40 replies to this topic

[sarahlouise]

Daedalus, on Jul 18, 2011 - 14:21, said:

sarahlouise, on Jul 18, 2011 - 13:33, said:

I don't see whether or not you eat meat as an ethical issue really. We are omnivores, so fulfilling or omnivoric (or whatever you call them) tendencies doesn't seem to me to be unethical. I find it unethical however when animals are raised in cruel conditions, in factory farms, for instance, and mass-bred to live awful lives, and then killed inhumanely.

In truth, in buying meat from the butcher or supermarket, wherever you buy it from, the animal is clearly already dead, and not eating it isn't going to bring it back to life; if you don't eat it, someone else will. And while sure, being a vegetarian decreases the demand for meat, it doesn't do it on such a scale that is effective, or that makes a difference.

If I went to a restaurant where they had an animal running around in a pen or something, and it was on the menu, to be killed there for you to eat it, I would sure as hell not order that piece of meat, because I AM sentencing it to death. But considering the meat is already dead, and also that it's really a significant part of the human diet, I don't think myself unethical for eating meat.

Fallacious argument ... i.e. if people were keeping slaves, and you were at a slave market, and you knew people would buy these slaves so your own actions would make little difference to them, would you be justified in buying them? This is counterargument #1 -- other people's unethical behavior doesn't justify your own.

When you buy meat coming from an animal that was treated badly, you're subsidizing - and hence encouraging - this behavior. That won't make the past better, but it might lessen how much worse the future gets. Imagine if the large section of India's population that is currently (effectively) vegetarian began to eat meat... Counterargument #2 is your actions do make a difference, and if everyone justifies their actions by your theory, the status quo is maintained, whereas the accumulation of small decisions can make very large changes.

Might be worth reading Thoreau's On Civil Disobedience btw. Not always convincing, but treats a similar issue, and he makes some very good points.

Ok very true, it was quite a terrible argument (I was tired at the time). But not to make excuses.
I do stand by that we are omnivores, so to eat some meat is not a terrible thing.
However I certainly agree, that eating meat from an animal that has been kept in cruel conditions does encourage that behaviour.
I detest animals being treated badly. When I found out about our (Australia's) cattle trade to Indonesia, where animals were being grossly and gruesomely mistreated, I felt sick.
All I was saying was that I don't think it's 'unethical' to eat meat in general. We are omnivores. I agree though, as I said before, that it is unethical to eat meat when the animal has been mistreated when alive.

[Keel]

sarahlouise, on Jul 19, 2011 - 07:36, said:

Daedalus, on Jul 18, 2011 - 14:21, said:

sarahlouise, on Jul 18, 2011 - 13:33, said:

I don't see whether or not you eat meat as an ethical issue really. We are omnivores, so fulfilling or omnivoric (or whatever you call them) tendencies doesn't seem to me to be unethical. I find it unethical however when animals are raised in cruel conditions, in factory farms, for instance, and mass-bred to live awful lives, and then killed inhumanely.

In truth, in buying meat from the butcher or supermarket, wherever you buy it from, the animal is clearly already dead, and not eating it isn't going to bring it back to life; if you don't eat it, someone else will. And while sure, being a vegetarian decreases the demand for meat, it doesn't do it on such a scale that is effective, or that makes a difference.

If I went to a restaurant where they had an animal running around in a pen or something, and it was on the menu, to be killed there for you to eat it, I would sure as hell not order that piece of meat, because I AM sentencing it to death. But considering the meat is already dead, and also that it's really a significant part of the human diet, I don't think myself unethical for eating meat.

Fallacious argument ... i.e. if people were keeping slaves, and you were at a slave market, and you knew people would buy these slaves so your own actions would make little difference to them, would you be justified in buying them? This is counterargument #1 -- other people's unethical behavior doesn't justify your own.

When you buy meat coming from an animal that was treated badly, you're subsidizing - and hence encouraging - this behavior. That won't make the past better, but it might lessen how much worse the future gets. Imagine if the large section of India's population that is currently (effectively) vegetarian began to eat meat... Counterargument #2 is your actions do make a difference, and if everyone justifies their actions by your theory, the status quo is maintained, whereas the accumulation of small decisions can make very large changes.

Might be worth reading Thoreau's On Civil Disobedience btw. Not always convincing, but treats a similar issue, and he makes some very good points.

Ok very true, it was quite a terrible argument (I was tired at the time). But not to make excuses.
I do stand by that we are omnivores, so to eat some meat is not a terrible thing.
However I certainly agree, that eating meat from an animal that has been kept in cruel conditions does encourage that behaviour.
I detest animals being treated badly. When I found out about our (Australia's) cattle trade to Indonesia, where animals were being grossly and gruesomely mistreated, I felt sick.
All I was saying was that I don't think it's 'unethical' to eat meat in general. We are omnivores. I agree though, as I said before, that it is unethical to eat meat when the animal has been mistreated when alive.

The argument you put forward is similar to Drake's argument of evolution. Just because we are omnivores now does not justify the consumption of meat. As Daedalus pointed out, if the populations of Southern Asia and Africa started to consume meat at the rate of an average person in 'the West' (who you would describe as an omnivore), there would simply be not enough meat to go around globally. As the global population increases, I think the consumption of meat not only tests our ethics but also our ability to plan ahead to reach sustainable consumption levels. As I have stated previously, the diet of an animal relies on its habitat. We have almost reached the maximum utility level of our habitat. As rational and beings, can we not see the day when meat becomes a 'luxury good' rather than a 'necessity'? Should we not be making an early move towards lower meat consumption levels?

You must also bear in mind that animal cruelty is a direct result of the increase in demand for meat (and food) due to an increase in the global population. From an industrialist's point of view, I think that a chicken battery farm is a perfect design and a good thing. It's cheap, efficient, doesn't require a vast amount of resources to run and it has a high turn-over rate. Where's the problem? It's deemed 'unethical'. Do you not see the dilemma? On one hand we have an increasing in demand for meat, on the other hand we are labeling the most efficient methods of meat production 'unethical'. What is the result? A few posters suggested only purchasing products that guarantee 'humane' methods for raising and slaughtering animals for consumption as a solution. Ignoring whether such methods can ever exist without distorting the definition of 'humane', this in fact acts as a subsidy to producers who are inefficient and have a lower comparative advantage than say a chicken battery farm. Let us assume that such a subsidy increases the number of producers, we would still need more factors of production to run these farms as they are less efficient. Higher meat prices, same quantity of meat produced. The people who support such a subsidy indirectly support a 'meat for the rich' scenario.

So, should we say that the consumption of meat is justifiable because it is natural to consume meat and thus it is a necessity which all should have access to (supporting what is effectively deemed ‘cruelty’ towards animals)? Or should we say that we should only consume meat if it is 'humanly' produced and accept a system where only the rich can afford it (which is certainly the emerging situation)?

[Trololol Marf]

Monks (well, at least, Chinese monks, [I think O.o]) are dedicated not to kill and are pure vegetarians (at least dedicated ones). As Confucius used to say, "What you don't want to happen to yourself, do not do to others." Animals are very alike to humans in a variety of ways. They can feel pain, and they have feelings! I think some of you guys are taking for granted that it is natural for humans to be able to eat meat, and therefore it is ethical. But is what is natural necessarily ethical? Humans (IMO) are the cruelest beings known to existence. Is being selfish ethical? O.o

[TurtleR]

I understand why some people would believe it's unethical to consume meat, but what I don't understand is why some people say that we shouldn't value human lives over animal lives.

The reason we value human lives, and the reason there are such big consequences for murder against a human being, is because we are human. In the animal world, cannibalism doesn't take place very often either. You don't see cows eating other cows, so why would humans eat other humans? We obviously place more value on a human life, which also explains why we place less value on animal lives. You don't see lions eating other lions. In fact, interesting thing is that lions may eat their lion cubs ONLY if food is scarce. Humans have been known to do the same thing, indulging in cannibalism if food is scarce.

I agree that many times animals are NOT treat ethically at all. But that doesn't mean that every person that eats meat is suddenly unethical. People may say it's "ignorant" to not research every possibly fact about where our meat comes from and how the animals were treated, but I personally think its also ignorant to assume that every person is capable of being a vegetarian. Some people may actually NEED meat in order to survive. People have been known to get sick on vegetarian diets while being fine on non-vegetarian diets. You can't research everything on something you yourself are interested in, and then expect to be some "authority" that decides whether or not a topic is ethical or not. Meat is one of these examples. If you believe its ethical to eat it, go ahead. If not, don't.

[Trololol Marf]

TurtleR, on Aug 21, 2011 - 19:02, said:

I understand why some people would believe it's unethical to consume meat, but what I don't understand is why some people say that we shouldn't value human lives over animal lives.

The reason we value human lives, and the reason there are such big consequences for murder against a human being, is because we are human. In the animal world, cannibalism doesn't take place very often either. You don't see cows eating other cows, so why would humans eat other humans? We obviously place more value on a human life, which also explains why we place less value on animal lives. You don't see lions eating other lions. In fact, interesting thing is that lions may eat their lion cubs ONLY if food is scarce. Humans have been known to do the same thing, indulging in cannibalism if food is scarce.

I agree that many times animals are NOT treat ethically at all. But that doesn't mean that every person that eats meat is suddenly unethical. People may say it's "ignorant" to not research every possibly fact about where our meat comes from and how the animals were treated, but I personally think its also ignorant to assume that every person is capable of being a vegetarian. Some people may actually NEED meat in order to survive. People have been known to get sick on vegetarian diets while being fine on non-vegetarian diets. You can't research everything on something you yourself are interested in, and then expect to be some "authority" that decides whether or not a topic is ethical or not. Meat is one of these examples. If you believe its ethical to eat it, go ahead. If not, don't.

If you read Daedalus's argument, our general argument is that if people can don't have to eat meat and still eat it, it's unethical. If you need it, you have to eat it and that is within reason of our ethics.

[TurtleR]

Pickles, on Aug 21, 2011 - 21:02, said:

TurtleR, on Aug 21, 2011 - 19:02, said:

I understand why some people would believe it's unethical to consume meat, but what I don't understand is why some people say that we shouldn't value human lives over animal lives.

The reason we value human lives, and the reason there are such big consequences for murder against a human being, is because we are human. In the animal world, cannibalism doesn't take place very often either. You don't see cows eating other cows, so why would humans eat other humans? We obviously place more value on a human life, which also explains why we place less value on animal lives. You don't see lions eating other lions. In fact, interesting thing is that lions may eat their lion cubs ONLY if food is scarce. Humans have been known to do the same thing, indulging in cannibalism if food is scarce.

I agree that many times animals are NOT treat ethically at all. But that doesn't mean that every person that eats meat is suddenly unethical. People may say it's "ignorant" to not research every possibly fact about where our meat comes from and how the animals were treated, but I personally think its also ignorant to assume that every person is capable of being a vegetarian. Some people may actually NEED meat in order to survive. People have been known to get sick on vegetarian diets while being fine on non-vegetarian diets. You can't research everything on something you yourself are interested in, and then expect to be some "authority" that decides whether or not a topic is ethical or not. Meat is one of these examples. If you believe its ethical to eat it, go ahead. If not, don't.

If you read Daedalus's argument, our general argument is that if people can don't have to eat meat and still eat it, it's unethical. If you need it, you have to eat it and that is within reason of our ethics.

But now you have to debate what it means to "need" meat.

Does the family with low income "need" meat because it's a really cheap way to fill yourself up? Or do they simply need to get more money?
Does the person with multiple allergies "need" meat because they're allergic to many vegetarian alternatives? Or do they simply need to do a lot more research and travel much farther to get food they can eat while being vegetarian?
Does the person that is completely overworked and tired "need" meat because they don't have the time to eat at places with good vegetarian options? Or do they simply need to stop walking 1 min down to the nearest, non-veg restaurant?

Depending on your stance, any of the above arguements may or may not seem unethical. And for the record, I said I can understand why some people would BELIEVE that its unethical to eat meat. All I'm trying to say is to try and look at it from other perspectives.

[Trololol Marf]

TurtleR, on Aug 21, 2011 - 22:23, said:

Pickles, on Aug 21, 2011 - 21:02, said:

TurtleR, on Aug 21, 2011 - 19:02, said:

I understand why some people would believe it's unethical to consume meat, but what I don't understand is why some people say that we shouldn't value human lives over animal lives.

The reason we value human lives, and the reason there are such big consequences for murder against a human being, is because we are human. In the animal world, cannibalism doesn't take place very often either. You don't see cows eating other cows, so why would humans eat other humans? We obviously place more value on a human life, which also explains why we place less value on animal lives. You don't see lions eating other lions. In fact, interesting thing is that lions may eat their lion cubs ONLY if food is scarce. Humans have been known to do the same thing, indulging in cannibalism if food is scarce.

I agree that many times animals are NOT treat ethically at all. But that doesn't mean that every person that eats meat is suddenly unethical. People may say it's "ignorant" to not research every possibly fact about where our meat comes from and how the animals were treated, but I personally think its also ignorant to assume that every person is capable of being a vegetarian. Some people may actually NEED meat in order to survive. People have been known to get sick on vegetarian diets while being fine on non-vegetarian diets. You can't research everything on something you yourself are interested in, and then expect to be some "authority" that decides whether or not a topic is ethical or not. Meat is one of these examples. If you believe its ethical to eat it, go ahead. If not, don't.

If you read Daedalus's argument, our general argument is that if people can don't have to eat meat and still eat it, it's unethical. If you need it, you have to eat it and that is within reason of our ethics.

But now you have to debate what it means to "need" meat.

Does the family with low income "need" meat because it's a really cheap way to fill yourself up? Or do they simply need to get more money?
Does the person with multiple allergies "need" meat because they're allergic to many vegetarian alternatives? Or do they simply need to do a lot more research and travel much farther to get food they can eat while being vegetarian?
Does the person that is completely overworked and tired "need" meat because they don't have the time to eat at places with good vegetarian options? Or do they simply need to stop walking 1 min down to the nearest, non-veg restaurant?

Depending on your stance, any of the above arguements may or may not seem unethical. And for the record, I said I can understand why some people would BELIEVE that its unethical to eat meat. All I'm trying to say is to try and look at it from other perspectives.

I'm bringing this into a lot of threads. As far as I can tell all of this is still generalized. What your saying is valid, but the concept of need (put into debate) is subjective. I'd rather keep it simple, and say from a general consensus, if the person needs to have meat, and it is reasonable in ethics that they do need it, then it is ethical that they can have it. I really don't feel like arguing with you again, giving our 5 hour argument history on MSN... LOL
lets just leave it at that.

[Jaymi]

In my opinion, it is unethical to eat meat. We may need the nutrition yes, but we can gain the nutrition in so many other ways. Think about it, you see a living animal, think its cute blah blah blah, next thing you know it will end up on your dinner plate (not a very nice thought).

I used to eat chicken, then i realised, that eating this animal, which was only reared to be eaten by humans is not very fair. They still living beings who live amongst us, just because they cannot talk or defend themselves (most of the time) does not mean we should take advantage of this and kill them just for food. Remember the Dodo? Yea, thats what will happen if humans keep killing for food.

It is better that people should gradually stop eating meat, because its also a proven fact that too much meat can cause a lot of health problems (esp if one eats too much red meat). It is much healthier for people to stick to veggies and other nutrition, but not meat.

Thats my opinion on this matter. It is UNETHICAL to eat meat.

[Trololol Marf]

Jaymi, on Aug 22, 2011 - 14:42, said:

Remember the Dodo? Yea, thats what will happen if humans keep killing for food.

My math teacher told me dodos are extinct because they were really stupid loll

[Vanderlyle]

In my opinion eating meat is less about whether or not you do, but more how you go about doing it.
I doubt that it is healthy for people to be eating as much meat as we do. For those people who argue that it's only natural for us to eat meat as part of our diets this is a valid point. However, this doesn't mean you should be downing half a chicken each day.

There's all this hype about going vegetarian but I think someone who cuts right back on the meat and is conscious of where it comes from (Because the healthier the cow, the healthier the beef. I can't say a hormone-pumped steak is very good for you, no matter how many veggies you pile beside it.) should also be recognized as someone doing good.
The popularity with being vegetarian or vegan has turned it into an image. I know people who've gone vegetarian to try it out and lasted only a few weeks before returning to a meaty diet, this time eating more meat to compromise and being turned off the very idea of living without it again.

Bottom line, we shouldn't be promoting "Vegetarians good, Omnivores bad" but rather a healthy balance of veg and meat not only for the consumer, but for the environment and the animals as well.

[Keel]

Vanderlyle, on Aug 26, 2011 - 03:26, said:

In my opinion eating meat is less about whether or not you do, but more how you go about doing it.
I doubt that it is healthy for people to be eating as much meat as we do. For those people who argue that it's only natural for us to eat meat as part of our diets this is a valid point.

I take the opposite view and think that it is an invalid justification. I agree that it is a necessity to consume all 22 types of amino acids to maintain a healthy body but this does not translate to making the consumption of meat (which contains all types) a necessity. Again I put forward my view that it isn't right to justify the consumption of meat based on the fact that we are 'naturally' evolved omnivores; just because we have consumed meat as part of our diet in the past does not mean we should continue doing it at present and in the future, especially under the circumstances that the amino acids from meat can be substituted with the correct combination of vegetables.

[kim luffy]

Personally, i think it's wrong eating animals as well, i was finally allowed to be a vegetarian after asking for so long because my family didn't like the idea of it. Animals were not made for eating :/ I prefer eating vegetables because they taste better and are more healthier. But then people tell me 'oh but then you're taking the animals food' and stuff like that. I mean sometimes you have to step back and ask yourself, if i was that cow/goat getting slaughtered how would i feel? You have to sometimes think of the pain it goes through and everything. I don't think meat lovers would like it very much. My friends even bring religion into it and say 'oh but God made animals for us to eat'. I'm atheist so i don't really support that but to some extent i do, weird i know, but that's how i feel. But i personally think it's wrong.

Edited by kim luffy, Sep 19, 2011 - 16:51.

[heinous farm]

isn't eating meat a natural thing anyway, we've gone through millions of years of natural and cultural evolution to get to where we are and coinciding with that is a high protein diet. We eat meat because, along with vegetables, we get the nutrients that we need. Also compare the way cheetahs hunt down and kill their prey. Surely that's a far more stressful experience for the animal compared to modern abattoirs. Why don't vegetarians go complain to vicious hunters of the world...

[Jar Jar D'oh!]

Keel, on Aug 26, 2011 - 04:14, said:

Vanderlyle, on Aug 26, 2011 - 03:26, said:

In my opinion eating meat is less about whether or not you do, but more how you go about doing it.
I doubt that it is healthy for people to be eating as much meat as we do. For those people who argue that it's only natural for us to eat meat as part of our diets this is a valid point.

I take the opposite view and think that it is an invalid justification. I agree that it is a necessity to consume all 22 types of amino acids to maintain a healthy body but this does not translate to making the consumption of meat (which contains all types) a necessity. Again I put forward my view that it isn't right to justify the consumption of meat based on the fact that we are 'naturally' evolved omnivores; just because we have consumed meat as part of our diet in the past does not mean we should continue doing it at present and in the future, especially under the circumstances that the amino acids from meat can be substituted with the correct combination of vegetables.

TO the latter part of your argument. I think its easier to eat one pork chop than 5 vegetables to substitute it. Secondly, Meat is meat, the taste, texture  vegetable are an excuse for a substitute in that sense. I rest my case.

[GLaDOS]

The choice of vegetarianism lies mostly in your circumstances. I am a vegetarian, though most of my eating is vegan, but certainly understand that not everyone can or wants to be this way. My friend has a problem with digesting non-meat-based proteins, and I'm not going to stop her from eating meat and living a semi-healthy life. The problem lies in what we do to get the meat. All of the deforestation, hormones, and consumption of resources take a heavy toll on other gears in the system of life. Just think about how much vegetation goes toward feeding the meat! If we didn't have to feed all of the cows, chickens, and pigs, how much more food in general would humans have? As the population of the world increases, it may even become necessary to be vegetarian as it did in Among the Hidden.
Animal lives? It was my primary reason for going vegetarian. I do not want to deal with taking part in a system that, as a whole, I do not agree with the morals of. There's more to the equation. Animals have always been a very big part of my life and I live in a community that is extremely supportive of the lifestyle, so the choice was easy for me. Other people have their own agendas though, and I don't expect anyone to just convert because it's "Right" or "Humane". A couple of vegetarians are certainly not going to kill off an entire industry anyways.
The only thing I would like is that there were a bit more consciousness as to the repercussions of farming so much meat.

[URA BOAT]

human are animals...right? i am sure that it would be right to say we are on average the smartest animal. humans are on the top of the food chain. so why is it wrong for us to eat what we like.
looking at the nature we see different types of animals: carnivores, herbivorous, and omnivorous. we humans are omnivorous. it is only natural if we eat both plants and meat. i mean if you don't like the taste of meat and only eat plaints good for you. but when people say that is is unethical then that is were i will argue. i believe that God created animals for us humans to use as food. so why not even if it is for our pleasure. even if you don't believe in God...look at the a lion. will he go and eat grass just because he feels sorry for the zebra? no because that is that natural. or lets look at a bear, i will not stop hunting because the dear will feel pain when he will tare it apart. its a life cycle: you are born, you live, and then die. i seen the food inc. i will agree with you that it is unethical to treat animals that way and that is as far as i will go, but it is not right to even hint under any circumstance that i am unethical because i eat meat.

[Ezak]

I belive that god put people there so I could sacrifice them to him. because a divine being said this it must mean that it's not unethical.

[nanon]

I am, contrary to many people on this forum, of the opinon that it is unethical in our current society to eat meat (with notable exceptions, of course).

Firstly, there are many arguments that people have put up saying that it is 'natural' to eat meat, that we have evolved to eat meat, and that we are on top of the food chain. Why does this make it ethical? Just because something is natural, does not mean it is ethical, and vice versa. Furthermore, the fact that there are still living and healthy vegatarians out there means that it is possible to lead a healthy, meat-free life. We dont need meat to survive, so it is now somewhat of a luxury.

This luxury is at the expense of other creatures, so therefore I believe it to be unethical. (Note: I am talking about the cruely Western meat industry here, not traditional lifestyles or free-range farms).

However, there is an additional factor we need to consider. Vegetarianism helps to reduce the world's carbon emissions. Cattle account for a large percentage of the CO2 emissions, and if humans were to become vegetarian, this would eleviate some of the burden of the climate crisis. I believe that climate change has got to an issue where it is unethical for affluent nations NOT to take action  to prevent this from happening. However, because vegetarianism is only one way of helping this cause, I would not go so far as to label eating meat as 'unethical' purely because of its carbon emissions.

So in summary, I don't believe it is so much UNETHICAL to eat meat (contrary to what I may have previoulsy said ) but I believe that it is to bring about a lot of good, and a lot less suffering, to not eat meat. This doesn't mean that I am going to go around labelling all you meat eaters as unethical- I respect that people reach different conclusions on issues, so as long as people have their own logical reasons for eating meat, then go for it

See Peter Singer's arguments for Vegetarianism, he is an inspiration!

Edited by nanon, Jan 07, 2012 - 12:30.

[THE IBKID]

Why not starve? Plants have souls too...

[Edwina Wong]

Forgive me if my argument has some holes in it, I am open to criticism. Here it goes:

Currently I'm trying to cut meat out of my diet and in the end (hopefully) become a vegetarian. I have decided to do this even though many people dub as the human species as the dominant species and thus, justifies the consumption of eating meat because I would like to think that all life is sacred. The function of vegetation is as its name illustrates: the producer.  It produces food for us. Many would argue that because other animals are at the bottom of the food chain it gives us the right to eat them too. This is probably right but animals experience feelings, emotions, and pain as well. I don't like bearing the idea of exploiting them when we are in the position to do otherwise. We don't HAVE to eat meat, we choose to. We choose to put other organisms in pain for our pleasure. We CAN obtain protein elsewhere, but we choose not to. If vegetation was short on the earth and I would have absolutely no means to sustain vegetarianism, then I'd probably eat meat. But that is because I have no other option and I have to survive. We eat to survive. But seeing that we are in the position to cause less pain to another organism where other food resources are plentiful I don't see why we should eat meat.

That's just my take on it.