Thread: Moral discussion: Why do you eat animals?

Originally Posted by really

Both suffering and dying is good in terms of Karma. Karma is "payed off" as such. That is how it is good for the animals. And it isn't exactly a terrible thing if, without human's eating meat/animal products, animals would probably cease to exist a lot faster. In such a way the lower "animal" life is seen to be giving it's life to higher forms. Not by choice, by Karma.

Why does it seem that all anthropocentric views stem from religion? I know its not true but it seems that way.

What you said is basically that suffering serves a dual purpose of being good (in a Karmic sense) for the animal, and of filling our bellies. It is not the principle of Karma that suffering is good. Suffering is inevitable. There is no dual-purpose that it serves. Suffering is inevitable for the animal and it fills our bellies. Don't try to justify the causation of suffering as being a "good" thing with spiritual concepts, as this only leads to tragedy. Simply acknowledge the inevitability of it.

Originally Posted by really

Karma isn't a practice, it's a spiritual law. It doesn't matter who's vegetarian or what religion. Everything is part of Karma.

Karma is not a spiritual law, it is a practice. This is not to de-legitimize it. It is the practice of making it true by believing in it. One can choose to not practice Karma simply by not believing it, in which case it holds no sway over them. Therefore it is not a law.

I am skeptical that you can even take Karma out of context of Hinduism. It doesn't work like that. Either you are Hindu or you don't practice Karma.

Originally Posted by really

Harming animals for its own sake is a different matter than raising animals to feed a country. It is not a twisted justification; I am sure the typical farmers out there have different motives in life than to worry about animal's Karma.

I don't agree that harming animals for its own sake is a different matter than raising animals to feed a country. The two are intertwined. It must be acknowledged that "typical farmers" don't feed a population on the country level. Country-level farmers are not fundamentally the same as local-level farmers. (Lots of people get their food from local sources. I don't so much, but I applaud those who do.) There are important differences. Everything is magnified by country-level farming, including emotional detachment from the animals. As emotional detachment increases, the things the farmer is willing to do to the animals to reap the material resources of their bodies trends towards more and more suffering caused to the animals. At some point, a line is crossed that is unacceptable to anyone who has every experienced emotional attachment to any animal (to limit your empathy to a particular "pet" species is completely irrational. My sister does that shit. Oh guess where she gets her idea from.... the Bible.)

Originally Posted by really

The twisted justification is in saying that we are "harming animals". What is the whole purpose of it all? Sit back and look at it.

The purpose of it all is pleasure, not necessity. The assumption that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate...." directly leads to the conclusion that eating animal products is, in most cases, a trivial luxury we indulge in (genuine need is still genuine need). The majority of us in our culture eat meat for pleasure (augmented by psychological dependency), not need. Therefore, all suffering caused by its production is on us, no matter if our source is local or national.

If you can live with that, I have no judgment to lay on you. I personally can live with a bit of suffering for a bit of pleasure on my part. I still like to go fishing. But factory-farmed and commercially-fished meat blows past my level of acceptability by miles.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

The purpose of it all is pleasure, not necessity. The assumption that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate...." directly leads to the conclusion that eating animal products is, in most cases, a trivial luxury we indulge in (genuine need is still genuine need). The majority of us in our culture eat meat for pleasure, not need. Therefore, all suffering caused by its production is on us, no matter if our source is local or national.

So if I could work out a workable diet that didn't use any fruits, fruits would be a trivial luxury.

Originally Posted by Supernova

So if I could work out a workable diet that didn't use any fruits, fruits would be a trivial luxury.

yep, by the definition I'm using it would. And all suffering caused by cultivating the fruit would be on you, if you chose to indulge in them. (I don't mean that completely as a joke because humans are abused in crop agriculture all over the world). But plant food seems to be much more indispensable to human health than animal food. I have heard of cultures that survive on only meat, I think Inuit do.

Psychological dependency undermines the view of eating particular foods as being a 'trivial luxury'. But where would we be if we were totally incapable of breaking the bonds of psychological dependencies?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I have heard of cultures that survive on only meat, I think Inuit do.

All I'm saying is that, if appropriately planned meat-only diets are nutritionally adequate, that would then imply by your argument that non-meat foods are a luxury because they are not needed to be healthy. However it would maintain your argument that, because vegetarian diets are feasible, meats are a luxury. However, we can't say, of course, that all foods are an unnecessary luxury.

Originally Posted by Supernova

However, we can't say, of course, that all foods are an unnecessary luxury.

But we can say that any food is a luxury in the presence of a substitute that meets the same nutritional criteria and is produced with less suffering. The Inuit have no substitute that meets the same nutritional criteria because plants don't grow in the Arctic, so it's not a "planned" meat-only diet.

I believe that humans are a predator species by evolution.

But this is not predator behavior:



and this is not predator behavior:



What these have in common: less likely to come from local sources, more likely to come from national sources.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

But we can say that any food is a luxury in the presence of a substitute that meets the same nutritional criteria and is produced with less suffering.

That hit it. So the key to the whole situation is the amount of suffering produced in making the food.

I don't disagree with you BTW, I'm just taking up a contrary position.

More on that subject later, though; I have to get to work.

Originally Posted by Supernova

I'm just taking up a contrary position.

and I love you for it
this is always good for me to do. Good job by the way.

Looking at your post above, I'm just curious, howw would you feel if, say, I lived in a cabin in the woods, and I trapped and/or hunted for much of my food?

i dont know if the thread went off topic or not, so im answering the topic title.

if most animals eat animals, why shouldnt i if im an animal?

Originally Posted by Supernova

Looking at your post above, I'm just curious, howw would you feel if, say, I lived in a cabin in the woods, and I trapped and/or hunted for much of my food?

I'd personally feel that my life was somewhat shallow and empty in comparison to yours in some respect (but probably not a particularly social respect).

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I'd personally feel that my life was somewhat shallow and empty in comparison to yours in some respect (but probably not a particularly social respect).

I suppose there is certainly something to be said for living outside of society.

I get what you're saying, though. I'm not so sure buying food in a store counts as predatory behavior

Originally Posted by Solarflare

i dont know if the thread went off topic or not, so im answering the topic title.

if most animals eat animals, why shouldnt i if im an animal?

Because you are a human. Humans act ethically to try to create a more harmonious and less brutal society and world. Well some humans do....

I'd also like to see some proof that "most" animals eat meat. I'd say there is most likely about an even number of herbivores and carnivores in the animal kingdom. Either way, only mediocre minds are content with following the crowd.

Originally Posted by Solarflare

i dont know if the thread went off topic or not, so im answering the topic title.

if most animals eat animals, why shouldnt i if im an animal?

I feel like this thread has only gone in circles. It is immoral to eat animals because it causes them suffering, therefore, it is "wrong".

Personally, I love eating meat. We're all animals, and you're going to have to step on others to have it good in life. If it means causing other organisms suffering, so be it. I have no obligation to be moral.

It's not that the conversation is going in circles... Solarflare just didn't bother to read it all and simply answered the OP. If you actually follow the conversation it gets a lot deeper than that.

It is immoral to eat animals because it causes them suffering, therefore, it is "wrong".

An oversimplification. Eating animals in itself doesn't cause them needless suffering - eventually all animals die and most will suffer to some extent before they do. It's the way they Live in factory farms that makes their entire lives nothing but suffering that's really at issue here.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'd also like to see some proof that "most" animals eat meat. I'd say there is most likely about an even number of herbivores and carnivores in the animal kingdom. Either way, only mediocre minds are content with following the crowd.

sorry my bad, many animals

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

An oversimplification. Eating animals in itself doesn't cause them needless suffering - ...

Lol, obviously. I would have thought that went without saying. Guess not.

Anyway, I keep seeing re-iterations of old points, which is why I said this thread was going in circles. The moral issue seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Ok, my bad. Just didn't realize quite how you meant it.

Hey I see what you did there...

Somebody collected together a lot of arguments against vegetarianism and presented them contemptuously so they all sound ridiculous. See, it's a defensive tactic designed so that any time somebody presents one of those arguments all they have to do is point to their little bingo board and say "Look, see... already got that one covered!"

Nifty!

***EDIT***

I don't really know where I stand on the whole issue. At this time I happily consume meat without even thinking about suffering animals. I'm not saying it's right or trying to justify it. I HATE the fact that animals live out their miserable lives in pens not large enough for them to move around in, wallowing in their own shit, just to be fattened up and slaughtered so I can enjoy their flesh. But it's remote enough from my everyday experience that I don't think about it except when - well, when I see this thread or something similar.

The only reason I posted my little rant above was because I couldn't help groaning when I saw the last post. Evolventity, nothing against you - if you're a vegetarian I respect that, but I can't respect that tactic. I don't think a sign like that has any place in a serious and respectful conversation on the subject - it's more the kind of thing vegetarians would wear on a shirt or flash around at victory rallies or something. It's a way of trying to shut out all those arguments before they're even voiced, by making the other person feel stupid. "Oh crap! They're on to me! Look, my argument, and the next one I was going to use, are already printed there on the board!! What do I do now?"

But seriously, the only way it would be accepted in a real conversation would be if you can flip it over and find real, well-reasoned answers to each argument. And it would also help if the wording wasn't so contemptuous. Of course then it wouldn't be so FUNNY though, right? Sorry, but that's the kind of reasoning that turns a discussion into nothing but an argument.. belittling your opponent's points and making them into jokes. So I felt the need to do the same to the little bingo board.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Why does it seem that all anthropocentric views stem from religion? I know its not true but it seems that way.

What you said is basically that suffering serves a dual purpose of being good (in a Karmic sense) for the animal, and of filling our bellies. It is not the principle of Karma that suffering is good. Suffering is inevitable. There is no dual-purpose that it serves. Suffering is inevitable for the animal and it fills our bellies. Don't try to justify the causation of suffering as being a "good" thing with spiritual concepts, as this only leads to tragedy. Simply acknowledge the inevitability of it.

Suffering has no purpose on our part; there is no dual purpose. It is irrelevant if the animal suffers to us, particularly to those who eat meat. Of course it is tried to be minimized or "humane", but that is not directly related to eating meat at all. What I am saying is that animals are a Karmic source to feed the greater beings on the planet and in some cases cloth them. Their suffering does not feed people; their meat feeds people.

What of the inevitability of suffering? I don't get the point.

Karma is not a spiritual law, it is a practice. This is not to de-legitimize it. It is the practice of making it true by believing in it. One can choose to not practice Karma simply by not believing it, in which case it holds no sway over them. Therefore it is not a law.

I am skeptical that you can even take Karma out of context of Hinduism. It doesn't work like that. Either you are Hindu or you don't practice Karma.

Many spiritual people hold it as a general law, particularly mystics - who tend to be non-religious. You can see Karma in other religions; what do you think heavens and hells are about? It doesn't need to be explicitly stated in a text to exist as a dominant truth; believe it or not.

I don't agree that harming animals for its own sake is a different matter than raising animals to feed a country. The two are intertwined. It must be acknowledged that "typical farmers" don't feed a population on the country level. Country-level farmers are not fundamentally the same as local-level farmers. (Lots of people get their food from local sources. I don't so much, but I applaud those who do.) There are important differences. Everything is magnified by country-level farming, including emotional detachment from the animals. As emotional detachment increases, the things the farmer is willing to do to the animals to reap the material resources of their bodies trends towards more and more suffering caused to the animals. At some point, a line is crossed that is unacceptable to anyone who has every experienced emotional attachment to any animal (to limit your empathy to a particular "pet" species is completely irrational. My sister does that shit. Oh guess where she gets her idea from.... the Bible.)

Harming/killing animals for its own sake; i.e. no genuine purpose = animal cruelty.
is different from
"Harming/slaughtering animals" for meat = butchery

Flying a plane for its own sake = for fun
is different from
Flying a plane for transportation = to transport passengers

The purpose of it all is pleasure, not necessity. The assumption that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate...." directly leads to the conclusion that eating animal products is, in most cases, a trivial luxury we indulge in (genuine need is still genuine need). The majority of us in our culture eat meat for pleasure (augmented by psychological dependency), not need. Therefore, all suffering caused by its production is on us, no matter if our source is local or national.

Actually, it may appear to be pleasure if one takes a study on what food is necessary, but originally people are eating meat because they already believe it is necessary. The average person doesn't eat food because of what some nutritionist said about it, so to them, meat is both a pleasure and instinctively necessary. That's why we eat meat. When I eat meat, I am not choosing to because it will be nice, I choose to because it is food and I need to eat, and because I am fulfilling my needs it is automatically nice. I do not even need to over-evaluate that it was once an animal living and breathing - that makes no difference in the big picture. When I eat it, it is not living and breathing. It's what it means to you. I am not choosing to eat animals, I am choosing to eat meat. There are 7 billion people in this world and we are the top of the food chain in some sense. That is how you see it is all Karma and evolution.

Originally Posted by MindGames

I feel like this thread has only gone in circles. It is immoral to eat animals because it causes them suffering, therefore, it is "wrong".

Is it wrong to raise animals, then?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'd also like to see some proof that "most" animals eat meat. I'd say there is most likely about an even number of herbivores and carnivores in the animal kingdom. Either way, only mediocre minds are content with following the crowd.

I'd like to see some proof that "only" mediocre minds are content with following the crowd.

Ok wait -

So your whole argument is basically that humans are the superior species, and it's our right to do whatever we want to those pesky animals? Raising them and fattening them and butchering them aren't that bad IMO, but when they're raised in pens hardly any larger than their own bodies and forced to wallow in their own shit all their lives that's getting into what I consider "unnecessary suffering". It's torture really. Lifelong torture. And there's nothing necessary about it... it's all in the name of efficiency, so the corporations can fit more animals into less space and fatten them and butcher them more easily, saving themselves money in the process.

And if you believe in Karma, then wouldn't it be fitting for humans to be treated that way since we've been doing it to the animals?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Hey I see what you did there.........(etc)

haha. I agree but I have to come clean, I posted that exact same pic already, maybe 2 or 3 pages back. However, if you go look, I included a caveat that it was a parody and I had no desire to shut down any conversations. That being said, I think it gets to be a pretty legitimate sentiment after a while. (I used to do this exact same thread on another forum.) Basically, this:

Originally Posted by MindGames

I feel like this thread has only gone in circles.

And I can go down the list of each block on that bingo board because I've been at it on this issue with people for long enough. This forum is bad but people in real life are so much worse. It really does start to feel more like defensive emotional argument whack-a-mole after a while.

(edit: I am sensitive to the possibility that it might be *me* who is hard headed, which would cause the same frustrating effect. But try me and find out, hahaha!)

And of course I can't blow it all off like I should. I'm too bothered by it. I have to address these random repetitions of old arguments when and where I see them. Especially certain basic ones that just don't fly, but don't seem to die.

Originally Posted by really

Actually, it may appear to be pleasure if one takes a study on what food is necessary, but originally people are eating meat because they already believe it is necessary. The average person doesn't eat food because of what some nutritionist said about it, so to them, meat is both a pleasure and instinctively necessary. That's why we eat meat. When I eat meat, I am not choosing to because it will be nice, I choose to because it is food and I need to eat, and because I am fulfilling my needs it is automatically nice. I do not even need to over-evaluate that it was once an animal living and breathing - that makes no difference in the big picture. When I eat it, it is not living and breathing. It's what it means to you. I am not choosing to eat animals, I am choosing to eat meat. There are 7 billion people in this world and we are the top of the food chain in some sense. That is how you see it is all Karma and evolution.

^like this^

It also may appear to be pleasure when one goes a number of years without eating meat only to find their health has improved. Also, that link is not 'just' a study. That's the position paper of the American Dietetic Association. So, it's the composite of all the research considered relevant to practicing professional dietitians.

The fact that you're still using the word 'need' tells me that you didn't consider a single word I wrote in response to you. And of course it is not living and breathing when you eat it because you paid someone to kill it for you. You win defensive omnivore bingo.

Originally Posted by MindGames

Personally, I love eating meat. We're all animals, and you're going to have to step on others to have it good in life. If it means causing other organisms suffering, so be it. I have no obligation to be moral.

This is honestly one of the few arguments I respect on the subject because I don't consider it answered to my satisfaction. There are a few other grey areas, mostly concerning subsistence hunting, local business, etc (basically anything not having to do with factory farming, which doesn't seem defensible from what I've seen). I don't have an obligation to be moral either so I make an effort not to take that route against others.

And really, I think I can pin down the problem better than that. It's not that you have no obligation to be moral, or to meet the moral expectations of random people. I think it's just that at this point, the whole discussion of diet gets eclipsed by the larger issue of anthropocentricism vs biocentricism. That's another discussion.