Is eating meat immoral?

[Pastor's Nightmare]

The Bible tells us that we can eat anything we want. At least the new testament does.

Without this justification, it's starting to seem more and more unethical to eat meat. I eat most thinks-chicken,pork, beef. On occasion fish and lamb. I've never been confronted with the more exotic stuff(whale, dolphin,monkey, dog); so, let's leave that out of the discussion.

I'm starting to feel mildly guilty every time I eat meat. Animals seem to display many of the qualities we do. Why is it ethical to eat meat? Does the existence of carnivores in nature make it right or at least morally justifiable to eat meat? This is almost like saying God says it's okay but different. What do other people think?

[premjan]

If an animal can feel distress at being killed for whatever purpose (whether for eating or not) then there is some slight ethical problem with harming it. OTOH herbivores left to themselves may not be smart enough to self limit their populations and may cause ecological destruction. So eating meat that was culled from an optimal wild population size is ethically more or less OK.

Then again this is an argument for culling and eating people perhaps.

[Godsquisher]

I don't believe that eating meat as it is currently produced (in America, at least) is ethical. I don't really have a problem with eating meat itself, but until we can produce food that is humane, environmentally sound, and less wasteful, I refuse to eat it.

Not only does it cause undue suffering to the animals, but there is vast ecological damage being done because of factory farms.

[premjan]

Not sure what is 'ecological damage' in the context of modern human agricultural practices really. Even organic agriculture is a form of ecological damage as it is a monoculture compared to the state of nature.

[PJPSYCO]

I am a chemotroph. I have to eat other living things to survive.

I have to eat plants or animals. The ussual arguments involve demoralizing plants (and possibly some animals - never addressed well), becuase they lack brains, and possible becuase they don't run away or make noises when you attack them (they do react to stimuli).

There are a lot of misconceptions with plants and animals as well. We try our best to use the whole animal, and the whole plant. It would not be cost effective not to. This is the most common misconception that the general public has of most things. Paper is made from trees that grow very quickly, otherwise they would not have a product. The reason you should try to use the whole paper, and recycle it is becuase you are generating waste, not the paper company. Wasted food works the same. Food manufacturing companies try to use as much of the living creature as they can. It your fault if you throw things away. I will say, however, that Americans may not consume the parts of the plant or animal, but they are shipped to places that do.

[Godsquisher]

Not sure what is 'ecological damage' in the context of modern human agricultural practices really. Even organic agriculture is a form of ecological damage as it is a monoculture compared to the state of nature.

I meant "ecological damage" in the sense that factory farms pollute the areas around them far more than is caused by more traditional agriculture. I'm not arguing that farming is different from nature and that nature is superior; I'm arguing that there are more humane, sustainable ways of growing food than what we're doing now.

People have been keeping chickens for a long time, but we've never forced them to live in the tens of thousands in one warehouse. To quote Eric Schlosser: "(Agriculture) has changed more in the past thirty years than it had in the past 30,000."

[djrafikie]

I'm a vegetarian. My cholesterol count is low (in a good way, not excessively) I'm slim and toned (with very little effort) and rarely catch colds.
I've been vege since I was seven (my choice) and have never suffered any kind of vitamin defeciency.
I refuse to eat meat in protest, factory farming is unethical, the animals excrete the huge amounts of hormones they are fed to make them grow faster into our water supply. In turn, their immune systems are impaired and they needs massive doses of antibiotics, which various ailments are becoming immune to....
The animals suffer needlessly.
In large scale farming, woodland is burnt to make way for cattle, cattle exhaust the soil they are grazing...
And I always try to eat organic.

[Perm]

Hasn't everything changed more in the past 30 years than in the past 30,000?

[jaded_revenge]

Vegetarians take advantage of the fact that plants can't run away.

[djrafikie]

Vegetarians take advantage of the fact that plants can't run away.

hahahaha!!!

I beg to differ..runner beans?

[Yggdrasill]

I think eating anything is to an extent morally wrong, but to continue to live, humans have to eat, so the best thing a human can try to do is limit how immoral they are in that respect. Some set the bar at plants, some set the bar at fruits and nuts, some set the bar at humans, but most people set the bar based on what they find to be an acceptable compromise with regards to suffering and intelligence. Myself included.

I would hesitate to eat meat I knew were inhumanely produced, but I have no qualms about eating whale and such. In fact, I had whale for dinner today. Whales live their lives free and happy, until they are killed relatively painlessly, this is better in my book than breeding animals that only suffer until we kill them. (Another factor is that whale meat costs 78 NOK/kg, which isn't very much.)

[Cobalt Blue]

I think eating anything is to an extent morally wrong, but to continue to live, humans have to eat, so the best thing a human can try to do is limit how immoral they are in that respect. Some set the bar at plants, some set the bar at fruits and nuts, some set the bar at humans, but most people set the bar based on what they find to be an acceptable compromise with regards to suffering and intelligence. Myself included.

I would hesitate to eat meat I knew were inhumanely produced, but I have no qualms about eating whale and such. In fact, I had whale for dinner today. Whales live their lives free and happy, until they are killed relatively painlessly, this is better in my book than breeding animals that only suffer until we kill them. (Another factor is that whale meat costs 78 NOK/kg, which isn't very much.)

I'm more than a bit confused by your first statement. Eating anything is morally wrong? Even organic material artificially produced in a lab? Why? What moral system are you operating under? I don't understand why someone would subscribe to moral system that makes one immoral (even if just slightly) simply for being alive.

[Streamwinner]

Vegetarians take advantage of the fact that plants can't run away.

BAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[EarlOfLade]

Meat is good... nuff said!

[Yggdrasill]

I'm more than a bit confused by your first statement. Eating anything is morally wrong? Even organic material artificially produced in a lab? Why?If nothing was harmed or killed, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it, but nothing in the world is currently produced without environmental costs. Everything kills animals, plants, insects, bacteria, etc.What moral system are you operating under? I don't understand why someone would subscribe to moral system that makes one immoral (even if just slightly) simply for being alive.The moral system is close to utilitarianism, and I don't choose to subscribe to the view, I simply believe it is right. Staying alive is a choice like any other, and it has consequences that you are ultimately responsible for.

[Cynic of Mammon]

Why is it ethical to eat meat? Does the existence of carnivores in nature make it right or at least morally justifiable to eat meat?

Yes, evolution has adapted us to eat meat: eating meat is why we have canines and incisors. Also, animals do exhibit the same characteristics as we, but they also eat meat (carnivores anyway), ergo it is natural to eat meat. Nothing natural can be unethical, surely?:huh:

[YHWH666]

Cynic of Mammon Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor's Nightmare
Why is it ethical to eat meat? Does the existence of carnivores in nature make it right or at least morally justifiable to eat meat?


Yes, evolution has adapted us to eat meat: eating meat is why we have canines and incisors. Also, animals do exhibit the same characteristics as we, but they also eat meat (carnivores anyway), ergo it is natural to eat meat. Nothing natural can be unethical, surely?

This is a common fallacy that comes up whenever we have this debate. That some thing is natrual does not imply that it is therefore ethical. It is kind of a variation of the "Is implies ought" fallacy.

from the II library:


The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature
The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

Another form of appeal to nature is to argue that because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is 'unnatural':

"Of course homosexuality is unnatural. When's the last time you saw two animals of the same sex mating?"

Robert Anton Wilson deals with this form of fallacy at length in his book " Natural Law." A recent example of "Appeal to Nature" taken to extremes is The Unabomber Manifesto.

[Christina Mirabilis]

I refuse to eat meat in protest...

Check out that old movie 'The Secret Life of Plants'. You'll feel guilty no matter what you eat after that ;)

[philoSOPHIA]

If nothing was harmed or killed, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it, but nothing in the world is currently produced without environmental costs. Everything kills animals, plants, insects, bacteria, etc.

The "death" of one lifeform promotes the "life" of another...That is simply how nature operates. Life recycles itself.
It is simply irrational to call the transfer of energy/nutrients "immoral".


Anyways, humans appear to be natural vegans. Many of us have adopted an ominivore diet, but this is not by instinct...it is a learned behavior. Indirectly obtaining nutrients through animal products is not only unhealthy...but also less efficient (economically, environmentally, etc.).

From these and many other points, I'm inclined to conclude that our meat-eating habits are immoral (unnatural, irrational and counterproductive to survival and happiness).
Consuming only plant foods would dramatically improve the quality of life on this plantet, and would therefore seem morally preferable by virtually anyone's moral system.

[Godsquisher]

Nothing natural can be unethical, surely?:huh:

Rape is natural, and it's a darn good strategy for spreading your genes far and wide. Murder is natural—animals do it all of the time (to eliminate a rival, especially).

Natural does not equal moral.

[philoSOPHIA]

This is a common fallacy that comes up whenever we have this debate. That some thing is natrual does not imply that it is therefore ethical. It is kind of a variation of the "Is implies ought" fallacy.

But the claim that a general, natural process (such as "eating") is unethical, seems to be an absurd or empty statement doesn't it? Isn't that a self-defeating principle to live by?

[CanoeMan]

The way I see it, a cow would eat me if it wanted to and had the ability to do so. I see no reason why I shouldn't return the favour.

I'm not kidding, by the way. If we encounter aliens, I see no problem with eating them either unless they agree to not eat us in return.

[Trout]

eating meat is immoral...probably.

But probably so it driving a gas powered car to work every day like a prostitute for something you don't always believe in wearing clothes made in third work sweat shops, sporting a haircut you would have hated 10 years ago and participating in the latest inane office chatter about "survivor" or some equally vacuious entertainment only to get yourself all tied in knots over the fact that your tie got a mark on it before the big presentation to immoral idiots you wouldn't normally invite into your house who also live lives you hate (but at the same time admire) and afterwards drowing your sorrows in a $7.65 coffee using beans grown by a person who can't feed their kids only to eventually make it home to lavish affection on a dog that would likely be just as happy if it were thrown a milk bone from a moving truck and couldn't probably give a rat's behind so long as "someone" they knew came home, finally to watch "news" that tells you nothing yet you are often temped to just accept out of tiredness, make dinner that while excellent, uses ingredients that contain so many things you feel like you've returned to latin class trying to read them, perhaps read a book on something "light" because while you long for the days of heavy topics, your computer screened eyes won't stand for anything much that particular day only to eventually fall into bed within your overpriced, lead painted, over consuming, un-energy efficient, undergardened, innapropriately situated, pressure treated wooden deck "enhanced", "less" than sustainable house that while you love in ways you also hate and when you finally sleep dream of minor trivialities instead of bigger things, wake up, remember your thoughts and principles yet taint them again because you need to make mortgage payments and so on, have a sub-grade cheap excuse for a north american coffee, again grown by third world farmers you used to believe you could help and get ready for the next fucking day!

yeah.....meat. Give me a fucking cheeseburger and let's move on.

[YHWH666]

But the claim that a general, natural process (such as "eating") is unethical, seems to be an absurd or empty statement doesn't it? Isn't that a self-defeating principle to live by?

I agree. To claim that eating is unethical is IMO quite absurd. However, this has nothing to do with whether or not eating is natural. Whether something is natural or not has no bearing upon it's morality.

For example:
Murder is a part of human nature. people have been doing it since the dawn of time. Before humans other animals killed one another for food, mates and other reasons. Taking another persons life is a perfectly natural act. It does not therefore follow that it is moral. Murder is still wrong regardless of how natural it is.


I would recomend reading about the Natural Law fallacy, you can find plenty of stuff about it online.

Here is an interesting snip about the Natural Law fallacy as it applies to this debate:




A person can also compare humans eating meat to the way in which other animals eat each other. The argument could go that lions eat zebras, but lions do not eat other lions. Since animals in general eat members of other species, the argument can continue, but do not eat members of their own species, why shouldn’t we emulate the practice? There are problems with this argument even if such a statement were true. I think it is important to point out, though, that this statement is not true. Cannibalism is quite common among animals. Lions eat other lions, bears eat other bears, and chimpanzees eat other chimpanzees. This is not necessarily the result of a food shortage. Such incidents occur even when there is a plentiful supply of food from other sources. In the case of lions, for example, a male lion sometimes eats the cubs of a female lion without a partner to protect her. The male lion does this because the female lion will not mate as long as she has cubs, but she will mate after the cubs are dead. For some species, cannibalism is extremely common. Approximately one fifth of the diet of a tiger salamander, for example, consists of other tiger salamanders.

But fundamentally, the problem with this argument is that it assumes that we should be basing our morality on the behavior of other animals. Other animals often engage in many activities, such as stealing food from members of their own species, which it would not be a good idea for humans to emulate. I bring this point up to illustrate that we should never attempt to justify an action by saying that other animals engage in it also.

But let us return to the issue of eating meat. A person can ask why we have an obligation to act better towards other animals than they do towards each other. The answer is that we have an obligation to act morally regardless of how others are behaving. Even if a small child, for example, does not behave morally towards others, we still have an obligation to act morally towards him. But a more serious objection can be raised. If a small child acts immorally, for example by unknowingly playing with a loaded gun, even though we still have an obligation to act morally towards him, we also attempt to stop him from engaging in such an activity. Should we, then, attempt to prevent lions from eating zebras?

Let us suppose that we have agreed that it is not immoral for a lion to eat a zebra. The question we are faced with is if there are any distinguishing characteristics between a lion eating meat and a human eating meat. One distinguishing characteristic is that the lion must eat meat or die. A lion can not decide to live on grain and vegetables. On the other hand, a vegetarian diet for humans is just as healthy, if not more, than a diet including meat. Lions eat meat to survive. Humans eat meat for the pleasure of tasting meat. This appears to be a valid distinction between humans eating meat and lions eating meat.

Another distinction is that other animals hunt their prey while humans, for the most part, raise there prey in captivity. This is important for several reasons. One is that it is essential for lions to hunt prey in order for an ecological balance to be maintained. If all lions suddenly stopped hunting, it would be extremely detrimental to many of the animals in the region, including the prey species itself. Most humans, however, do not have this excuse. This distinction is also important for other reasons. One, for example, is that it can be argued that raising prey in captivity often causes far more suffering to the prey than does hunting.

So for these reasons, it appears that believing that it is permissible for lions to eat meat does not necessarily imply that it is permissible for humans to eat meat. That is, it appears according to the reasoning so far, that it is permissible for a human to eat meat only provided that it is both necessary for his survival and that he kills his prey in a way which helps keep an ecological balance. Both of these conditions have been met in certain geographic areas in certain times of history. However, they are not met today for an extremely large portion of the human race. So, it appears that the flaw in the comparison between lions and humans holds for an extremely large portion of human beings living in our time period. As far as these people are concerned, the claim that it is immoral for them to eat meat has not been refuted by any of the preceding arguments.

Often, people incorrectly claim that humans need meat to sustain our large population. Refuting this claim does not involve a moral argument, just a factual one. Only a small fraction of the food an animal eats is converted into meat for human consumption. The rest is used up during the course of the animal’s life for various functions. If our only goal was to sustain a large human population, land which currently grows food for livestock would be used to grow crops consumed directly by humans.

[philoSOPHIA]

The way I see it, a cow would eat me if it wanted to and had the ability to do so. I see no reason why I shouldn't return the favour.

I'm not kidding, by the way. If we encounter aliens, I see no problem with eating them either unless they agree to not eat us in return.

The way I see it, cows are vegans. So they've already agreed not to eat you in return.

By the way, if cows ever do begin to selectively breed large quanties of human babies, raise and enslave them in captivity, extract milk from their boobs whenever thirst demands it, slice them open, eat their flesh and/or sell their body parts to local grocers...then I would reconsider the validity of your moral reasoning.

But the truth is, cows would never do something so absolutely ridiculous. They already know that the ground is a much more practical place to find food. ;)

[Kassiana]

I don't think it's immoral for humans to eat meat any more than I think it's immoral for wolves to eat meat.

[YHWH666]

I don't think it's immoral for humans to eat meat any more than I think it's immoral for wolves to eat meat.

For the sake of argument, would you consider the following reasoning?
I'd like to read your response.



A person can also compare humans eating meat to the way in which other animals eat each other. The argument could go that lions eat zebras, but lions do not eat other lions. Since animals in general eat members of other species, the argument can continue, but do not eat members of their own species, why shouldn’t we emulate the practice? There are problems with this argument even if such a statement were true. I think it is important to point out, though, that this statement is not true. Cannibalism is quite common among animals. Lions eat other lions, bears eat other bears, and chimpanzees eat other chimpanzees. This is not necessarily the result of a food shortage. Such incidents occur even when there is a plentiful supply of food from other sources. In the case of lions, for example, a male lion sometimes eats the cubs of a female lion without a partner to protect her. The male lion does this because the female lion will not mate as long as she has cubs, but she will mate after the cubs are dead. For some species, cannibalism is extremely common. Approximately one fifth of the diet of a tiger salamander, for example, consists of other tiger salamanders.

But fundamentally, the problem with this argument is that it assumes that we should be basing our morality on the behavior of other animals. Other animals often engage in many activities, such as stealing food from members of their own species, which it would not be a good idea for humans to emulate. I bring this point up to illustrate that we should never attempt to justify an action by saying that other animals engage in it also.
But let us return to the issue of eating meat. A person can ask why we have an obligation to act better towards other animals than they do towards each other. The answer is that we have an obligation to act morally regardless of how others are behaving. Even if a small child, for example, does not behave morally towards others, we still have an obligation to act morally towards him. But a more serious objection can be raised. If a small child acts immorally, for example by unknowingly playing with a loaded gun, even though we still have an obligation to act morally towards him, we also attempt to stop him from engaging in such an activity. Should we, then, attempt to prevent lions from eating zebras?

Let us suppose that we have agreed that it is not immoral for a lion to eat a zebra. The question we are faced with is if there are any distinguishing characteristics between a lion eating meat and a human eating meat. One distinguishing characteristic is that the lion must eat meat or die. A lion can not decide to live on grain and vegetables. On the other hand, a vegetarian diet for humans is just as healthy, if not more, than a diet including meat. Lions eat meat to survive. Humans eat meat for the pleasure of tasting meat. This appears to be a valid distinction between humans eating meat and lions eating meat.

Another distinction is that other animals hunt their prey while humans, for the most part, raise there prey in captivity. This is important for several reasons. One is that it is essential for lions to hunt prey in order for an ecological balance to be maintained. If all lions suddenly stopped hunting, it would be extremely detrimental to many of the animals in the region, including the prey species itself. Most humans, however, do not have this excuse. This distinction is also important for other reasons. One, for example, is that it can be argued that raising prey in captivity often causes far more suffering to the prey than does hunting.

So for these reasons, it appears that believing that it is permissible for lions to eat meat does not necessarily imply that it is permissible for humans to eat meat. That is, it appears according to the reasoning so far, that it is permissible for a human to eat meat only provided that it is both necessary for his survival and that he kills his prey in a way which helps keep an ecological balance. Both of these conditions have been met in certain geographic areas in certain times of history. However, they are not met today for an extremely large portion of the human race. So, it appears that the flaw in the comparison between lions and humans holds for an extremely large portion of human beings living in our time period. As far as these people are concerned, the claim that it is immoral for them to eat meat has not been refuted by any of the preceding arguments.

[philoSOPHIA]

I agree. To claim that eating is unethical is IMO quite absurd. However, this has nothing to do with whether or not eating is natural. Whether something is natural or not has no bearing upon it's morality.

For example:
Murder is a part of human nature. people have been doing it since the dawn of time. Before humans other animals killed one another for food, mates and other reasons. Taking another persons life is a perfectly natural act. It does not therefore follow that it is moral. Murder is still wrong regardless of how natural it is.


Eating is a natural requirement for survival...eating, in itself, is not immoral. Of course, some methods of obtaining food are unecessary (such as dairy farming) and can therefore be considered immoral. Similarly, excessive (unnecessary) consumption of food, within a hungry society, can be immoral.

Killing is often a natural requirement for survival...killing, in itself, is not immoral. It is the reasons for and necessity of the killing that are being judged by our moral standards...not the act itself.

When a being is equipped with the rational ability to measure the necessity of a killing in relation to their true well-being or survival, the killing is not natural...Humans are one such being.

And, furthermore, when an unnatural action somehow inhibits the natural well-being of his/her survival group, it would be an immoral action. Human murders often fall into that category.

[Kassiana]

I thoroughly disagree with that "argument." It takes things farther than it should, and is a slippery slope argument. In fact, I'd call it nonsense.

[YHWH666]

I thoroughly disagree with that "argument." It takes things farther than it should, and is a slippery slope argument. QUOTE]

How do you respond to the major (and morally significant) differences pointed out in the argument? In particular, between human beings killing animals for food and predatory animals killing other animals for food.

Do you agree that killing for pleasure is morally different than killing for survival?

[QUOTE]
In fact, I'd call it nonsense.

What’s nonsense is the notion that we should behave as wild animals do; that human beings have the same moral responsibility as wolves and lions. In fact, this line of reasoning one of the basic logical fallacies, complete with a Latin name and everything.


Argumentum ad Naturam
The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature
The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:
"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."
Another form of appeal to nature is to argue that because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is 'unnatural':
"Of course homosexuality is unnatural. When's the last time you saw two animals of the same sex mating?"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural


http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html

[Monkey Wrench]

"Of course homosexuality is unnatural. When's the last time you saw two animals of the same sex mating?"

Whoever wrote that must have lived a very sheltered life, homosexuality is very common among the non-human animals,they just don't make a big issue out of it like humans do.

As to meat eating I'm no more immoral than my cat. Vegetables make me gag and I need to obtain necessary nutrients to survive.

[FatherMithras]

Plants are no less alive than animals. Vegetarian morality generally seems to stem from people who dislike the perceived inhumane treatment of animals, but generally ignore the fact that most of our vegetable and fruit farming does similar practices that rape the planet. I personally prefer to eat organic meat and plants because they taste better and are better for me, NOT due to some ethical issue. To let the food that is grown or raised go to waste seems unethical to me. It makes the sacrafice of many, many lifeforms go completely to waste and results in unused food that makes more garbage. Honestly I couldn't care less about the feelings of our food animals, since they are simply that: food animals. They owe their existence to the fact human beings cultivate them in large numbers and do not use our huge resources to overwhelm them into nonexistence. I believe morality applies only to human beings, as it is a completely made up construct used specifically to allow humans to work together. To impress morality onto cows seems ridiculous to me personally. I don't see how being "alive" makes eating it unethical. If that was the case I wouldn't eat ANYTHING and would die.

As I said before, plants and animals are both living things. Since I only apply the manmade, artificial concept of morality and ethics to human beings, I see all animals that are non-human as sources of competition and possible food, and don't give a damn if they're eaten. Taking morality and applying it to nonhumans makes no sense unless you become a strict vegan, refusing to even use anything from animals.

On a side note I've ntoiced that vegetarians love to claim their lifestyle is more healthy. I can't say I agree. Of all the vegetarian studies I've seen, the only time you see a result in their favor is when you don't control for the fact that vegetarians are almost universally EXTREMELY careful and precise with their intake of nutrients. Since most nonvegetarians don't give two fucks, they obviously are worse off. I live in an environment where endurance and strength are important, and thus many people actually do look after their diets. Almost universally the omnivorous cadets are in much better shape than our vegetarian counterparts, though in fairness, there's far fewer of them and I wouldn't consider this in cement. Regardless, an omnivorous diet that controls for the problems meat tends to entail (fats!!!) tend to be in better shape. Aside from that, my Whey protein really helps build up my strength, which most vegetarians I know aren't getting.

[philoSOPHIA]

To let the food that is grown or raised go to waste seems unethical to me. It makes the sacrafice of many, many lifeforms go completely to waste and results in unused food that makes more garbage. Honestly I couldn't care less about the feelings of our food animals, since they are simply that: food animals. They owe their existence to the fact human beings cultivate them in large numbers and do not use our huge resources to overwhelm them into nonexistence.

I agree that food waste is unethical..but I think this is grounds for opposing the massive 'cultivation' of food animals...not supporting it.

Did you know that only about 1/20th of the food energy consumed by an animal is returned to us through its meat? In otherwords, 95% of the food is wasted!
We could feed twenty times more people with the same amount of food used to "grow" our meat!

[premjan]

"Raping the planet" is a metaphor - it is accurate in terms of disruption of ecological networks - but often life is rejuvenated by traumatic events such as fire - right now we are encouraging the growth of some animals like jellyfish due to the "rape" of the planet. Of course jellyfish don't appeal to us that much as animals because they are often poisonous, have no brains etc.

Sometimes a little cruelty to humans (e.g. disciplining them) is justifiable in terms of the long-term benefit.

OTOH cruelty in treatment to animals such as this (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20649192-1702,00.html) seems to be too much so I suppose avoidable cruelty in raising food animals ought to be also considered 'too much'.

[Yggdrasill]

The "death" of one lifeform promotes the "life" of another...That is simply how nature operates. Life recycles itself.
It is simply irrational to call the transfer of energy/nutrients "immoral".Nature doesn't have to be that way, if you simply don't get up in the morning, no organisms have to give up their life for you.

And by that argument, cannibalism is moral? It's simply "the transfer of energy/nutrients".
Anyways, humans appear to be natural vegans. Many of us have adopted an ominivore diet, but this is not by instinct...it is a learned behavior. Indirectly obtaining nutrients through animal products is not only unhealthy...but also less efficient (economically, environmentally, etc.).

From these and many other points, I'm inclined to conclude that our meat-eating habits are immoral (unnatural, irrational and counterproductive to survival and happiness).
Consuming only plant foods would dramatically improve the quality of life on this plantet, and would therefore seem morally preferable by virtually anyone's moral system.Humans are omnivores, it's how our bodies are configured. It's healthy, natural and rational to eat meat.

Only eating plants is more moral than eating meat, yes, but for it to make any real difference, everyone would have to to do it.

[Cynic of Mammon]

Rape is natural, and it's a darn good strategy for spreading your genes far and wide. Murder is natural—animals do it all of the time (to eliminate a rival, especially).

Natural does not equal moral.

Where have I said anything about rape or murder. I was merely giving an example of how false human morality is, merely an invention.
Oh, and PS... in a social creature like ourselves, murder is often not the best method of elimination, nor is rape the best method of spreading genes: you get arrested for both, and rape children are often aborted, so it doesn't quite work out that way now does it?:huh:

[CanoeMan]

The way I see it, cows are vegans. So they've already agreed not to eat you in return.

By the way, if cows ever do begin to selectively breed large quanties of human babies, raise and enslave them in captivity, extract milk from their boobs whenever thirst demands it, slice them open, eat their flesh and/or sell their body parts to local grocers...then I would reconsider the validity of your moral reasoning.

But the truth is, cows would never do something so absolutely ridiculous. They already know that the ground is a much more practical place to find food. ;)

Actually, cows sometimes eat small dead animals they find on the ground, (or so my farmer friends tell me). So they're not completely vegan.

The only reason cows don't eat people is because they can eat grass just fine. If they couldn't, or found human meat tastier, I have no doubt they'd go out on a mad cow killing spree. Just because they lack the desire to eat human meat doesn't mean they have moral compunctions about it. Just as I don't have any moral compunctions about eating grass, I just lack the desire to.

[Spud2006]

Only eating plants is more moral than eating meat, yes, but for it to make any real difference, everyone would have to to do it.

One vegetarian/vegan at a time, man ;)

[Godsquisher]

Oh, and PS... in a social creature like ourselves, murder is often not the best method of elimination, nor is rape the best method of spreading genes: you get arrested for both, and rape children are often aborted, so it doesn't quite work out that way now does it?:huh:

This is true of us now, but our society has existed for a very brief period, evolution-wise.

What do you think would happen if a distant ancestor of ours were raped? The rapist would get the advantage of having his children cared for when he had to expend very little energy. It's the human equivalent of the cowbird.

[Johan]

I'm just continually amazed that this one topic can be consistently counted on to draw the same two awful responses in every thread.

"It's all subjective, man!"

"Hurrr, pork chops taste good."

But you can almost always see the same people making the first argument off in other threads, in MF&P or in PD, who are quite convinced that e.g. American foreign policy is the pinnacle of righteousness, or American foreign policy is cosmically evil. It seems it's only "all subjective" when people don't have an argument to defend their opinion.

And I don't believe I've ever seen a thread on rape that garnered a response of the form "hurr, but rape feels good."

[Godsquisher]

On a side note I've ntoiced that vegetarians love to claim their lifestyle is more healthy. I can't say I agree. Of all the vegetarian studies I've seen, the only time you see a result in their favor is when you don't control for the fact that vegetarians are almost universally EXTREMELY careful and precise with their intake of nutrients.

Where do you get this? I'm a vegetarian, and beyond taking a multivitamin every day (something recommended for everyone), I don't think twice about my nutrient intake. I've never known a vegetarian who was that way.

I live in an environment where endurance and strength are important, and thus many people actually do look after their diets. Almost universally the omnivorous cadets are in much better shape than our vegetarian counterparts, though in fairness, there's far fewer of them and I wouldn't consider this in cement. Regardless, an omnivorous diet that controls for the problems meat tends to entail (fats!!!) tend to be in better shape. Aside from that, my Whey protein really helps build up my strength, which most vegetarians I know aren't getting.

This is a bunch of misconceptions. Unless you're a body builder (and vegetarians can use whey protein), you're probably getting enough protein. Nutritionists say that anyone who gets sufficient calories is almost certainly getting plenty of protein. We really don't need that much. And being vegetarian is certainly a healthier lifestyle than the average American diet (see here (http://www.annecollins.com/vegetarian-diet-health-benefits.htm) and here (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/21/1064082865083.html?from=storyrhs) and here (http://www.llu.edu/news/today/july2601/llu.html).)

What would you say to existing vegetarian athletes (Carl Lewis, for one)? Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat.

[Ranger Row]

I agree that food waste is unethical..but I think this is grounds for opposing the massive 'cultivation' of food animals...not supporting it.


Did you know that only about 1/20th of the food energy consumed by an animal is returned to us through its meat? In otherwords, 95% of the food is wasted!
We could feed twenty times more people with the same amount of food used to "grow" our meat!

Well... not quite. It depends on what animal we are talking about.

Rabbits have a feed to meat ratio of 2to 1
Chickens 3:1 (though some claim 4:1)
pork 4:1
goat 6:1
Beef 10:1 (though I don't raise them, so I don't know first hand.)

Let's use the pig for example. Two years ago I raised a pig to 240lbs, then had it butchered. I got about 170 lbs of meat after slaughtering. So, it took me 960 lbs grain/etc to get 170lbs of meat. So, in that case it would look like about 82% of that food is wasted... Except:
my pigs forage, get out of date breads, etc. Looking at my feed bill I bought 400 lbs of feed per pig that year, the rest of the pigs diet was forage or out of date food. So I guess that brings my waste of food that humans could eat down to about 57% or so. Then, that is not adding that the pig manure left if my paddocks was used to fertlize feed that my goats are eating.

Speaking of goats, they have a worse feed to gain ratio than the pigs. Except that the goats browse food that we humans would not eat. The last goat I butchered weighed 60lbs. I did the butchering myself, and ended up with 35lbs of meat. Does not sound like much, but since that goat ate nothing but oak brush, I did not put a single penny into it for feed (except the baking soda and mineral block my entire herd gets.)

Your figures of feeding twenty times the people is assuming that the animal is only being fed food fit for humans. Which, I will admit is mostly true in the United States; we do feed way too much grain to animals. It's killing our soil to do it, but we do feed grain to animals that we could eat. There is a movement to return to grass based farming, highlighted by authors such as Gene Logsdon.

But then, I'm edging towards a factory farm rant, and I've already done that here in the last week, so I won't go farther off topic.

[philoSOPHIA]

Nature doesn't have to be that way, if you simply don't get up in the morning, no organisms have to give up their life for you.

This is where we disagree. You view life as seperate organisms competing for life. I view life as one cannibalistic organism.

And by that argument, cannibalism is moral? It's simply "the transfer of energy/nutrients".

Not necessarily. I am saying that eating itself can not be called immoral, whereas the actions to obtain food, the food choices, etc. etc. are morally questionable. The morality of cannibalism relates to the people within a society which practices cannibalism, not the energy exchange itself! I hope that clarifies my point.
When eating eachother weakens the survival group, it would appear to be immoral. If eating one could feed many others, that judgement would likely be reconsidered, wouldn't it? (You did say you were somewhat of a utilitarian, didn't you?)


Humans are omnivores, it's how our bodies are configured. It's healthy, natural and rational to eat meat.

I have also read arguments that suggest that we are headed somewhere along the evolutionary path towards being omnivores. But we are certainly not there yet, (hence all of the health problems associated with our meat and dairy consumption).

Only eating plants is more moral than eating meat, yes, but for it to make any real difference, everyone would have to to do it.

I disagree. One indrectly acts for all, in my opinion. But, I am curious, what "real difference" do you speak of?

[djrafikie]

okay.. you can get along just fine without eating meat.I don't.

so.. if you are eating meat you are causing avoidable suffering.

It does'nt matter if you did'nt kill it because..

woman kills baby, woman cuts up baby, you buy bit of baby and eat baby..knowingly.. you are clearly culpable.

man kills cow.. man cuts up cow.. you buy bit of cow and eats cow.. you are clearly culpable.

and don't try and argue relative suffering or kinds of killing, just assume that both were killed in the same way.

Make no mistake by the way, if I HAD to, i would eat cows, people, whatever, if I HAD TO DO IT. but I dont.

[Yggdrasill]

This is where we disagree. You view life as seperate organisms competing for life. I view life as one cannibalistic organism.So you have no sense of self? You are only an automaton of nature? If you exist as a separate organism, life can't exist as one organism. (Unless you are all life, that is.)
Not necessarily. I am saying that eating itself can not be called immoral, whereas the actions to obtain food, the food choices, etc. etc. are morally questionable. The morality of cannibalism relates to the people within a society which practices cannibalism, not the energy exchange itself! I hope that clarifies my point.Well, there are choices leading up to every "energy exchange", and all the options are immoral in some respect, which means that any "energy exchange" is effectively immoral. I see your point that an "energy exchange" is technically not immoral, but shooting someone and then saying the gun did it is also technically correct, all you did was pull a trigger.
When eating eachother weakens the survival group, it would appear to be immoral. If eating one could feed many others, that judgement would likely be reconsidered, wouldn't it? (You did say you were somewhat of a utilitarian, didn't you?)Eating one would be the lesser evil, but it wouldn't be moral. (Also, survival is irrelevant, happiness is what counts.)
I have also read arguments that suggest that we are headed somewhere along the evolutionary path towards being omnivores. But we are certainly not there yet, (hence all of the health problems associated with our meat and dairy consumption).We're on the road to becoming better omnivores, but we are already omnivores. We generally eat meat, we generally eat plants, we derive nutrition from both, that's all that's required.
I disagree. One indrectly acts for all, in my opinion. But, I am curious, what "real difference" do you speak of?Real difference to the big picture, does you not eating meat lead to less meat being eaten? Or does you not eating meat lead to lower prices on meat and more meat being eaten by everyone else?

In today's society, I think the latter is far more likely, and as such, not eating meat is entirely pointless, except making yourself feel better.

[djrafikie]

Not eating meat makes me healthier, AND makes me feel better. Thats all dandy from my point of view.

[Yggdrasill]

Not eating meat makes me healthier, AND makes me feel better. Thats all dandy from my point of view.Good for you. Whatever floats your boat.

[philoSOPHIA]

Well... not quite. It depends on what animal we are talking about.

Rabbits have a feed to meat ratio of 2to 1
Chickens 3:1 (though some claim 4:1)
pork 4:1
goat 6:1
Beef 10:1 (though I don't raise them, so I don't know first hand.)

Let's use the pig for example. Two years ago I raised a pig to 240lbs, then had it butchered. I got about 170 lbs of meat after slaughtering. So, it took me 960 lbs grain/etc to get 170lbs of meat. So, in that case it would look like about 82% of that food is wasted... Except:
my pigs forage, get out of date breads, etc. Looking at my feed bill I bought 400 lbs of feed per pig that year, the rest of the pigs diet was forage or out of date food. So I guess that brings my waste of food that humans could eat down to about 57% or so. Then, that is not adding that the pig manure left if my paddocks was used to fertlize feed that my goats are eating.

Speaking of goats, they have a worse feed to gain ratio than the pigs. Except that the goats browse food that we humans would not eat. The last goat I butchered weighed 60lbs. I did the butchering myself, and ended up with 35lbs of meat. Does not sound like much, but since that goat ate nothing but oak brush, I did not put a single penny into it for feed (except the baking soda and mineral block my entire herd gets.)

Your figures of feeding twenty times the people is assuming that the animal is only being fed food fit for humans. Which, I will admit is mostly true in the United States; we do feed way too much grain to animals. It's killing our soil to do it, but we do feed grain to animals that we could eat. There is a movement to return to grass based farming, highlighted by authors such as Gene Logsdon.

But then, I'm edging towards a factory farm rant, and I've already done that here in the last week, so I won't go farther off topic.

You are certainly better informed than I am. I appreciate all the info.

I moved towards a vegan diet for health problems only, but have since stumbled upon so many practical reasons (like these ones) to maintain it. I never used to give much thought to the economical or environmental impact of my food choices; but, now that I have, it is unlikely that I could ever reclaim that ignorance...(though I do still crave a bloody steak from time to time!) :banghead:

[EarlOfLade]

Rape is natural, and it's a darn good strategy for spreading your genes far and wide. Murder is natural—animals do it all of the time (to eliminate a rival, especially).

Natural does not equal moral.

Rape is probably the worst way to spread your genes. You will have to monitor the woman for a couple of months so you know exactly when she is fertile and then rape her at that exact moment. If she got pregnant, the most likely outcome is an abortion, so you are about as wrong as it possibly can get.


When it comes to meat, i don't follow any moral. What moral should I have followed? The Christian? The Hindu? The Islam? The Buddhist?

[philoSOPHIA]

So you have no sense of self? You are only an automaton of nature? If you exist as a separate organism, life can't exist as one organism. (Unless you are all life, that is.)

I do perceive a "self"...but consider it illusionary.

Well, there are choices leading up to every "energy exchange", and all the options are immoral in some respect, which means that any "energy exchange" is effectively immoral. I see your point that an "energy exchange" is technically not immoral, but shooting someone and then saying the gun did it is also technically correct, all you did was pull a trigger.

Claiming that killing plants to substain your life is somehow immoral, would mean that ending your own life to spare the lives of those plants is also somehow immoral. To live or not to live, they're both immoral? If so, the meaning of the word "immoral" is now senseless.
And in response to your shooting example...I think you're off track. To clarify, here's a better example: you could discuss the act of murder in terms of morality...but you could not logically claim that death is either moral or immoral...it just wouldn't make any sense.
I am sure we agree on this, and it probably isn't worth a discussion. :p

Eating one would be the lesser evil, but it wouldn't be moral. (Also, survival is irrelevant, happiness is what counts.)

Happiness is your measure of morality? I am confused. Aren't you happier when you're nourished, then when you're starving to death? If you truly find more happiness in preserving plant/viral/bacterial life, rather than your own life...then you could offer the claim that the choice to live (and eat) is immoral. But I already know you don't truly believe that...just based on the fact that you are still alive right now.

We're on the road to becoming better omnivores, but we are already omnivores. We generally eat meat, we generally eat plants, we derive nutrition from both, that's all that's required.

I take the stance that eating flesh is a learned behavior for us. Wheras a lion, for instance, is intuitively/innately carnivorus, you probably only eat it by choice and tradition.
If a baby human grew up alone in a controlled environment that contained only plantfoods and a few animals (also herbavoires). What would the child choose to eat?
Now suppose there weren't any more plant foods? Would that child try to eat the horse (for example)? Would she ever have any reason to believe that a horse could be food? Now consider what a lion would do in that very same environment.

Real difference to the big picture, does you not eating meat lead to less meat being eaten? Or does you not eating meat lead to lower prices on meat and more meat being eaten by everyone else?
In today's society, I think the latter is far more likely, and as such, not eating meat is entirely pointless, except making yourself feel better.

As a Utilitarian, you would favor the eating practices that promoted the most happiness. If a vegan society proved to be simpler, more efficient, and healthier (i.e. happier)...it would be deemed morally preferable to the omnivore choice.

[djrafikie]

Rape is probably the worst way to spread your genes. You will have to monitor the woman for a couple of months so you know exactly when she is fertile and then rape her at that exact moment. If she got pregnant, the most likely outcome is an abortion, so you are about as wrong as it possibly can get.


When it comes to meat, i don't follow any moral. What moral should I have followed? The Christian? The Hindu? The Islam? The Buddhist?

Of course, the best way to avoid this issue is to make abortion illegal.

[Yggdrasill]

I do perceive a "self"...but consider it illusionary.Well, I'd be lying if I said I don't think that's strange. In my opinion, there is only one truth in this world, and that is that you exist. I think, therefore I am.
Claiming that killing plants to substain your life is somehow immoral, would mean that ending your own life to spare the lives of those plants is also somehow immoral. To live or not to live, they're both immoral?No, killing yourself isn't immoral, your own life is the only thing you truly own. If you think it's immoral, you'd have to clarify your logic.
If so, the meaning of the word "immoral" is now senseless.
And in response to your shooting example...I think you're off track. To clarify, here's a better example: you could discuss the act of murder in terms of morality...but you could not logically claim that death is either moral or immoral...it just wouldn't make any sense.
I am sure we agree on this, and it probably isn't worth a discussion. :pYeah, I agree, but it's murder we're talking about. All eating in the current world involves killing, so eating is immoral, because it is murder.
Happiness is your measure of morality? I am confused. Aren't you happier when you're nourished, then when you're starving to death?I might not be happier, but whatever I'm not eating might be happier.If you truly find more happiness in preserving plant/viral/bacterial life, rather than your own life...then you could offer the claim that the choice to live (and eat) is immoral. But I already know you don't truly believe that...just based on the fact that you are still alive right now.It is more moral to preserve plant/viral/bacterial life than your own life, and because of that, I'm not completely moral, it's a choice I've made, and I can live with the decision. It's better to be somewhat immoral and alive than amoral and dead.
I take the stance that eating flesh is a learned behavior for us. Wheras a lion, for instance, is intuitively/innately carnivorus, you probably only eat it by choice and tradition.
If a baby human grew up alone in a controlled environment that contained only plantfoods and a few animals (also herbavoires). What would the child choose to eat?
Now suppose there weren't any more plant foods? Would that child try to eat the horse (for example)? Would she ever have any reason to believe that a horse could be food? Now consider what a lion would do in that very same environment.Hard to say, a lion raised on tofu (or whatever) might not realize that a horse can be eaten. Most behaviour is learned, both in humans and other animals. Humans can even be carnivores in some circumstances (feral children for instance). It's best to base your conclusion on what the human body is capable of metabolizing, and it's pretty good at metabolizing both meat and plants.

As a Utilitarian, you would favor the eating practices that promoted the most happiness. If a vegan society proved to be simpler, more efficient, and healthier (i.e. happier)...it would be deemed morally preferable to the omnivore choice.Simpler doesn't imply happier, more efficient doesn't imply happier and healthier doesn't imply happier. They can be factors that increase happiness, but it depends on how it's done. A society where everyone works 16 hours per day would be a very efficient society, but it usually wouldn't be a very happy place.

That said, provided that all things were equal, if people were happier in a vegan society, that would be the better society.

[Godsquisher]

Rape is probably the worst way to spread your genes. You will have to monitor the woman for a couple of months so you know exactly when she is fertile and then rape her at that exact moment. If she got pregnant, the most likely outcome is an abortion, so you are about as wrong as it possibly can get.

You know, I don't know why I'm continuing to try to explain this, as it's off topic, anyway. Rape is an evolutionary advantageous act, but that has no bearing on whether or not it makes sense in today's world. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape) a relevant link if you don't believe me.


When it comes to meat, i don't follow any moral. What moral should I have followed? The Christian? The Hindu? The Islam? The Buddhist?

Whichever one makes sense to your own moral compass. Which one do you follow when you decide whether to lie?

[Cobalt Blue]

Eating one would be the lesser evil, but it wouldn't be moral. (Also, survival is irrelevant, happiness is what counts.)

If happiness is all that matters, than eating/killing plants, microorganisms and anything that lacks a nervous system (or if you want to push it, a nervous system sophistocated enough to feel happiness) shouldn't be considered immoral. This, of course, depends somewhat on how you choose to define hapiness. "Happiness" (best defined in my opinion as a "state of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy") and "pleasure" (which I think of more as a physiological state), for example, while related psychologically, are independent of eachother, as you can certainly feel one without the other. It is relatively uncontroversial that many other animals feel pleasure, but highly controversial (and, sadly, close to unprovable) that they feel "happiness." Of what importance is pleasure without happiness, I ask you?

Honestly though, I don't understand why anyone bothers to debate morality between differnt moral systems, as there is no objective way to choose between moral systems. "Happiness," it seems to me, is just as arbitrary a grounds for morality as "pinkness." legitimate debates about whether an act is immoral can certainly occur, however, when both parties subscribe to the same moral system (as long as it is clearly defined and the definitions are agreed upon).

[FatherMithras]

Where do you get this? I'm a vegetarian, and beyond taking a multivitamin every day (something recommended for everyone), I don't think twice about my nutrient intake. I've never known a vegetarian who was that way.

From every vegetarian I know, studies on vegetarians, and comparisons with the cultural norm. I've known and met many vegetarians, and 95 percent of them don't fit your mold. On a side note, none of them are as physically capable as their on vege friends who take care of themselves (obviously this only applies to my firends).

This is a bunch of misconceptions. Unless you're a body builder (and vegetarians can use whey protein), you're probably getting enough protein. Nutritionists say that anyone who gets sufficient calories is almost certainly getting plenty of protein. We really don't need that much. And being vegetarian is certainly a healthier lifestyle than the average American diet (see here and here and here.)

What would you say to existing vegetarian athletes (Carl Lewis, for one)? Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat.
I have at least one vegetarian friend who doesn't get enough protein or vitamins because he doesn't look after his diet and had had to talk with my healthfood nut mom about it. This is an anecdote, but so is your example of a vegetarian athelete. As for bodybuilding, I'm talking about people who generally do medium to large quantities of exercise. Almost universally among those I know, and in a few studies I read years ago, there was a significant gap in ability with the same training. I get to see this constantly with the marines, army, navy, air force, guys here at the Citadel as compared to their (notable few) vege counterparts. Anecdotal? Yes. But it's about as good as a study comparing the average american diet (incredibly poor) to the vegetarians average diet (which most monitor closely, or are maintained by people who worry about their health and nutrition more).

[FatherMithras]

Onca again, I'm going to say I don't see any difference between eating corn and a cow. Both are nonhuman, and whether one experiences pain or not makes no difference to me, as I see such morality as applying only to humans. Regardless, I don't know many vegetarians who would eat meat if it could be ensured food animals felt no pain.

[Donkeykong]

I take the stance that eating flesh is a learned behavior for us. Wheras a lion, for instance, is intuitively/innately carnivorus, you probably only eat it by choice and tradition.
If a baby human grew up alone in a controlled environment that contained only plantfoods and a few animals (also herbavoires). What would the child choose to eat?
Now suppose there weren't any more plant foods? Would that child try to eat the horse (for example)? Would she ever have any reason to believe that a horse could be food? Now consider what a lion would do in that very same environment.






Chimps and Baboons eat mostly plant foods and can get by on a vegeterian diet. Yet both species like to hunt and eat meat from time to time. Why is that immoral for us and not for them?

[GenesisNemesis]

Food chain. Animals eat meat too and they don't feel guilty about it. It's not unhealthy. Well, then again, we're animals too.

[The AntiChris]

Chimps and Baboons eat mostly plant foods and can get by on a vegeterian diet. Yet both species like to hunt and eat meat from time to time. Why is that immoral for us and not for them?Odd question. I don't think anyone (on this thread) has commented on the morality or otherwise of any non-human animal behaviour.

Non-human animals are not normally considered to be moral agents.

Chris

[Pavlov's Dog]

Meat tastes good. That is moral enough for me.

[premjan]

Onca again, I'm going to say I don't see any difference between eating corn and a cow. Both are nonhuman, and whether one experiences pain or not makes no difference to me, as I see such morality as applying only to humans. Regardless, I don't know many vegetarians who would eat meat if it could be ensured food animals felt no pain.

By and large the only you don't eat humans (assuming they taste good) is because they can band together and cause you bodily injury if you try it.

So: what you're saying is morality only applies to those who have power to hurt you. Of course hunter gatherers who were at the mercy of the elements, wild animals etc. had a bit more respect for both (e.g. nature worship).

[Yggdrasill]

If happiness is all that matters, than eating/killing plants, microorganisms and anything that lacks a nervous system (or if you want to push it, a nervous system sophistocated enough to feel happiness) shouldn't be considered immoral. This, of course, depends somewhat on how you choose to define hapiness. "Happiness" (best defined in my opinion as a "state of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy") and "pleasure" (which I think of more as a physiological state), for example, while related psychologically, are independent of eachother, as you can certainly feel one without the other. It is relatively uncontroversial that many other animals feel pleasure, but highly controversial (and, sadly, close to unprovable) that they feel "happiness." Of what importance is pleasure without happiness, I ask you?It isn't very controversial that animals can be happy, ask anyone with pets, but it's true that it isn't provable that they do feel happiness. Neither is it possible to prove that humans feel happiness, beyond the argument "I am a human, I can feel happy, therefore, humans can feel happy". That something can't be proven doesn't mean one should assume it to be false. It might be false, it might be true, but there's no way to tell.

And it's not just about happiness, it's also about unhappiness, if something is in pain, it can be said to be unhappy. Pain is the detection of damage (or impending damage), and as some/most plants are known to respond to damage or touch, they feel pain (in the loosest sense of the word), and as such can be said to be unhappy.

And to preempt you, yes, I recognize that what plants feel probably isn't very similar to what humans think of as pain, but that is why harming a plant is much less immoral than hurting an animal. It doesn't remove the fact that is slightly immoral. The same thing can be applied to bacteria.
Honestly though, I don't understand why anyone bothers to debate morality between differnt moral systems, as there is no objective way to choose between moral systems. "Happiness," it seems to me, is just as arbitrary a grounds for morality as "pinkness." legitimate debates about whether an act is immoral can certainly occur, however, when both parties subscribe to the same moral system (as long as it is clearly defined and the definitions are agreed upon).Debate clarifies views, and it may lead to increased understanding and respect, or changes in a person's view of morality.

[EarlOfLade]

Of course, the best way to avoid this issue is to make abortion illegal.
THAT will ar least never happen in my homecountry. It's been legal for close to 40 years and without any problems.

But ofcourse, USA is a theocracy which bases its laws on religion and hence you will have problems with abortion laws.

[EarlOfLade]

You know, I don't know why I'm continuing to try to explain this, as it's off topic, anyway. Rape is an evolutionary advantageous act, but that has no bearing on whether or not it makes sense in today's world. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape) a relevant link if you don't believe me.

Ok, I read it but I still have problems recognizing anything you said in that article. can you please point me to what is supporting tour notion?


Whichever one makes sense to your own moral compass. Which one do you follow when you decide whether to lie?
None of them, I decide based on the situation.

[Tsuyoiko]

I think eating anything is to an extent morally wrong, but to continue to live, humans have to eat, so the best thing a human can try to do is limit how immoral they are in that respect.

Make no mistake by the way, if I HAD to, i would eat cows, people, whatever, if I HAD TO DO IT. but I dont.These two comments pretty much sum up my attitude. I don't think my life is objectively any more valuable than that of any other creature, so I don't think I have any right to kill another in order to survive. But since my life is subjectively very important to me, I eat in order to stay alive. Since I feel uncomfortable with the idea of harming another creature, I limit what I eat as much as possible, while still trying to stay healthy and get some satisfaction from food. I would like to be vegan, but it made me so miserable when I tried it I went back to eating dairy. If I think about it too much I feel guilty about eating a lettuce.

I know my view's extreme :rolleyes: And I know I'm a hypocrite. :frown: :huh:

[Johan]

Meat tastes good. That is moral enough for me.

Yes, raping someone does feel good. In fact, it's an adrenaline rush unlike any other. That's moral enough for me.

[Godsquisher]

From every vegetarian I know, studies on vegetarians, and comparisons with the cultural norm.

Okay, now that you've said that there are studies on this (and you're claiming this as part of your evidence), can you please give me some examples?

[Godsquisher]

Ok, I read it but I still have problems recognizing anything you said in that article. can you please point me to what is supporting tour notion?

From the article:

It is because rape occasionally results in reproduction that some sociobiologists theorize that rape may be genetically advantageous for rapists, and thus prosper as a psychological adaptation.

[Godsquisher]

Regardless, I don't know many vegetarians who would eat meat if it could be ensured food animals felt no pain.

I would, if the ecological effects could also be addressed.

[Godsquisher]

Chimps and Baboons eat mostly plant foods and can get by on a vegeterian diet. Yet both species like to hunt and eat meat from time to time. Why is that immoral for us and not for them?

I've bolded the appropriate word for my response here.

The problem isn't necessarily that people are eating meat; the problem is that modern agriculture places such stress on our environment and causes such suffering in animals. If we all hunted for our food, I'd have far less of a problem with it.

Yes, we are animals, but we don't look to the chimps for our guidelines on behavior, and for good reason. The argument that "chimps eat meat" isn't any more logical than "chimps rape" or "chimps murder, so why can't I?"

[Ranger Row]

I would, if the ecological effects could also be addressed.

Well, the ecological effects could be addressed, but from what I have read the price of meat would about double in price, and lots of government subsidized grain farmers would go under. We grow too much grain in the US. If the government was not propping up 90% of the ag industry, it wouldn't make since to drain the soil for things like corn that are just going to feedlots to feed confined animals. We'd have increasing amounts of animals fed on grass, and there'd be room for lots of small operators to make a living as well.

Now that the government and ag industry is pushing the whole corn=ethonal thing, I doubt it will ever happen. There are alot of other promising plants for ethonal production that do not drain the soil like corn does, but none of them (such as switchgrass) have a powerful lobbying group.

[emphryio]

Well... not quite. It depends on what animal we are talking about.

Rabbits have a feed to meat ratio of 2to 1
Chickens 3:1 (though some claim 4:1)
pork 4:1
goat 6:1
Beef 10:1 (though I don't raise them, so I don't know first hand.)

Let's use the pig for example. Two years ago I raised a pig to 240lbs, then had it butchered. I got about 170 lbs of meat after slaughtering. So, it took me 960 lbs grain/etc to get 170lbs of meat. So, in that case it would look like about 82% of that food is wasted... Except:
my pigs forage, get out of date breads, etc. Looking at my feed bill I bought 400 lbs of feed per pig that year, the rest of the pigs diet was forage or out of date food. So I guess that brings my waste of food that humans could eat down to about 57% or so. Then, that is not adding that the pig manure left if my paddocks was used to fertlize feed that my goats are eating.

Speaking of goats, they have a worse feed to gain ratio than the pigs. Except that the goats browse food that we humans would not eat. The last goat I butchered weighed 60lbs. I did the butchering myself, and ended up with 35lbs of meat. Does not sound like much, but since that goat ate nothing but oak brush, I did not put a single penny into it for feed (except the baking soda and mineral block my entire herd gets.)

Your figures of feeding twenty times the people is assuming that the animal is only being fed food fit for humans. Which, I will admit is mostly true in the United States; we do feed way too much grain to animals. It's killing our soil to do it, but we do feed grain to animals that we could eat. There is a movement to return to grass based farming, highlighted by authors such as Gene Logsdon.

But then, I'm edging towards a factory farm rant, and I've already done that here in the last week, so I won't go farther off topic.
In 1975 the amount of corn and soy used to fatten up livestock in the US would have fed all the people of China and India (who had a combined population of 1.3 billion at the time.)

[emphryio]

Okay, now that you've said that there are studies on this (and you're claiming this as part of your evidence), can you please give me some examples?
I doubt he can. The best study I remember indicated that vegetarians live on average 4 years longer in the US than omnivores. Vegans only live as long as omnivores. This is (supposedly) because of B-12 definciencies which are easily corrected with a liquid B-12 supplement.

As far as athletic performance I know plenty of vegan athletes (and Carl Lewis was VEGAN not vegetarian during his best competitive years). You can check out discussion boards such as veganfitness.net or veganbodybuilding.com. I know a nationally ranked powerlifter, a guy close to getting his procard for strongman competitions, guys who can do one armed chinups, etc. And of course there are plenty in endurance type sports. I personally became a vegan after being a heavy meat eater for many years and if I bother to get the same amount of protein I'm just as strong. (Weighted chinups with bodyweight (220) + over 100 pounds for example. And you can get the same amount of protein but you can't do it if you just eat out. You can't get any hardly any vegan protein (in the US) unless you prepare stuff at home.

A nice food to prepare is one can chickpeas, 3 tablespoons lemon juice and a couple spoons of tahini in a blender. This makes hummus. Add it to whole wheat spaghetti, hard crusted whole wheat bread, chips, etc.
Also like oatmeal with chocolate rice milk and almond butter.
And blueberries, a banana, rice milk, ginger and B-12 in a blender.
And chinese style broccoli, tofu and rice.

There's also protein shakes made from rice, soy, hemp and pea. If I wanted to get my strength up to it's "natural" limit I'd do rice protein shakes as I did in the past. I don't recommend protein stuffing though. Even if it's vegan protein it's still not very good for you.

[Dlx2]

In 1975 the amount of corn and soy used to fatten up livestock in the US would have fed all the people of China and India (who had a combined population of 1.3 billion at the time.)

Not all protein is created equal. The relative ratios of essential amino acids differs between plant and animal proteins. An ounce of soy protein is significantly less nutritious than an ounce of animal protein.

[emphryio]

Not all protein is created equal. The relative ratios of essential amino acids differs between plant and animal proteins. An ounce of soy protein is significantly less nutritious than an ounce of animal protein.
Wrong.
http://www.solae.com/soybasics/nutritionbasics/necessarynutrients/protein.jsp

Isolated soy protein 1.00
Casein (milk protein) 1.00
Egg white 1.00
Beef protein .92
Pea flour .69
Kidney beans (canned) .68
Pinto beans (canned) .63
Rolled oats .57
Lentils (canned) .52
Peanut meal .52
Whole-wheat .40
Wheat gluten .25


With that said I don't actually think much of soy and think it should only be eaten occasionally. But some of the land used to grow soy for animal feed could instead be used to grow other crops to feed hundreds of millions of people.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Yes, raping someone does feel good.
I have never raped anyone, so I couldn't tell you. The thought of it repulses me, so I don't see how the act is going to be any less repulsive for me. But if it feels good for you, then that seems like your problem.

[Dlx2]

Wrong.
http://www.solae.com/soybasics/nutritionbasics/necessarynutrients/protein.jsp

Isolated soy protein 1.00
Casein (milk protein) 1.00
Egg white 1.00
Beef protein .92
Pea flour .69
Kidney beans (canned) .68
Pinto beans (canned) .63
Rolled oats .57
Lentils (canned) .52
Peanut meal .52
Whole-wheat .40
Wheat gluten .25


With that said I don't actually think much of soy and think it should only be eaten occasionally. But some of the land used to grow soy for animal feed could instead be used to grow other crops to feed hundreds of millions of people.

There are problems with that scale. There is a difference between digestibility and the ability to use said amino acids to repair tissues. Excess amino acids can still be catalyzed to produce energy. However, you're still not getting the right ratios of amino acids.

[Johan]

I have never raped anyone, so I couldn't tell you. The thought of it repulses me, so I don't see how the act is going to be any less repulsive for me. But if it feels good for you, then that seems like your problem.

So do you accept my argument that it's perfectly moral to rape someone?

[Ranger Row]

In 1975 the amount of corn and soy used to fatten up livestock in the US would have fed all the people of China and India (who had a combined population of 1.3 billion at the time.)

and

With that said I don't actually think much of soy and think it should only be eaten occasionally. But some of the land used to grow soy for animal feed could instead be used to grow other crops to feed hundreds of millions of people.

Actually, the last figure I heard is even better than that. The last thing I heard is that if we were to cut our meat production back just 3% there would be enough grain to feed the world. I cannot remember the source, and it might be a cooked number for PETA, but either way, there are two problems with that.

1. Who is going to pay for all that grain? All of these corporations are around to make money, not feed starving people in X for free. The price of wheat is the same, but the price of diesel has about doubled in recent years, so they've already taken a hit profit wise. Unless someone is paying for the grain to feed people, it will continue to go to the cattle. Which reminds me, when Ronald Reagan became president, the top four beef processors controlled about 36 percent of the grain market. Today the figure is over 80 percent. So, good luck with getting grain to feed the world.

2. Sustainability So, we can feed all the starving people in the world, but for how long? Can all the NPOs and government subsidies pay for this forever? Or will it be the cycle that happened so many times in Africa: Big food/aid shipment arrives to help the starving people. People eat, are happy for awhile. Nine months later the population increases even more. More starving mouths to feed. Bigger aid package arrives.... etc, etc, etc.

We need to come up with sustainable answers to the world's food crisis. People in X should be able to eat food grown near X. Of course that is not an easy thing to do in parts of the world, but something must be done to, at least in part, localize food production. This does not go into the environmental effects of greenhouse gas, etc of the transportation industry. Just in the US, how much cleaner could our air be, how much less foreign oil would we use if we bought local foods instead of having it trucked in from across the country at 8mpg?

[emphryio]

1. Who is going to pay for all that grain? All of these corporations are around to make money, not feed starving people in X for free. The price of wheat is the same, but the price of diesel has about doubled in recent years, so they've already taken a hit profit wise. Unless someone is paying for the grain to feed people, it will continue to go to the cattle. Which reminds me, when Ronald Reagan became president, the top four beef processors controlled about 36 percent of the grain market. Today the figure is over 80 percent. So, good luck with getting grain to feed the world.
Yes, I know. I'm not saying that the excess would ever be used to feed malnourished people. In our current system, it would not be. That excess "free food" would just drive down the price, so instead they'd just not grow it.

2. Sustainability So, we can feed all the starving people in the world, but for how long? Can all the NPOs and government subsidies pay for this forever? Or will it be the cycle that happened so many times in Africa: Big food/aid shipment arrives to help the starving people. People eat, are happy for awhile. Nine months later the population increases even more. More starving mouths to feed. Bigger aid package arrives.... etc, etc, etc.
At least one study said at around 50 billion people or so we'd run into problems. People in the thirdworld have lots of children because they need to make sure in their old age they have someone to take care of them as they don't have social security. The reason for the poverty and all that is not too high a population. That stuff is just an excuse to distract from the actual problem. Even if we only had 1 billion peole we'd have probably about the same percentage malnourished and starving.

We need to come up with sustainable answers to the world's food crisis. People in X should be able to eat food grown near X. Of course that is not an easy thing to do in parts of the world, but something must be done to, at least in part, localize food production.
People in the thirdworld are made to grow cash crops such as coffee and cotton in order to pay back their IMF/WB debt. They get their food from the US. They've complained that this makes them dependent on the US. People such as Kissinger in the 70's gave speeches saying that actually we're all interdependent..... We're all connected. It's globalization! Isn't is great?

This does not go into the environmental effects of greenhouse gas, etc of the transportation industry. Just in the US, how much cleaner could our air be, how much less foreign oil would we use if we bought local foods instead of having it trucked in from across the country at 8mpg?
I agree with all that. I ought to quit eating bananas but they really improve fruit smoothies.

[emphryio]

There are problems with that scale. There is a difference between digestibility and the ability to use said amino acids to repair tissues. Excess amino acids can still be catalyzed to produce energy. However, you're still not getting the right ratios of amino acids.
That makes no sense.

[xaxxat]

Vegetarianism is harmless enough though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness. ~Robert Hutchison, address to the British Medical Association, 1930

:Cheeky:

[Johan]

Vegetarianism is harmless enough though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness. ~Robert Hutchison, address to the British Medical Association, 1930

:Cheeky:

Well, that citation was harmless enough.

[Dlx2]

That makes no sense.

Amino acid metabolism is not the sole use of amino acids. This scale assumes it is.

[hinduwoman]

It is immoral since animals don't want to be eaten. But I don't feel guilty enough to stop eating meat.
However I promise if a meat substitute is invented I will stick to it.

[Pavlov's Dog]

So do you accept my argument that it's perfectly moral to rape someone?

Nope.

[Johan]

It is immoral since animals don't want to be eaten. But I don't feel guilty enough to stop eating meat.
However I promise if a meat substitute is invented I will stick to it.

Well, trivially, "a balanced diet of every other food that isn't a dead animal" is a "meat substitute" -- so what's stopping you?

Or if you mean some substance that plays an identical functional role in the course of a meal as "slab o'protein between two pieces of bread" etc., then my favorites are Quorn for soups and sandwiches (http://www.quorn.us//cmpage.aspx?pageid=462&productid=148), Morningstar farms for snacks, (http://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/product.pl?product=317&company=23) burgers, (http://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/prodfam.pl?family=363&company=23&template=burgers) and tacos, (http://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/prodfam.pl?family=366&company=23&template=meal_starters) and whatever that stuff is they use at the Vietnamese restaurant in Brookline that I can't stop eating.

[Johan]

Well, trivially, "a balanced diet of every other food that isn't a dead animal" is a "meat substitute" -- so what's stopping you?

Or if you mean some substance that plays an identical functional role in the course of a meal as "slab o'protein between two pieces of bread" etc., then my favorites are Quorn for soups and sandwiches (http://www.quorn.us//cmpage.aspx?pageid=462&productid=148), Morningstar farms for snacks, (http://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/product.pl?product=317&company=23) burgers, (http://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/prodfam.pl?family=363&company=23&template=burgers) and tacos, (http://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/prodfam.pl?family=366&company=23&template=meal_starters) and whatever that stuff is they use at the Vietnamese restaurant in Brookline that I can't stop eating.

[emphryio]

Amino acid metabolism is not the sole use of amino acids. This scale assumes it is.
Please feel free to provide something that backs up your assertions.

[Johan]

Nope.

As well you shouldn't.

An hypothesis: you do not accept it because you realize that the enthymeme you relied on earlier that "it feels good to Θ constitutes sufficient conditions for declaring Θ permissible" is in error.

[The AntiChris]

You learn something new every day.

enthymeme

Useful word.

Chris

[emphryio]

Well, trivially, "a balanced diet of every other food that isn't a dead animal" is a "meat substitute" -- so what's stopping you?

Or if you mean some substance that plays an identical functional role in the course of a meal as "slab o'protein between two pieces of bread" etc., then my favorites are Quorn for soups and sandwiches (http://www.quorn.us//cmpage.aspx?pageid=462&productid=148), Morningstar farms for snacks, (http://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/product.pl?product=317&company=23) burgers, (http://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/prodfam.pl?family=363&company=23&template=burgers) and tacos, (http://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/prodfam.pl?family=366&company=23&template=meal_starters) and whatever that stuff is they use at the Vietnamese restaurant in Brookline that I can't stop eating.
I wouldn't know that some meat substitutes aren't really meat unless it didn't say so on the package. Seitan, Amy's vegan chili... Too "meaty" for me.

[Cobalt Blue]

It isn't very controversial that animals can be happy, ask anyone with pets, but it's true that it isn't provable that they do feel happiness. Neither is it possible to prove that humans feel happiness, beyond the argument "I am a human, I can feel happy, therefore, humans can feel happy". That something can't be proven doesn't mean one should assume it to be false. It might be false, it might be true, but there's no way to tell.

And it's not just about happiness, it's also about unhappiness, if something is in pain, it can be said to be unhappy. Pain is the detection of damage (or impending damage), and as some/most plants are known to respond to damage or touch, they feel pain (in the loosest sense of the word), and as such can be said to be unhappy.

And to preempt you, yes, I recognize that what plants feel probably isn't very similar to what humans think of as pain, but that is why harming a plant is much less immoral than hurting an animal. It doesn't remove the fact that is slightly immoral. The same thing can be applied to bacteria.

Responding to damage and feeling pain are not equivalent. Pain, as it is typically thought of, to the best of our knowledge, requires a nervous system. Plants do not have one, and neither do bacteria (they respond to their environment in very different ways than animals do), thus I find it highly unikely that they feel anything even remotely analagous to pain. There would also be no adaptive reason for such organisms to feel pain, since they have no capacity for memory and thus pain would not serve as a deterrent against risky behavior. It is very possible to build a machine that reacts to environmental stimuli, but few would say that the machine "feels" anything. It gets blurier when you start talking about multicellular animals with nervous systems, but it seems clear that some of the simplest of these organisms (such as nematodes and probably most arthropods), while they may be able to quickly react to their environment and feel pain (or something very similar), are incapable of reflecting on their situation, or doing anything but directly reacting to their environment. I find it unlikely that such organisms can truly be "unhappy" in anything like the sense the word is normally used in. I agree with you however, that there is little doubt that animals with more complex brains, such as dogs, can feel unhappy. I doubt that there is a hard line that one could draw anywhere in the animal kingdom about this, but it seems clear that however blurry the line is, insects, microorganisms and plants do not make the cut.

[Yggdrasill]

Responding to damage and feeling pain are not equivalent. Pain, as it is typically thought of, to the best of our knowledge, requires a nervous system. Plants do not have one, and neither do bacteria (they respond to their environment in very different ways than animals do), thus I find it highly unikely that they feel anything even remotely analagous to pain. There would also be no adaptive reason for such organisms to feel pain, since they have no capacity for memory and thus pain would not serve as a deterrent against risky behavior.Pain is the sensation of damage, and as such, plants responding to damage are experiencing pain.

Memories and learning are irrelevant to experiencing pain, responses to pain are automatic responses that you will act upon before you become aware of the pain. If you touch something hot, you will pull your hand back faster than you can think. This is exactly the same observed effects some plants exhibit, if you touch them, they will quickly fold up their leaves. (Mimosa pudica for instance)It is very possible to build a machine that reacts to environmental stimuli, but few would say that the machine "feels" anything.Sooner or later, we will reach the point where we will say the machine feels pain, when it becomes sufficiently advanced. That we don't say it doesn't feel pain now reflects more on us than it does on it. It might be a very basic form of pain, but it is pain.It gets blurier when you start talking about multicellular animals with nervous systems, but it seems clear that some of the simplest of these organisms (such as nematodes and probably most arthropods), while they may be able to quickly react to their environment and feel pain (or something very similar), are incapable of reflecting on their situation, or doing anything but directly reacting to their environment. I find it unlikely that such organisms can truly be "unhappy" in anything like the sense the word is normally used in.being in pain = unhappy

You might not agree with it, but it is merely a simplification of my point, there's little point in talking about happiness, unhappiness and pain, when the first two are sufficient. Definitions aren't set in stone.

[Superheavy]

http://www.solae.com/soybasics/nutritionbasics/necessarynutrients/protein.jsp

Isolated soy protein 1.00
Casein (milk protein) 1.00
Egg white 1.00
Beef protein .92
Pea flour .69
Kidney beans (canned) .68
Pinto beans (canned) .63
Rolled oats .57
Lentils (canned) .52
Peanut meal .52
Whole-wheat .40
Wheat gluten .25

IIRC, soy beans cause the most flatulence of all beans. Moral reason enough not to eat them. Besides, soy boys are all scrawny weaklings. ;)

And what's up with comparing soy protein isolate to regular foodstuff? Vested interest, anyone?

Further, from the link:
Some experts in sports nutrition recommend that athletes undergoing strenuous heavy training, especially aerobic exercise, consume between 1.2 and 1.8 grams of protein/kg of body weight each day. (my emphasis)
Is it just me, or did they confuse aerobic and anaerobic?

[Cobalt Blue]

Pain is the sensation of damage, and as such, plants responding to damage are experiencing pain.

Memories and learning are irrelevant to experiencing pain, responses to pain are automatic responses that you will act upon before you become aware of the pain. If you touch something hot, you will pull your hand back faster than you can think. This is exactly the same observed effects some plants exhibit, if you touch them, they will quickly fold up their leaves. (Wikipedia reference-linkMimosa pudica for instance)

Your definition of pain is, to be honest, rather ridiculous. you cannot just assume that because two organisms exhibit a similar behavior, there is a similar underlying mechanism behind that behavior. In this case, studies of the organisms in question have revealed that they use very different mechanisms. The point about memory was an evolutionary argument. The adaptive values of pain and pleasure are thought by many to be something like a built in punishment reward system that punishes organisms for engaging in behaviors that damage it (running through fire) and rewards them for engaging in behaviors that aid in its survival/reproduction (having sex). If an organisms has no memory, pain serves no purpose and thus would not be expected to evolve. Pain also alerts an organism to the fact that it has been injured, but this is really only relevant if the organism is capable of consciously doing something about that, which plants are not (I hope you realize). There are people who cannot feel pain, I believe. They usually do not live very long because they damage themselves and do not know it. Plants and mircoorganisms have completely different mechanisms for responding to stimuli and dealing with damage. I could go into great detail about exactly what these differences are, but you could look that up on wikipedia and I have a paper I should be writing.

Sooner or later, we will reach the point where we will say the machine feels pain, when it becomes sufficiently advanced. That we don't say it doesn't feel pain now reflects more on us than it does on it. It might be a very basic form of pain, but it is pain.

Yes, "when it becomes sifficiently advanced" but not the kind of robot I am talking about. You could make a very simple robot that walks away from a heat source. This does not mean that the robot feels unhappy when it is hot, or even feel heat at all. I don't understand how you can not see this.

being in pain = unhappy

What about masochists?

[Johan]

Pain is the sensation of damage, and as such, plants responding to damage are experiencing pain.


This is, I have to say, pretty laughable.

My cup of tea "responded" to the microwave by becoming hot. But no one who understands the meaning of the words involved would say that my cup of tea "had the sensation of heat".

[FatherMithras]

Who cares if an animal feels pain? If I were to follow this logic, I wouldn't be injecting mice with methylphenidate and ehtylhenidate to determine the effects so they could in further research be used to advance human knowledge. I agree we shouldn't be overly brutal to animals, simply because it's generally less efficient, but they are animals. Morals are made up, subjective, and completely fake. They function to allow humans to live together without too many problems. My eating meat has never given me trouble, and helps maintain my hella triceps (lightens mood). So I don't see a problem.

[Godsquisher]

Who cares if an animal feels pain?

I do.

I agree we shouldn't be overly brutal to animals, simply because it's generally less efficient, but they are animals.

So are we. So where's your moral justification for causing pain in animals being okay and causing pain in humans not being okay?

[Zephyrus]

Who cares if an animal feels pain? If I were to follow this logic, I wouldn't be injecting mice with methylphenidate and ehtylhenidate to determine the effects so they could in further research be used to advance human knowledge. I agree we shouldn't be overly brutal to animals, simply because it's generally less efficient, but they are animals. Morals are made up, subjective, and completely fake. They function to allow humans to live together without too many problems. My eating meat has never given me trouble, and helps maintain my hella triceps (lightens mood). So I don't see a problem.

Who cares if a human feels pain?

A very relevant question to me is what criterion you use to differentiate between moral and non-moral beings. The first problem with the idea of "human" is that human isn't a clear term. At some point, you're going to be forced to arbitrarily cut off groups of people that are just minutely different.

What do I mean? Suppose you got a representative "human" from every century from now until two million years ago. It is quite possible to do this; you can trace your lineage to some ape in the dark forests of Africa. At which point does it become ok to kill a person? Once you've decided on that point, get the generations between the person you can kill and the person a century following. It's very close to a continuum, and there's really no justification for any split off.

This isn't to say that we can't kill anything that we're distantly related to (by that logic, couldn't kill plants or bacteria). The point is that you're using a pretty arbitrary designation to decide that what you consider "humans" are worthy of moral consideration (which pretty much comes down to picking and choosing whom you consider instead of having a guiding principle).

Let's look at it from another point of view. Suppose we came across space-faring aliens. They're not human, and yet I think it's prima facie obvious that they would be worthy of moral consideration. So non-"human" isn't a good criterion.

Once you come up with an underlying principle besides the vague and arbitrary "humans are bad to kill, everything else ok," we can talk.

(For me, it's anything that has a central nervous system, which is a reasonable guess for the seat of feeling and emotion. Just a starter :))

[Yggdrasill]

This is, I have to say, pretty laughable.

My cup of tea "responded" to the microwave by becoming hot. But no one who understands the meaning of the words involved would say that my cup of tea "had the sensation of heat".I'm not saying that plants respond to damage by becoming damaged, so please keep your false analogies to yourself. When the tea tries to escape from the microwave, get back to me.

[Yggdrasill]

Your definition of pain is, to be honest, rather ridiculous. you cannot just assume that because two organisms exhibit a similar behavior, there is a similar underlying mechanism behind that behavior. In this case, studies of the organisms in question have revealed that they use very different mechanisms. The point about memory was an evolutionary argument. The adaptive values of pain and pleasure are thought by many to be something like a built in punishment reward system that punishes organisms for engaging in behaviors that damage it (running through fire) and rewards them for engaging in behaviors that aid in its survival/reproduction (having sex). If an organisms has no memory, pain serves no purpose and thus would not be expected to evolve. Pain also alerts an organism to the fact that it has been injured, but this is really only relevant if the organism is capable of consciously doing something about that, which plants are not (I hope you realize).And my point was that most responses to pain aren't conscious, there's no memory required. If you happen to touch something hot, you will pull your hand back before you consciously realize that it was hot. Now, you can consciously suppress the automated response, but the automated response is the fundamental importance of pain.There are people who cannot feel pain, I believe. They usually do not live very long because they damage themselves and do not know it.Yes, they don't have an automatic response to damage, so even being conscious and having memory, they die. This shows that memory and consciousness has little to do with pain.
Plants and mircoorganisms have completely different mechanisms for responding to stimuli and dealing with damage. I could go into great detail about exactly what these differences are, but you could look that up on wikipedia and I have a paper I should be writing.Have you ever been a plant? Do you know how they perceive their damage limitation impulses, aka pain?

If aliens came to earth with a completely different system for responding to stimuli, and they had a system for sensing and avoiding damage, would this not be "true" pain? Would it be okay to hurt them?
Yes, "when it becomes sifficiently advanced" but not the kind of robot I am talking about. You could make a very simple robot that walks away from a heat source. This does not mean that the robot feels unhappy when it is hot, or even feel heat at all. I don't understand how you can not see this.You are trying to bring this down to such a small level that it seems absurd, but life in nature doesn't exist at such a simple level, plants are a lot more advanced than the robot.

The least wrong answer is probably to say the robot feels pain, but it is like saying that a person has an IQ of 3000, the person is so far off the scale that IQ becomes almost meaningless.
What about masochists?True, there are those who find pleasure in some kinds of pain, but in general, organisms don't. If plants were to seek out damage/danger of damage, I might be inclined to see your argument more favourably.

[FatherMithras]

So are we. So where's your moral justification for causing pain in animals being okay and causing pain in humans not being okay?
Read my post, I said it here

If I were to follow this logic, I wouldn't be injecting mice with methylphenidate and ehtylhenidate to determine the effects so they could in further research be used to advance human knowledge. I agree we shouldn't be overly brutal to animals, simply because it's generally less efficient, but they are animals. Morals are made up, subjective, and completely fake. They function to allow humans to live together without too many problems

A very relevant question to me is what criterion you use to differentiate between moral and non-moral beings. The first problem with the idea of "human" is that human isn't a clear term. At some point, you're going to be forced to arbitrarily cut off groups of people that are just minutely different.
If you want tp play slppery slope, play it yourself. What is human is defined very easily and is inclusive to all races due to our genetic similarity.

What do I mean? Suppose you got a representative "human" from every century from now until two million years ago. It is quite possible to do this; you can trace your lineage to some ape in the dark forests of Africa. At which point does it become ok to kill a person? Once you've decided on that point, get the generations between the person you can kill and the person a century following. It's very close to a continuum, and there's really no justification for any split off.

Incorrect on many many levels. The most glaring is you completely ignoring my reasoning. Morality is based entirely on my relationship with those around me, and I cannot by the laws of nature interact with those millions of years removed. Not hurting people is a SOCIALLY constructed piece of morality that allows us to function together and that is why I have no problems with it.

This isn't to say that we can't kill anything that we're distantly related to (by that logic, couldn't kill plants or bacteria). The point is that you're using a pretty arbitrary designation to decide that what you consider "humans" are worthy of moral consideration (which pretty much comes down to picking and choosing whom you consider instead of having a guiding principle).
No. Because you cutting off plants is equally arbitrary from me cutting off cows, lamb, pigs, etc. While there are no "completely" clear cut species, there is definately not a "huge" or even comparatively large question as to what a human is.

Once you come up with an underlying principle besides the vague and arbitrary "humans are bad to kill, everything else ok," we can talk.
When you learn to read what I post, maybe then we can talk AND have a meaningful discussion. So far, I've had two people ignore my justification that morality, being made up so people can interact together well, is a human invention and applies to humans for the aforementioned reason. What a human is is in no way vague, and claiming it is is simply indugling in meaningless semantic games. A cow is not a human, and there's no discussion. Whether a chimp is or not MAY be. I encourage discourse on this last bit, but doubt humans and chimps can have a meaningful comingled society and thus don't think it should apply to them.

(For me, it's anything that has a central nervous system, which is a reasonable guess for the seat of feeling and emotion. Just a starter )
What about emotions or pain makes an animal "less important" than plants? If a cow can't feel emotions, but a dog can, is is okay to kill the cow? How do you determine value, and why assign it to random biological processes?


A final time, my justification for the morality of meat eating is that morality is a human focused creation and thus aplies only to humans. Please don't completely ignore me when you reply to me. It wastes all our time.

[Cobalt Blue]

Yggdrasill,

We appear to be at an impass. The question of what it feels like to be another organism may be im-possible to answer definitvely. The best we can do is try to find out how are bodies produce our perceptions and then look to see if other organisms have similar structures. There are many ways in which the same problems can be solved by different organisms. Insect eyes and vertebrate eye are very different (probably independently evovled) and because of this we would expect insects to see the world in a very different way than how we see it (we now that they can see UV lihgt, for example, which w cannot). The same should be expected when it comes to different systems for responding to damage.

I will repeat my argument once more, and try to be more clear: