diet. And where does soy grow? Everywhere? No. Only in certain countries, and America is a huge producer of soy. Do you want American companies to dominate the worlds primary source of protein? I don't.

Economically, it is in the best interest of every nation to be food independent. To depend on any other nation for your food leads to an economic, political, and environmental crises.

Is it possible for most of the world to be vegetarian? Mostly vegetarian yes. But I don't see earth realistically falling into one type of diet anytime soon. Nature requires diversity anyways.

Best Possible World.

Please do not confuse my arguments. I am not in any way defending the current state of food. Food concerns me a lot.

My idea of the best possible world might sound a bit strange, and maybe you'll understand why I support the natural argument. Like your evolutionary argument of not holding onto the past and moving forward into the future - I see a future where we abandon everything we know about agriculture.

Agriculture and farming is based on the philosophy of manipulating life forms for us and us only.

What I see in the future is, well the past. Our technology and our understanding of the natural world is so advanced we can literally turn the dial back. We can take a barren land filled with waste, and turn it into a productive rain forest. A rain forest that in turn, produces a bountiful of fresh fruits, vegetables, and supports many other life forms. We could do that, if we really wanted to.

Because we are natural beings, what benefits us, benefits the whole. Ecosystems benefit us. And rather than farming animals or growing monocultures, we will jump start ecosystems that provide a bounty. I would say......yes.....primarily vegetarian. But I still see fresh water fish on the menu.

These tiny man made micro-ecosystems are already happening. The early preliminary results of man initiating an ecosystem is very positive. The primary difference between a man made ecosystem, and a farm is manipulation. The ecosystem once started is free to do its own thing.

Again, my main argument is the manipulation of life forms and the denial of a natural life cycle. My moral-natural argument does not concern killing a wild animal, because I honor free will and I honor an indigenous diet as a very natural diet. Hunting, such as fishing, leads to an ecological disaster when it isn't indigenous.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Because I would think that there is so much more that goes into the cost of medical expenses. Things such as the actual expense that the treatment costs, to administer to the patient; whether the effects are long or short term; exactly which ailments the people contracted from the products (each one has multiple possibilities for sickness. Does throat cancer cost as much as lung cancer? Is Type II Diabetes more deadly than lung cancer? Etc.); the number of people that are affected by the ailments in question, within the region. Do you honestly know every factor that goes into determining the annual cost of certain product?

If one person in the U.S. got lung cancer every year (amounting to X amount of dollars in expense), and 50 people got a much less severe illness (which amounted to the same amount, in total), you're telling me that it's safe to say that those lesser-severe illnesses are just as damaging as lung cancer?

The fine details of how these figures are calculated are in the links that I provided.

Since neither eating meat nor smoking cigarettes are an ailment or illness, it's not clear how your analysis is strictly relevant. These are not discrete events that happen to you. They are activities that you do continuously throughout your life. If you regularly smoke cigarettes, your average medical costs over the years attributable to this are roughly X. If you regularly eat meat, your average medical costs over the years attributable to this are also roughly X. Clearly they still differ in many ways. But if this doesn't make the two "comparable" in terms of their average effect on health, I don't know what does.

Originally Posted by DuB

The fine details of how these figures are calculated are in the links that I provided.

Well, seeing as how I'm not sure when I'll be taking the time to read those entire novels articles, could you summarize the relative points for me?

Originally Posted by DuB

Since neither eating meat nor smoking cigarettes are an ailment or illness, it's not clear how your analysis is strictly relevant. These are not discrete events that happen to you. They are activities that you do continuously throughout your life.

I don't believe my post gave the implication that I thought smoking cigarettes or eating meat were ailments. I'm quite confident that you knew that. When we are talking about medical costs, we are talking about the ailments attributed to those activities.

Originally Posted by DuB

If you regularly smoke cigarettes, your average medical costs over the years attributable to this are roughly X. If you regularly eat meat, your average medical costs over the years attributable to this are also roughly X.

I won't say much about this, until I read the articles (which, I'll be honest, I'm not going to do at this moment), but considering such factors as how many people eat meat vs. how many people smoke (I doubt the numbers are even close to comparable), I would think that there are any number of determining factors for how much the possible medical expenses for each activity could be - especially when we are talking about national, annual totals. Maybe I'm wrong. I will read the articles later and find out. But, at this moment, I just have a hard time believing that the two are that closely related.

I'm not particularly thrilled to write a detailed report on the studies, but I suppose I can give a brief summary of the highlights.

The method in the CDC report is a little more opaque than in the journal article, but there is a handy table which divides the economic costs into medical-related costs and productivity-related costs (e.g., missing work due to hospitalization). We're not as interested in the productivity-related costs (and the other paper doesn't include them anyway) so I'll omit those (they were included in the former estimate of smoking costs). Medical-related costs include: ambulatory care, hospital care, prescription drugs, and "other care." The table also helpfully breaks these down into both "total" and "per-smoker" costs. It sounds like you're interested in hearing about per-smoker costs rather than total costs. The report indicates that the total medical cost associated with smoking was $1623 per smoker between 1995-1999. So if we divide by 5 years we get $325.60 per smoker per year.

The journal article doesn't give its results in this same convenient metric, but it is considerably more clear in its methods, so it may be possible to calculate a rough estimate from its figures. The article looks at the following conditions: hypertension, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, gallbladder disease, obesity (musculoskeletal), food-borne illness. These conditions are broken down into the following medical costs: physician/nurse services, drugs, hospital/nursing home services. Medical costs attributed to meat consumption were calculated by reviewing the medical literature to determine differences in prevalence in these conditions between vegetarians and omnivories (importantly, only including studies which rigorously controlled for confounding lifestyle factors such as age, activity level, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc.) and calculating the reduction in cost that would result if the US population contained only vegetarians. The paper reports ranges rather than exact figures but I'll take the averages of these ranges for ease of presentation. The average medical cost attributable to meat consumption in 1992 was $45 billion. Now we must break it down to cost per omnivore. The US population in 1992 was about 261 million. I was unable to obtain statistics for the proportion of vegetarians in the US in 1992, but fairly recent statistics put the figure at 3.2%, and it's reasonable to assume that the figure hasn't changed at least drastically since 1992. So if we apply this to the 1992 population we get an estimate of 252.6 million omnivores in 1992. $45 billion divided by 252.6 million people = $178.15 per omnivore. Finally, this is in 1992 dollars and the CDC figure is from the 1995-1999 range, so if we adjust slightly to 1997 dollars (the middle of the 1995-1999 range) we get $202.14 per omnivore per year.

This latter estimate that I calculated is a bit rough, but it suggests that the medical costs attributable solely to eating meat, per omnivore, are approximately 62% of the medical costs attributable to smoking, per smoker. I would call that comparable. A bit unnerving, eh?

Much appreciated, for the breakdown.

But while I admit that the numbers are closer than I might have imagined (and I do), I still don't think that a (roughly) slightly-more-than-half chance of being adversely effected by meat consumption than smoking cigarettes justifies the analogy.

Well that's a difference in opinion of course. But consider this: is smoking 62% of a pack of cigarettes per day roughly comparable to smoking 100% of a pack of cigarettes per day, in terms of expected medical cost? If you think these are roughly comparable, then I would say that you are obligated by consistency to admit that the medical costs of eating meat are roughly comparable to the medical costs of smoking cigarettes.

I think the analogy works in a couple other ways as well. As I mentioned, both give us pleasure at the cost of health. And, arguably, both have an "addictive" component. One may be hesitant to call meat eating an addiction in the same sense as cigarette smoking, which perhaps is understandable, but when you consider the difficulty in attempting to quit using either one, the point becomes rather hard to escape.

An analogy, of course, is not an argument. But I hope that by opening yourself to the idea that the analogy might not be totally far-fetched, you will gain a somewhat new perspective on the habit of eating meat.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Such as the fact that our species evolved as hunter-gatherers who ate meat, which opposes the notion that it's immoral to eat meat (not considering how the animals are treated before their slaughter.) If there is no moral reason to turn vegetarian, and it offers no significant advantage, while requiring extra time and effort to adhere to, I see no reason for me to change my diet.

The technicality is that you're speaking about different time frames, and vastly different environments. Just like how its usually a good idea to never lose your Queen in chess, but in some games the 'environment' of the piece positions dictates that losing your Queen is the smartest move you can make. It's quite reasonable to argue that when you are meeting a bare-essential need of survival (getting enough calories for your day on the savannah) then it is not immoral to eat another conscious living thing. However today in 2011, when more options are available to you, you are permitted a choice in your diet or cuisine. The presence of that choice is what gives you the moral capacity to decide between two actions of significantly differing moral content.

Now your other question was why is it immoral to eat it in the first place? This can be answered only upon making the assumption that all sentient life is equal in terms of moral worth (see previous posts on this page). If the animal counts just as much as I do, and I have options that DON'T involve killing it to eat, then I am in the position to arbitrate between taking a life and how it weighs up against a slightly different taste in my mouth while I'm eating my food.

I've heard it's a son of a bitch, but that's all I have to go on since I've never tried it for myself. I guess I'd have to take your word for it. I'm assuming you aren't an athlete though, and I'm guessing things would be more difficult for a serious athlete.

It can be difficult to start (my vegan uncle of 25 years told me that the first 10 years are the hardest, then it gets easier), but I'm about a month in now and just cooked a BBQ for the family today. I didn't feel attracted towards eating the meat at all. Once you take the concept of 'animal flesh' out of your concept of 'things I eat' it's not that hard to see it differently, rather than as food.

Why are you comparing humans to other species? How do chimps and gorillas have any bearing on what we eat?

I presume he made the comparison to them especially because we are so closely related in our genomes. 98.7% and 97.4% respectively.

If it's the knowledge that animals are suffering that you can't stand, how do you cope with the knowledge that you won't ever end that suffering? Animals will be slaughtered no matter what you eat. Just like hippies and war protesters won't ever bring the world any closer to peace. It doesn't make sense for me to base my life philosophy on other people's actions. As long as I don't torture any animals myself, or am not directly responsible for their torture, I don't think I should be made to feel guilty about the issue. I literally have no control over it.

The idea is that you can make a difference. Billions of animals around the world since 1975 when Animal Liberation was published, have been spared some of the miseries I posted in the OP largely due to pressure from animal rights groups. Every person who goes vegetarian saves about 30 chickens and 1 cow a year, each. Every person they convince to become a vegetarian does the same, and so on. Without demand, supply drops to maintain equilibrium. It is a bit of a utopian world view that I hope we one day make, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. At least not before synthetic meat is available. But we feel like we are making a difference now (in a small but measurable way, by having these discussions) and that's what counts morally and ethically.

It can be difficult to start (my vegan uncle of 25 years told me that the first 10 years are the hardest, then it gets easier), but I'm about a month in now and just cooked a BBQ for the family today. I didn't feel attracted towards eating the meat at all.

Let me get this straight. You gave up BBQ on purpose?

You're weird.

Originally Posted by DuB

Well that's a difference in opinion of course. But consider this: is smoking 62% of a pack of cigarettes per day roughly comparable to smoking 100% of a pack of cigarettes per day, in terms of expected medical cost? If you think these are roughly comparable, then I would say that you are obligated by consistency to admit that the medical costs of eating meat are roughly comparable to the medical costs of smoking cigarettes.

No more than I would say that a $4526 prize is "roughly $7300." Which is equivalent to the difference between the number of cigarettes a pack-a-day smoker smokes in a year, and a 12-cig-a-day (62%) smoker smokes in a year.

Originally Posted by DuB

I think the analogy works in a couple other ways as well. As I mentioned, both give us pleasure at the cost of health. And, arguably, both have an "addictive" component. One may be hesitant to call meat eating an addiction in the same sense as cigarette smoking, which perhaps is understandable, but when you consider the difficulty in attempting to quit using either one, the point becomes rather hard to escape.

Honestly, I don't know that to be true. I have never tried to quit eating meat. In addition to this, I know people who have struggled to quit smoking cigs for decades, and people who have quit over night. So I would have to assume that there is no way to quantify how hard it is to quit either one, or, more importantly, how close those difficulty rates are, between the two activities. Also, I'm hard-pressed to find an activity that couldn't loosely be labeled as 'addictive,' in that people may have a hard time stopping.

Originally Posted by DuB

An analogy, of course, is not an argument. But I hope that by opening yourself to the idea that the analogy might not be totally far-fetched, you will gain a somewhat new perspective on the habit of eating meat.

I still say it's far-fetched, but not quite as much as I did, initially, so it's definitely being taken with some consideration.

wait is this thread about cigarettes now? Cigarettes, they're bad for you! because it's cancerous

Originally Posted by DuB

I'm not sure that I would want to make the strong argument that eating meat is inherently negative. I'm attempting to make the less strong point that there are rational reasons to choose not to eat meat.

I would agree that a person could rationally choose not to eat meat, but the evidence is not so overwhelmingly against meat that a person could not also rationally choose to continue to eat meat.

They're certainly related. It was a carefully chosen analogy. Cigarettes give you a nice buzz. Meat tastes good. Neither is particularly good for you. And neither is particularly easy to quit using. (Although being a former smoker as well I would claim that neither is particularly difficult either.)


I also fully disagree that this analogy blows the health consequences of eating meat out of proportion. In fact, the data suggests that meat consumption and cigarette smoking in the US both result in very similar national annual medical costs. This 2002 CDC report estimated that the total medical costs in the US attributable to cigarette smoking over the years 1995-1999 were approximately $39.25 billion per year ($157 billion over 4 years). This 1995 paper in the journal Preventive Medicine estimated that the medical costs attributable to eating meat in the year 1992 alone were between $28.6-61.4 billion. Those are pretty similar figures.

I still don't think it's a valid analogy, even after reading the discussion between oneironaught and yourself. We eat meat to energize our bodies (not to get a buzz,) we smoke cigarettes to look cool. Cigarettes have no health benefits whatsoever while some meat is calorie for calorie the most nutrient rich food out there. There has been established a direct cause and effect relationship between smoking and a number of health issues while that isn't so with eating meat. The study finds that meat eaters accumulate a comparable amount in medical bills as smokers, but we can't possibly know if their condition can be attributed to the singular act of eating meat alone, that would be generalizing and there are other factors outside of lifestyle (which was apparently accounted for) which can make an individual more prone to these diseases. I said earlier that not all meat is created equal and I think that's a relevant point here. There are specific types of meat and specific ways of cooking meat which can add or subtract from its nutritional value (deep-frying a turkey, for example, is not a good idea.) Does the study discriminate between what type of meat was eaten or the source of the meat? There is such thing as high quality meat and a responsible meat eater can continue to eat meat without putting their health at serious risk. If it was meat and meat alone which causes a significant increase in the prevalence of heart disease and cancer, then we would probably see a prevalence of those conditions in other carnivorous species. We do all kinds of shit to meat to make it taste better which is not natural and not healthy. We also tend to eat too much meat, and most of the meat you get in stores is from farm animals which were intentionally fattened and forced to live sedentary lives. I have a picture in my mind of a lion eating a gazelle, and I think in that context meat isn't as unhealthy as it has been found in these studies. (These diseases go beyond the issues of whether our digestive systems and our bodies were meant to process meat. High concentrations of saturated fats and the like would be unhealthy for any species, especially if it doesn't get exercise, but I believe you are arguing that it's bad even if you do get exercise.)

Is Eating Red Meat Bad for Your Health?

A recent article from webmd is more neutral on the topic but they concluded that eating meat in moderation is perfectly acceptable for a health conscious individual and that while there are links between meat and chronic diseases, they have found no direct cause. (I doubt they would advocate smoking in moderation, however.)


Is meat good or bad for us? - Health News, Health & Families - The Independent

Another article talking about benefits of meat. Notice how most of the risks come from eating too much meat. Almost all experts agree that problems only arise when a person eats too much meat, which is not what I am advocating.

I'm not telling you personally what you should or should not eat. Speaking personally, I may not eat meat but I do other unhealthy things such as drink alcohol. This isn't a lecture or a contest. I'm only talking about evidence and facts, not judgments. My goal is simply for you to acknowledge the medical evidence that, on average, it is healthier not to eat meat than to eat meat. This evidence is vast, well-accepted, and uncontroversial. What you choose to do with that information is entirely up to you.

Controlling for this in a statistical analysis is trivial. The evidence supports that the vegetarian diet itself, over and above things like activity level and etc., is beneficial for health.

I will acknowledge that on average vegetarians have fewer health problems than meat eaters, which means a heavy meat diet is not as healthy as a vegetarian diet. It could also mean vegetarians are more health conscious. I still cling to the notion that responsible meat eaters can be every bit as healthy as vegetarians, which takes me back to my original point that an athlete could more efficiently get the nutrients they need from meat and not cause any significant risk to their long-term health. That being one of my rational reasons for continuing with my carnivorous habits.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

The technicality is that you're speaking about different time frames, and vastly different environments. Just like how its usually a good idea to never lose your Queen in chess, but in some games the 'environment' of the piece positions dictates that losing your Queen is the smartest move you can make. It's quite reasonable to argue that when you are meeting a bare-essential need of survival (getting enough calories for your day on the savannah) then it is not immoral to eat another conscious living thing. However today in 2011, when more options are available to you, you are permitted a choice in your diet or cuisine. The presence of that choice is what gives you the moral capacity to decide between two actions of significantly differing moral content.

Well, I mentioned earlier that not everybody has those options, even in America. It can be more economical sometimes for a poor family to eat meat. It can be more prudent for an athlete to eat meat. I don't personally believe the luxury of options automatically makes the choice of meat wrong. I don't believe morals have any place in nature and the fact that humans create moral issues out of natural processes seems out of place to me. (Torturing animals is wrong, but killing an animal to eat it is not torture. And eating an animal that may or may not have been tortured does not make you responsible for its suffering.)

Now your other question was why is it immoral to eat it in the first place? This can be answered only upon making the assumption that all sentient life is equal in terms of moral worth (see previous posts on this page). If the animal counts just as much as I do, and I have options that DON'T involve killing it to eat, then I am in the position to arbitrate between taking a life and how it weighs up against a slightly different taste in my mouth while I'm eating my food.

This is where nature and morality come into play again. As a philisophical thinker who has the ability to look at issues objectively, you would have to acknowledge that no species is intrinsically greater than another. You would also have to acknowledge that you are a member of a species which is an active participant in the game of life, something in which humans seem to think they no longer have to partake. I can't in good conscience abandon my species. If it comes down to a human and another animal, I always choose human, as I am in fact hardwired by nature to do so. In that sense, humans are not equal with all sentient life. I think morality is interesting because there seems to be natural morals which are constant across all different cultures, things like protecting your family and not stealing etc. Then there are the created morals which have no significance to to our innate psychology and seem to be fabrications of society, such as the belief that homosexuality is wrong, or sex before marriage is wrong. I believe the argument that it is immoral to eat meat would fall into the latter category. It has no significance to our species.

I presume he made the comparison to them especially because we are so closely related in our genomes. 98.7% and 97.4% respectively.

There are pretty significant anatomical differences between the species which affects their ability to hunt. All sharks look the same, relatively, but slightly different characteristics in anatomy cause major differences in diet. I suspect it was our ability to make and use weapons which really increased our reliance on meat as a species, but that change took place before "anatomically modern" humans existed.

The idea is that you can make a difference. Billions of animals around the world since 1975 when Animal Liberation was published, have been spared some of the miseries I posted in the OP largely due to pressure from animal rights groups. Every person who goes vegetarian saves about 30 chickens and 1 cow a year, each. Every person they convince to become a vegetarian does the same, and so on. Without demand, supply drops to maintain equilibrium. It is a bit of a utopian world view that I hope we one day make, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. At least not before synthetic meat is available. But we feel like we are making a difference now (in a small but measurable way, by having these discussions) and that's what counts morally and ethically.

Or....... a little more realistically, those chickens still get slaughtered but they get thrown in the trash instead of eaten by you! The number of vegetarians isn't large enough to affect the demand for meat, at least not yet. Animal rights groups may save the token chicken or cow here and there, but a single person choosing to not eat meat won't have a great effect, if any.

I presume he made the comparison to them especially because we are so closely related in our genomes. 98.7% and 97.4% respectively.

Don't mind me, just cherry-picking arguments, but I would like to point out that humans have a 50% genetic similarity to the common banana. As Caprisun said, percent similarity doesn't count for much. Humans (and indeed, all animals) have all sorts of junk DNA...old genes that closely parallel those of our evolutionary ancestors, but have been switched off for one reason or another. What matters are the genes that are actively being expressed.

@ Caprisun, when is it ever more economical to eat meat? Meat is expensive. Unless you are talking about a big mac. But they are mostly vegetable protein anyway. But they still aren't healthy.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I don't personally believe the luxury of options automatically makes the choice of meat wrong.

It does as soon as you accept the premise that all sentient animals (we too are animals) are equal in terms of a right to life and to avoid unnecessary suffering.

I don't believe morals have any place in nature and the fact that humans create moral issues out of natural processes seems out of place to me.

You're almost right here. There is no issue of morality at stake when the bear eats the salmon from the river mouth. Moral issues don't exist between sentient creatures, but they do exist when one of those sentient creatures is self-conscious and capable of reflection upon their actions. I've read recently that when we are at a moral junction and have to choose one option over another, we are less weighing up the actual facts at hand but our first instinct is to think about how our future selves will feel for each of the choices we are about to make. A bear catching salmon can hardly be expected to do such a thing, it lacks the capacity for it.

Torturing animals is wrong, but killing an animal to eat it is not torture. And eating an animal that may or may not have been tortured does not make you responsible for its suffering.

Most likely every animal you've ever eaten that you didn't kill with your own hand was raised in a factory farm setting full of horrible atrocities against animal dignity. I personally would consider solitary confinement, force feeding with a tube down my throat, perpetual hunger, deprivation of sun light, restricted movement, living in my own excrement, being locked in a cage the size of a filing cabinet drawer with 10 other members of my species, having my throat slit or dropped in boiling water while fully conscious to fall within the realm of torture.

If these things were done to a human being we'd be outraged. Inmates at Gitmo get better treatment than cow calves in the veal industry.

I can't in good conscience abandon my species. If it comes down to a human and another animal, I always choose human, as I am in fact hardwired by nature to do so. In that sense, humans are not equal with all sentient life.

We are also hard-wired for aggression. This doesn't mean we have to go with the flow of our violent tendencies. Society would fall apart if we gave in to every murderous rage that overcome us when some asshole cuts us off on the freeway. We are also biologically predisposed to diseases like cancer, but no one would argue that cancer is good for us as a species (except to say it lowers the population to make room for the young). Our innate tribalism is not an argument for our superiority over others.

I can represent that argument another way: "Humans count for more morally compared to animals" How come? "Because we said so" and why is that? "Because we're human". It's tautological. Notice I can substitute 'whites' instead of 'humans' and blacks/asians/indians/martians for 'animals' and the argument is still as fallacious.

Now I'm not saying that if it came down to a human being or a hedgehog being run over by a truck I'd arbitrarily save either and that would be fine, of course I'd save the human first. But I would be morally bound to attempt to save both if it were possible.

One possible reply I could give to why I would choose the human over the hedgehog would be one pertaining to the degree of total suffering that could be avoided by my action. The game of morality is like golf - lowest score wins. One dead hedgehog will certainly be bad for it, and if its a female probably bad for its young in its nest if it has any. But that's where it ends. The suffering caused by a dead human on the other hand involves family, friends, work colleagues. By choosing to save the human first, you alleviate more suffering in the future-world. This doesn't mean that you're biased in favour of your own species, it only demonstrates that you can do math.

There are pretty significant anatomical differences between the species which affects their ability to hunt. All sharks look the same, relatively, but slightly different characteristics in anatomy cause major differences in diet.

Agreed, I was just pointing out why they were mentioned.

Or....... a little more realistically, those chickens still get slaughtered but they get thrown in the trash instead of eaten by you!

For how long do you suppose a supermarket will continue to order 300 chickens per day instead of 295 if it's consistently throwing 5 in the bin day after day? While it is more likely they would just mark down the ones left at the end of the night, businesses don't enjoy marking down products to sell; less profit. It's more business savvy (and less hassle) to simply order less tomorrow.

In the short term, this isn't about stopping supermarkets from ordering dead birds and mammals to sell at the deli counter. I really don't think that's going to happen for at least a century or two. The short term goal is to get enough people upset at the idea of a sentient creature suffering in horrible conditions before it was inhumanely slaughtered for their dinner, so that there is enough public support to encourage the meat industry to return to more humane animal husbandry. Whether by their own accord (doubtful) or by the decree of politicians (more likely and has already been successful everywhere except the US).

Originally Posted by Caprisun

but a single person choosing to not eat meat won't have a great effect, if any.

Curious, I hear this on a near-daily basis when I have to explain why I'm not eating what everyone else is eating. A single person has a negligible effect, I definitely won't argue with you on that point. But crowds are made out of individuals. Populations are made out of individuals. Nations are made of individuals. Something like 44% of India is vegetarian, and I'm fairly sure that's mostly for religious rather than economic reasons. To say that a single individuals actions are useless on the scale of nations is analogous to saying one can't hold back a river by building a dam one brick at a time.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

It does as soon as you accept the premise that all sentient animals (we too are animals) are equal in terms of a right to life and to avoid unnecessary suffering.

I thought we established that all sentient beings are not equal. None is objectively better than another, but they are not equal. Every species has a responsibility to perpetuate it's own genes, whether they do it at the cost of another species is irrelevant in terms of morality. The only true morals, in my personal opinion, are the ones which have an instinctual basis. Studies show that in a life or death situation which involves your lifelong best friend and a first cousin you don't know well, it is more morally acceptable to save the cousin rather than the friend. That's a moral which has an instinctual basis.

To eat another organism is not to say it did not have as much a right to live as you did, and the issue of whether it was necessary or not is completely subjective. This whole debate is heavily reliant on opinions which can be valid from both sides. The only issue that is relevant in my opinion is whether the death of the animal was useful or wasteful. The fact that you place a greater importance on sentient life than other kinds of life is baseless from an objective standpoint.

Your argument contradicts itself in certain areas because you base it objectively at times but then subjectively at others. You say all sentient life forms are equal, yet you also say humans have a special, moral responsibility to preserve the lives of all other sentient beings while this favor is not expected in return, which of course infers that humans are in fact better than all other sentient beings. It we are equal with all other sentient beings, then we are morally obliged to partake in the life and death struggle in which all other lifeforms participate. The only way your argument for moral responsibility works is if the other sentient beings also have the capacity to understand and partake in this act of preservation.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

You're almost right here. There is no issue of morality at stake when the bear eats the salmon from the river mouth. Moral issues don't exist between sentient creatures, but they do exist when one of those sentient creatures is self-conscious and capable of reflection upon their actions. I've read recently that when we are at a moral junction and have to choose one option over another, we are less weighing up the actual facts at hand but our first instinct is to think about how our future selves will feel for each of the choices we are about to make. A bear catching salmon can hardly be expected to do such a thing, it lacks the capacity for it.

The fact that you attach any importance to self-consciousness has no objective basis. It is an opinion which has no real effect on the act of eating an animal for your own life's sake, which is not intrisically good or bad from an objective standpoint. To cause another creature undue harm and know full well that you are causing it to suffer is morally reprehensible, but that is only if the suffering was in vain. Animals need to suffer so that other animals can live. "Shit needs to die so other shit can live." This is not something we have any control over, it's the way nature intended it. You are not morally responsible for something you have no control over. By control, I mean the dynamic of predator and prey that occurs naturally in the wild, not the fact that you control what you eat.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Most likely every animal you've ever eaten that you didn't kill with your own hand was raised in a factory farm setting full of horrible atrocities against animal dignity. I personally would consider solitary confinement, force feeding with a tube down my throat, perpetual hunger, deprivation of sun light, restricted movement, living in my own excrement, being locked in a cage the size of a filing cabinet drawer with 10 other members of my species, having my throat slit or dropped in boiling water while fully conscious to fall within the realm of torture.

If these things were done to a human being we'd be outraged. Inmates at Gitmo get better treatment than cow calves in the veal industry.

This is not something I have control over as an ordinary citizen, it is therefore not my moral responsibility. We would feel more outraged if it were humans because we are genetically programed to protect our fellow human beings.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

We are also hard-wired for aggression. This doesn't mean we have to go with the flow of our violent tendencies. Society would fall apart if we gave in to every murderous rage that overcome us when some asshole cuts us off on the freeway. We are also biologically predisposed to diseases like cancer, but no one would argue that cancer is good for us as a species (except to say it lowers the population to make room for the young). Our innate tribalism is not an argument for our superiority over others.

That is completely different. Aggression serves a purpose, just like hunting serves a purpose; both perpetuate our species. Aggression can be misused, just as an animal can be wrongfully tortured. It all comes down to sustaining human life first and foremost, and then other life secondarily. Your moral responsibiliy is to only take life for the sake of life. If you eat an animal, whether necessary or not, you are doing it to perpetuate your own life and it is therefore morally acceptable. Life is selfish, you can't blame an individual for placing a greater importance on the lives of his own species. Murderous rage involves slaughtering your fellow humans, which takes life without giving life in return. It is therefore morally reprehensible.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I can represent that argument another way: "Humans count for more morally compared to animals" How come? "Because we said so" and why is that? "Because we're human". It's tautological. Notice I can substitute 'whites' instead of 'humans' and blacks/asians/indians/martians for 'animals' and the argument is still as fallacious.

That might work if my response what "because I said so."

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Now I'm not saying that if it came down to a human being or a hedgehog being run over by a truck I'd arbitrarily save either and that would be fine, of course I'd save the human first. But I would be morally bound to attempt to save both if it were possible.

There is a key distinction to be made in this example and the issue of actually eating another animal. If you have no intention of eating this hedgehog, then of course you are obligated to save it as long as you don't endager yourself. If I could easily and safely save both the hedgehog and the human, then there is no moral dispute about whether I should save the hedgehog or watch it die.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

One possible reply I could give to why I would choose the human over the hedgehog would be one pertaining to the degree of total suffering that could be avoided by my action. The game of morality is like golf - lowest score wins. One dead hedgehog will certainly be bad for it, and if its a female probably bad for its young in its nest if it has any. But that's where it ends. The suffering caused by a dead human on the other hand involves family, friends, work colleagues. By choosing to save the human first, you alleviate more suffering in the future-world. This doesn't mean that you're biased in favour of your own species, it only demonstrates that you can do math.

You are free to operate that way if you place a greater importance on mechanical philosophy than your innate emotions and drives. I would always place a greater significance on human life (assuming I had no emotional attachment to either the animal or the human.) I don't think real moral responsibility involves any sort of superficial calculations.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

For how long do you suppose a supermarket will continue to order 300 chickens per day instead of 295 if it's consistently throwing 5 in the bin day after day? While it is more likely they would just mark down the ones left at the end of the night, businesses don't enjoy marking down products to sell; less profit. It's more business savvy (and less hassle) to simply order less tomorrow.

I don't think it's quite so simple. The number of chickens they sell everyday fluctuates, Im sure. Overall, the demand will remain steady unless a very significant number of people in the community turn vegetarian.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

In the short term, this isn't about stopping supermarkets from ordering dead birds and mammals to sell at the deli counter. I really don't think that's going to happen for at least a century or two. The short term goal is to get enough people upset at the idea of a sentient creature suffering in horrible conditions before it was inhumanely slaughtered for their dinner, so that there is enough public support to encourage the meat industry to return to more humane animal husbandry. Whether by their own accord (doubtful) or by the decree of politicians (more likely and has already been successful everywhere except the US).

So is it the act of eating animals that upsets you or the treatment of the animals before they are slaughtered? Would you be ok with eating meat if you were ensured that all suffering was eliminated?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

So is it the act of eating animals that upsets you or the treatment of the animals before they are slaughtered? Would you be ok with eating meat if you were ensured that all suffering was eliminated?

Primarily the latter, but the former does factor in also. The state of current factory farming is detestably ghoulish by any standard, nobody sufficiently versed in the facts of it could conscionable claim otherwise. If all suffering was eliminated before the animal was painlessly slaughtered I could see that as a reasonable step in the right direction, however I would still not eat meat for the reasons I've already outlined. And if this were the case, meat would be as expensive now, comparatively, as it was in the 1950's. It would take far longer to rear an animal to market weight if it were allowed to roam and graze as they are meant to. That means more feed, more water, more man-power wages per animal. The fast food industry would likely have to double it's prices (at least) to keep the same profit margin, at which point it would be just too expensive to buy on a regular basis. Who is going to pay $20 for a subway footlong sandwich? Ignoring the economic costs, this would make significant inroads to fixing Australia and America's health care problem of the obesity epidemic.

As for the act of eating animals, I find no good reason for me to take a life that need not be taken simply for the sake of my taste buds when it's perfectly possible for me to live a healthy, long life without doing so. Live and let live. Bare in mind, this is to say nothing of the health benefits, environmental benefits and dollar incentives that I've already outlined in previous pages.

And since no one else picked up on it I suppose I'll take this opportunity to correct myself:

Originally Posted by Alextanium

And as far as the climate goes, the meat industry accounts for 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions, due to cow farts basically (methane is ~150x better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide). That's more than cars, trains, boats and planes combined.

I was incorrect, methane is 23 times better at trapping atmospheric heat than carbon dioxide, not 150. However nitrous oxide - another cow effluent component - is roughly 298x better than carbon dioxide.

As for the act of eating animals, I find no good reason for me to take a life that need not be taken simply for the sake of my taste buds when it's perfectly possible for me to live a healthy, long life without doing so. Live and let live. Bare in mind, this is to say nothing of the health benefits, environmental benefits and dollar incentives that I've already outlined in previous pages.

I eat them to relieve them of their terrible living conditions. I put them out of their misery, as it were. It's a tough job, supposedly shortening my own life span and pocket book to help the animals. What can I say? I guess I'm a martyr.

I like meat. I like plants. I like nuts and grains and fruits. I like an omnivorous diet (it should be noted that the OP used the term 'carnivore' wrong. We're not carnivores, meat is not the sole food in our diet. We're omnivores like... raccoons).
I don't like the treatment animals get in your common meat factory.

My solution? My family only buys organic, free range eggs and chicken from local farms. We buy locally grown veggies as often as possible, too. All other meat we buy is from farms where animals are ethically treated. Buying locally tastes better, anyways. If it's not local, we at least try to make sure we know where the meat came from.

My dad's the inventory manager at a big time restaurant here and he's been changing where they get their meat from, making sure it's all ethically treated and free range and all that jazz. So that's good, too.

Just my two cents.

Because I enjoy ingesting animal flesh.

Originally Posted by Moose

I like meat. I like plants. I like nuts and grains and fruits. I like an omnivorous diet (it should be noted that the OP used the term 'carnivore' wrong. We're not carnivores, meat is not the sole food in our diet. We're omnivores like... raccoons).
I don't like the treatment animals get in your common meat factory.

My solution? My family only buys organic, free range eggs and chicken from local farms. We buy locally grown veggies as often as possible, too. All other meat we buy is from farms where animals are ethically treated. Buying locally tastes better, anyways. If it's not local, we at least try to make sure we know where the meat came from.

My dad's the inventory manager at a big time restaurant here and he's been changing where they get their meat from, making sure it's all ethically treated and free range and all that jazz. So that's good, too.

Just my two cents.

This is excellent, honestly this is what I'm hoping to see more of. The only thing I'll say though is that 'free range' isn't always what we think it means. Both the Australian and the US agricultural administration bodies define free range as the chickens having access to an outside area. That's it. Doesn't specify how big it is, or how cramped their indoor conditions might be, or whether there is grass out there. Now if you're getting yours from a local farm I could see that being different, truly free range. Everyone else however needs to be aware that when they buy free range from their supermarket the laying hens aren't in much better conditions than their barn raised brethren. Only eggs labeled 'organic' are cruelty-free.

Yeah, we make sure to get eggs and chickens that are both organic and free range. They live on open pastures and live happy little chicken lives and become naturally plump, juicy, healthy slabs of meat to put on my sandwich. The circle of life continues peacefully~